Jump to content
Brewer Fanatic

tmwiese55

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    7,017

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 Content Type 

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

News

2026 Milwaukee Brewers Top Prospects Ranking

Milwaukee Brewers Videos

2022 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks

Milwaukee Brewers Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits

Guides & Resources

2023 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks

2024 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks

The Milwaukee Brewers Players Project

2025 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Pick Tracker

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by tmwiese55

  1. tmwiese55
    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
  2. tmwiese55
    If the Astros 5-6 year deal that's been on on the table is still there, I don't get why he just wouldn't take it. But yes if he and Boras are being stubborn/greedy and want to risk it on a Chapman/Hoskins style deal then MKE should definitely be involved. It's not like I think he's awesome or the player he was, but its a clear need and a situation similar to the Moose/Grandal contracts that makes a lot of sense to take the risk and 'go for it' even if its a bit more money than you'd like to spend this year. Next year you clear Hoskins and likely Bregman while getting closer to Yelis end, so salary resets a lot next offseason. It would be a one year spike. And if things don't go well and Bregman doesn't opt out, he essentially just takes Hoskins pay. So again likely just a one year spike. For him, MKE is a hitters park, no position change stuff, winning team, not in Canada taxes. Hope for a good healthy year to get a bigger long term deal next offseason from someone else. Still, I really don't see why he wouldn't just take the 150 mil from Houston.
  3. tmwiese55
    So a number like that basically lets us keep Adames or Burnes. Does that really noticeably change our percent once they reach playoffs? You go into the playoffs with a 5-10% chance regardless. The format and nature of the game really is a big equalizer and in spite of LADs massive advantages they are not unbeatable. What the money does is give a massive massive increase in odds of making the playoffs. Once in things really get evened out quite a bit, though of course its still an advantage to be the better team. In baseball teams at that level are really never more than like 60% chance to win any individual game
  4. tmwiese55
    Big HOF talk on MLB today. They got into Pettite and how he had a big jump in percent this year, the guys on the show get into how his WAR is similar to CCs and they might have to go back and reconsider him now. Just completely ignoring his PED ties and admission. Its wild to me how it can just be ignored for certain people like him, Papi, Pudge, but an absolute killer for the elite guys like Arod/Bonds
  5. tmwiese55
    While also ignoring that he's only like 40% owner and not being megarich (relative to sports owners) so he can't just eat hundreds of millions in losses because the other owners matter and he personally can't just eat that loss like a Steve Ballmer can. Few mill, sure, but not tens or hundreds of million per year
  6. tmwiese55
    CBS headline that Alonso is looking at 3 year deal with opt outs. don't get me wrong, its not like I would 'want' him but if we didn't have Hoskins I'd rather have Alonso at 25 mil instead of him at 18. If that report is true, someone like Pit should be trying to get in on it. Again, its not like I odn't see his flaws but a team like Pitt needs to get some offense around those pitchers while they can so this would seem an area to spend a bit of money while the pitchers are cheap. Not unlike our Moose/Grandall signings. Issue could be that he's only willing to do it with the Mets due to relationship
  7. tmwiese55
    Do you know that that is? Because I'd guess it to be an overpay. Keep in mind you have him for 3 years at arby numbers with no long term risk. I'd assume we didn't go past 5 years for Adames so 3 years of that is covered by cheap arbitration, though his last year will be pricy. I'd be fine with buying out 2 years of FA but I'd think what Adames was offered would be too much, if he won't sign for less than that then walk away. Trade him after two more years. Note the caveat that I don't know what adames was offered, just a guess
  8. tmwiese55
    Biggest takeaway watching that game last night was just how much more physical and hard hitting those two teams Ds are, and that's with Det playing tons of backups due to injury. Generally can give GB credit for enough toughness and physical on O due to how well they run the ball and a good O line, but on D its just not there. That said, I know the D has taken big steps up vs the disasters of years past so all going in the right direction, to get to the next step have to find a way to add the kind of edge/aggressiveness/toughness those teams tend to play with.
  9. tmwiese55
    Right, certainly a huge advantage there. Who knows of course but MKE really needs another IF and even bumping that to 3/20 is so cheap for MLB. And sure there is the variable on how the bat plays but 3/12 I can't believe someone else wouldn't double that and take the gamble with the money being thrown around for avg players these days. Maybe they did and he still picked LAD though.
  10. tmwiese55
    Did I read its only 3 years for 12 mil total or am I missing something? Is there rules that limit what he can be paid? Apologies if this has been clarified some other time this postseason. But at that price I'd have been all for topping it, but I assume some rules apply to him so he wasn't a normal FA bid.
  11. tmwiese55
    I guess my take would be that I expected and kind of wanted a Williams trade. I never fully trusted him like I did typical elite relivers with upper 90s heat plus wipeout slider. Maybe I'm just biased against changeups though. But of course, know he's good. I'm surprised they went the route of getting a starter back in a year when we seem to have strong starter depth already (quite the opposite of last offseason). And especially surprised got someone back who is also a FA. Figured they'd have tried to save the money and targeted cheap control. But I get it, can never really have enough SP and Nester has been solid for a few years now. I also won't be surprised if they reroute him though. And I expected a AAA type IF with a chance to play right away to be brought in at some point, which they did here. But of course I'd prefer someone with more HR potential. So, I get the logic on all of it. While being a little surprised they went this route. Safe to say subsequent moves will likely make this all make more sense though. I still hope another IF is brought in to be the clear starter and this guy takes Monestarios spot or is more of a 'gravy' if he does pan out as opposed to pinning our hopes on him next season.
  12. tmwiese55
    And that there is next to no other examples at this type of size. Sure its possible and all for people that size, but Altuve is certainly the rarity or the exception. It would be like saying " you know I don't think this 5'6 college basketball player is likely to make it in the NBA" and the response is "yea but Muggsy Bogues did".
  13. tmwiese55
    Right, Giants are gonna be in a tough spot in 2-3 years paying the left of their infield like 60 mil as they turn into below avg players who hit .210. And to the above post, yes what can they really do with LA in their division. You're a big market so you have to spend but there's nothing you can really do to compete with LA in terms of buying enough players, so if you go that route you're gonna spend a ton of money just to come in 2-3rd place while probably having a large yearly financial loss on your books every year.
  14. tmwiese55
    Yea we all realize this a long shot due money, the Cardinals, and his no trade. He actually would make a lot of sense for what MKE needs and the contract isn't bonkers if I read it correctly since its only 3 years, but it is a bit complicated with the deferrals and all that so would have to work that out to make sure it isn't brutal. Elite D at the position we most need, we value that D a ton, still an average hitter last year. Was above avg the year before, and had an 890 the year before, so its not an absolute that he can't bounce back a bit this year in a better environment, and due to the contract shouldn't require tons of trade capital, It of course would come down to the contract, prospects but a lot does make sense with it. Financially, you'd have the one year overlap with Hoskins which is tough, but then he's essentially just taking Hoskins spot and that general cheap older vet contract we've been doing for years (usually in the 8 mil world than hoskins though). And who knows, Hoskins could be in the deal to balance the contracts a bit. Still, its not gonna happen and I'd assume they can find a less known person to do similar for much cheaper like they usually do
  15. tmwiese55
    Yea it would, these guys are normal humans with lives and families too. Not just robots to play baseball. Seems he's married to a local person too so both their families are probably both there and likely have kids and maybe planning on more. And LA is a great place to live/be, especially if you're rich like him.
  16. tmwiese55
    I don't know about this, seems pretty safe and solid with how well Haase did last year. Not sure I'd want the roster saddled with carrying 3 catchers for all next year, since I'm pretty sure none of these guys could get sent back and forth. I guess I can talk myself into them wanting to rest Contreras more at DH, but assuming Yelich is back and needing to be DH a ton I'm not sure I see it. Getting a 3rd catcher who has options I can totally see.
  17. tmwiese55
    He's from LA.
  18. tmwiese55
    Fair. But could probably argue now is the time to spend on someone like Burnes and/or another SP (assuming 6-7 years at most) due to all those guys still being so cheap on their rookie deals. The Catcher and SS are coming due in the next 3-4 years, but you have this window while they're all cheap. You're not wrong in that assume a 6-7 year deal for Burnes there will be a couple years of overlap with him and C/SS new contracts, but it should be minimal and perhaps you can structure Burnes as front heavy now and have it go down later. I would probably look at this as a reason to hold off on Santander though, age 30. Your offense should be plenty good with all those young guys so don't need to force having 25 mil tied up in a 35 year old guy falling apart at the time you need that money for others. So O'neil makes a lot of sense as an alternate due to only 3 years.
  19. tmwiese55
    Right, which is probably technically true as the current system allows for teams to spend so much they lose money on a yearly basis. A cap system would be like the NFL sharing the known money. However, there is probably an argument an NFL/NBA type system would be better for the overall union members as it would spread the wealth around instead of it being so top heavy for the few who get the lottery ticket like Soto while so many other toil away from ages 18-32 making minor league pay, then league min/arby until they're too old to get a big pay day. NBA is the best example of that, they've held down the elite elite guys salaries so all the 3-4th tiers and role players can still get set for life contracts. There's probably a debate among the players on this
  20. tmwiese55
    I think when I've looked into this in the past with a "why don't 3/4 of the teams vote together to change this" type perspective the reason I found isn't that the teams wouldn't do it, it is that they also need the players union to do it, and they won't. So the small market teams don't bother with it knowing the Union will block it. So avoiding the fight/strike issues of it
  21. tmwiese55
    Wouldn't say I'm one totally attached to prospects. But I'd also say I think we're not desperate enough to get pitching or that we don't continue to find it much cheaper so I don't see the need to give up possible top top guys like Pratt for 2 years of someone like Crochet. Already had TJ, so only has one year track record, have to manage workload, gone in under 2 years. Now for some past bigger proven arms like a Burnes, Snell etc when they were being shopped I get it. Its not like I'm saying he isn't good, just that I don't think we're in that dire of need of pitching to have to 'overpay' or however you want to phrase it. Someone like Bal should be all over a guy like him, tons of talent to trade and desperate for pitching.
  22. tmwiese55
    Well right, that's kind of the discussion. Will they spend to keep some of the ala Houston or act like a MKE/TB type? Along with just the general will the 6ish year window allotted by the tanking win a title or not? If it does, the tankjob was worth it, if not you probably would've preferred to just be consistently mid level the whole time. Really no matter the results it won't prove anything as much of it is just playoff rolls of the dice. Royals route worked even with only 2-3 rolls of the dice. Ours hasn't in spite of like 10 now. Tanks in the Royals route have worked, and both Cubs/Houston/Nats routes have worked. And of course, several other tanks/losing teams just continue to lose like Pitt
  23. tmwiese55
    That's the debate. Will it pay off with a World Series or not? It has worked really well for Houston, Cubs, etc. But of course other teams perpetually are bad. They are built for it if they can get a bit of pitching help to come up or buy while their stars are still cheap, like they did with Burnes. The key for them and new owners is will they actually pay up to keep their own guys or let them all walk. They have to find a way to keep some, it seems finding a middle ground like Houston did is probably the best way
  24. tmwiese55
    Yup. And yes as HC he'd be less involved but his hire would've kept the same system that started with Aranda and carried on through him with the elite LB play getting such great pass rush and has led to the NFL being covered in LBs from UW dominating. Sure he could've botched the hire but the plan/idea would've been to keep running the same system that had produced the best non-SEC defense in the country the previous 7ish years.
  25. tmwiese55
    Michigan just won the national title last year with a modern version of physical tough running focused offense. It doesn't have to only be pure spread passing, there is plenty of mixing and physical play that can even if its not run from the I formation with two TEs. In hindsight, keeping Leonhard in order to keep the elite D and getting an O coordinator in that style or mindset would've been the best move. But we are where we are, so need to get the right O coordinator this time, actually start coaching/developing football with focus on line play. And I have no idea why they didn't do all they could to keep the D system we had in place the previous 6-7 years, but tweaks have to be made to actually get some attack and pressure again. Or else they're gone in under two years and UW is going to look like the teams we've been making jokes about the last 20 years.
×
×
  • Create New...