tmwiese55

I don't know if healthy as I haven't seen anything on him, but technically speaking opening of the season is probably the best time to use up that suspension. Whole roster is fresh, with a built in off day after game 1

Someone will go on the DL within a few weeks. Which will free up a spot for him as well as let you retain the other player. In addition, someone more knowledgeable could probably break down the service time and control aspect on him. With how good he looks it is worth factoring in getting another year of control

Yea think its fine insurance on Ashby, Hall, Woodruff. Hopefully its not a sign that they're not liking the looks of Wood/Ashby behind the scenes. But I'd guess its more that Hall is already on the DL so why not get insurance at that price if you can't find a good IF to spend the money on instead

Of course you can never have enough pitching. But I'd say from purely depth perspective they are in a better spot now than they were going into last year. Remember last year you had Peralta and then all unproven type. Rhea had the good finish the year before but you still didn't know what to expect. This year Peralta, Civale, Cortes, Myers(possible fluke like Rhea last?), then Woodruff. Then your Hall, Ashby types. So 3 generally proven guys, one possible fluky type, then a former ace coming back from injury. Still, no harm in adding another due to Woodruff questions and Hall already being hurt. Of the guys listed I'd go with Turnbull.

My guess is the plan or hope is to try and pull of a Burnes/Wood route this year. Where he starts in minors (hopefully improves the control) and then when he's hitting innings issues and/or team wants another arm late in the year he can finish the year in the pen. Then can be a starter next year when they're going to need a lot of new starters. If he ultimately fails at it due to control, then switch him just like they did with Hader for the same reasons. 6 years of cheap control for what should be a great reliever. No need to rush a trade out of fear of value dropping, we'll get plenty of value out of him playing for us.

We're one of if not the best team at developing pitchers. We're probably his best chance to make it as a starter.

Not sure of their 1B/OF situation but first name that pops in my head is Black.

Definitely would've preferred some other routes. And of course shocking they'd be looking at this due to how cheap they are and have no desire to win or spend money. But if CO kicks in at least some salary I'll definitely take this to get a solid proven mid level player with some pop. Fits our emphasis of great defense. Assuming the money gets down ballpark 3/30 its really not that big of a risk.

Sorry if this is a repost somehow, think other got deleted in the merge. They did do the Hoskins contract just last year. That seems to be the route we can do to actually spend some money and really there wasn't something like that out there this year at the one position we had open. Bregman got close and hopefully they talked to him, but 40 mil per is ridiculous. Maybe Kim to TB, but can't argue with not wanting to pay high yearly short term when the guy is going to miss like 1/3-1/4th of the first season. I'm still surprised they didn't add some kind of vet to the IF though for a few million. But my guess is its not the money holding that back, its that they think their current guys are better. Though I'd still hope they find someone to add via trade. One I go back to at last deadline is Burger in MIA. In his last year before Arb so still have years of control. Issue is he's bad at 3B D and we value that a ton. But, we'd only need him there for one year then can go to 1B after Hoskins, then we'd be trading him a year or two after if he plays well. He checks a lot of the other boxes we should be looking for in a trade though, but I know D is huge for them so doesn't surprise me. I don't know how strong of a package TX gave for him this offseason and if that's something we'd be comfortable with though. Hopefully someone like that can still be found before the start of the year.

So he essentially said he chose to spend more money rather than make the shrewd business/baseball decision to trade their star player. But that he's fine with it or it is what is because he's trying to be entertaining along with winning. And that's being blown up. The Yelich contract is a perfect microcosm of the argument here actually. The "team is cheap and not trying" crowd would've been up in arms if we chose to ride it out and traded him with a year before FA rather than sign him to what was at the time a team friendly deal. When in reality, the correct baseball move to actually "Try to WIN!!!" would've been to do exactly that. And in almost all other major FA and extensions it is the right move to not pay that stupid money as they enter their 30s.

Didn't know the potential on this guy until reading this so thanks for the info. Could be a real boost if he lives up to it and at least becomes an adequate stable starting 1B we've been kind of lacking since Fielder. Not asking for all star level, just solid starter with 20-25 hr with ok avg/obp splits. And cheap controlled for 6 years if it happens. Can shift that Hoskins money elsewhere and with the end of yelich's contract getting in sight maybe it provides some financial freedom. Seems they might have to start paying a bit for starting pitching help in the next few years as the stable top three starters are soon to be all gone.

Well, I don't know for sure but for round numbers lets say 20 teams get that money due to not being taxpayers (it might actually be more). That's only 7.5 mil per team, which is a drop in the bucket. That's nothing compared to how the other leagues share the revenue by all. Add in a few mil by the other payers and its still not making a dent in the discrepancies. ETA: Quick google looks like 311 mil total split between 21 teams. So about 15 mil per team last year

I get that they might have decided already he can't do it, they see more than any of us. But that is the obviously glaring whole we have. One would think he knew that all offseason and put in work at it to try and make the roster. There's also really not much harm in having him focus on it for the next four or so weeks and see how it goes. Could be a real boost if he can be passable there and starts to live up to promising hit tool. Basically just saying all hands on deck to fill that spot. Still will be surprised with how high they value D if he can pull it off considering they had him quit it

Doubt this is on the radar right now. I'd assume they just hope to get him back to what he was before he got hurt last year as a great 1-2 inning guy they can rely on in the middle innings. And if he's doing well at that I don't see why you'd send him down to stretch out, taking him out off the MLB team where he's needed. So if this were to happen I think it would come how Bryse Wilson became a starter. injuries cause need for a fill in and then it just keeps going until you can do 5-7 innings. With the increase in starter depth this year I'd be surprised if its needed though.

Now if Sal also got Lasik surgery we might be onto something. Kidding aside, with how they haven't signed another IF one can't help but think he's going to be in the 3B/2B mix. And maybe a little more strength could be the difference on getting his hitting up a notch. If they had this much confidence in him it would at least make the lack of a vet move of some kind in the IF make sense

Generally true. But batting 8/9 in the lineup for near league min and doing that is or at least should be a lot more tolerable. Especially as he pops out an occasional 2-3 run HR to basically win a game a few times a month. I guess I'm just saying if I'm going to have a poor/weak hitter in one spot I at least hope you get occasionally lucky with the power. As opposed to the other 3 options right now who seem to be very light on power while also being a low chance they'll be all that great at BA/OBP either. I still hope they find a trade instead but if we do nothing else I take Dejong as best we can do. IMO much different than what Hoskins did for a chunk this year in the middle or a year or two back when Adames was doing it in the 4/5 hole. 8/9 in the order for almost no money, well it is what it is. In years past we had 2-3 bad hitters at the bottom of the order and still won.

I'd go with C- too. My gut was D but nudge up due to the fact that due to how generally set the team was going in the offseason that there wouldn't be too many moves to be made. The Williams trade was gonna happen, and the return was generally fine/fair, though I'd have preferred getting the new IF in return or at least someone with more control than Cortes. And really the only other move left to be made was replacing Adames. And they just haven't done it yet, so C/D borderline area. Though I still do expect a Dejong type move. I hope they can unearth Michael Busch equivalent type trade between now and OD, I just don't think it will happen or it would've already though, thus Dejong type

Its probably as simple as he's the best defensive SS on the roster and will also likely be a better defensive SS than anyone else they sign now. Add in that SS is the most important defensive position. No need to overthink it. If we didn't have Willy already he likely would've been up and playing SS the last two years and been gold glove caliber there too. I still doubt its as locked in as that post says and might depend on if/who they sign for another vet infielder. But based on that nugget it means the team likely views Turang as better at SS than Ortiz. Which I would also have said too. But I don't think you could go wrong with either one at SS, depending on who else is possibly signed.

Not sure which system is was, but on MLB network today they had one of those projections up for the AL central and it was Twins 85ish, Royals 81ish, Cleve 80. Who knows, maybe it'll end up close to correct but yea I don't know about those numbers

And the two GMs are buddies, hmm. Yea I get the concerns on if Luka has the work ethic to go to the next level and the talk on that big extension coming. But, it still makes no sense. They do realize AD is just as injuruy prone while bein 7 years older, plus he's also going to demand a max extension soon. So, max extension for an injury prone 26/27 year old or a 32/33 year old?

I'm not an expert, but if not aware the card collecting/trading etc market has had a massive rebirth in the last say 7ish years. So my guess is if someone is willing to pay say 1 mil, they are expecting it to go up. They're doing it in a gambling mindset, not 'baseball keepsake' mindset. Is the 1 mil number too high? IDK, I'm just saying how cards seemed to have disappeared as a 'thing' for like 20 years is over and its back. I suppose its not unlike the daily gambling on crypto, or go back a few years to the NFT boom. For example, I think Justin Herberts rookie 1/1 card sold for like 1.5 mil.

Summary: You: They should do X, Y, Z type of moves. They don't, so they're not trying and lying to us ME: Here are examples of the doing exactly those type of moves over the last few years You: So what, those don't count. They actually should spend more money. Me: Well that's not what you said, so you're now changing. I say nothing about 200-250 mil payroll You: I never said to spend 200 mil. But spend more. Also, not sure where the passive agressive blaming you thing came from, this was my first comment on any of this and it was purely on topic. Though now, rather than refute the actual points and having a real discussion, you're turning into playing victim

So you moved the goalpost. The exact moves you're calling for don't count unless they also do simultaneously do other moves too and the payroll has to go up. Being smart with their limited money is somehow a bad thing.

So big criticism is not trading youth for MLB ready producers who are controlled for years, like the Yelich trade. Ignoring that just two offseasons ago they literally nailed this exact move in Contreras. And a year or two before nailed it in Adames. While also ignoring the key to why they're likely to be good the next chunk of years is a young prospect who panned out, good thing he wasn't traded to 'go for it' to get an overpaid aging vet a few years back, Also ignores, the Moose/Grandal signings to go for it, which is another thing this poster is calling for. They did exactly that. They did exactly that last year in Hoskins as well. So the criticism is "do something, why aren't you trying!!": two offseasons ago nail the Contreras trade. Last year, spend on a big contract in Hoskins. So, they did exactly what is being asked. I'll be really surprised if a 3B/IF move doesn't happen in the next few weeks, its probably all held up until Bregman signs somewhere then the dominoes will fall. They have made trades every deadline to try and help. There is a balance or threading of the needle in a market like MKE and based on results along with feedback from all other MLB teams it seems they are doing very well at it. That said, I generally think a few more Moose/Grandal/Hoskins short term low risk signings is what I'd hope for and think is realistic. Issue is those situations don't always come up where the player needs to do it or is open to it. Just last year, one presented and they did it though. With Bregman still out there I hope they're asking, though I don't expect the player to do it (which you can't blame the FO for).

Sorry, to me this is just a classic thing every generation says about the ones after them. The same thing was said about you by those 20-40 years older than you. Things change. Those young people can point to a laundry list of things the older people have no idea how to do as well. And keep in mind the younger people were brought up in a world created/managed etc by the older generation, so who's really to blame