tmwiese55

But we're talking about these owners. They had literally nothing to do with getting Giannis that's why they got so lucky for him to fall in their lap. And i don't think even the biggest optimists thought that he'd be starting an ASG at age 22 or that he had "best player in the world" potential. They came in the offseason when we'd already secured the #2 pick/Jabari. Pretty much every offseason since has been, well, not good. Then they weren't lucky. They bought him. Sounds like a good business deal. I'm not trying to defend the owners (the GM search was embarrassing). I just think its silly to say they were lucky. Re: I don't recall the talk about Dallas drafting Dirk if Milwaukee didn't trade for him. But I do remember a lot of applause for the Bucks in making that trade. And both players they traded away were better than Traylor. Anyway, my point was that our talent evaluation bad in the day was terrible. Hopefully, the ownership does get back on the same page. I think they started well, but this GM search was a head-scratcher. When they bought the team they had absolutely no inclination or idea that he would be anywhere near this. No one did. That was very lucky to have that happen when they personally had nothing to do with it. And now it's covering up basically terrible basketball ops management since they took over. That's all I'm saying and I don't think it's crazy.

I know those prospects are rated highly, but they're in A ball, if I read correctly. There's a lot that can happen between now and then so I don't think this offer is all that spectacular so I think the Cubs did very well here. Clearly helps their big weakness for this year, plus gives some stability the next few years with the upcoming turnover to their rotation. One would think they'd value our near ready types like Phillips, Hader, Brinson more than guys this far away. But of course maybe Brinson/Hader/Woodruff were immediately not offered by us. Surprising Sox rushed into this and didn't try to drive the price up, but maybe they just valued the top 5 guy that much and are convinced on him. And in case people haven't noticed. Quintana has been back to his old self for the last 7 starts, something like a 2.7 era I think.

I totally forgot about Pat Neshek until seeing him in the ASG last night. Only signed until the end of the year and playing on a garbage team, can't imagine the price would be all too high for him as a rental. Could be a good guy for some bullpen depth.

But we're talking about these owners. They had literally nothing to do with getting Giannis that's why they got so lucky for him to fall in their lap. And i don't think even the biggest optimists thought that he'd be starting an ASG at age 22 or that he had "best player in the world" potential. They came in the offseason when we'd already secured the #2 pick/Jabari. Pretty much every offseason since has been, well, not good.

I'd do that Viillar/Teheran trade fairly easily. Have a stopgap fillin type in Perez/Sogard already for a year or two until another prospect is ready.

Great, you know baseball, so do all the scouts, GMs, etc. And they're wrong about players literally all the time because this is not an exact science. No one knows what will happen unless you're dealing with the absolutely elite players like Harper, etc. I'm sure all those guys are as confident as they can be that Brinson is going to be good. I'm sure they also know that he could easily struggle his first few months right well they're trying to win the division and it might not be worth the risk. I bet the GM for Cleveland in 2008 knew baseball close to as well as you do and that didn't make can't miss prospect Matt LaPorta do anything at the ML level.

Highly touted guys flop or underperform all the time. Some guys kill it immediately. Other guys need a few months or a season to get their feet wet, like an Arcia. Brinson could be any of these, we have no idea. Chances are if you're in 1st place in a playoff race you're not risking it unless something forces your hand (injury, or Broxton hits one of those cold spells that makes them give up on him).

Right, they fell *** backwards into a legit 22 yr old superstar. If it wasn't for Giannis becoming way better than anyone could have possibly imagined this team would still be one of the biggest joke franchises in the league. Edit: Please stop avoiding the swearing filter - CWH

If the team is still winning and in first i can't see the team taking the risk of sending down their starting CF (assuming roughly the same play he's been giving now) and risk starting a rookie. Broxton is streaky but his power and speed still contributes and when he's hitting 7th or 8th a 20 hr /30 SB guys with a .750ish OPS isn't too bad. Brinson's chance will come with an OF injury or if Broxton hits one of those brutal cold spells. Of course it's just as likely he hits one of those hot streaks he can go on that carries them for 6-10 games.

We have a fine backup in Perez for the spot starts as needed. I'd rather see Brinson playing everyday in AAA unless someone gets hurt to free up some PT for him.

MLB network covers baseball so well there's no reason to go to ESPN. If MLB would just get rid of Harold during the nightly stuff they'd be about perfect. I don't even turn ESPN on at this time of the year.

I see your point. Getting Tailon back improves their rotation, add in the McCutchen revival and Marte and they could be a sleeper. But as of now they're 4th place and 5 below and their rotations is not impressive. Like you said though, if they get 3/4 from us or something it's much different than us getting 3/4. But like I said in my thing, that will likely lead to the second scenario where we temper expectations back down to what they were a month or so back.

Can't really be too upset by this, just the quirks and bad luck of positions. Shaw and Thames would be the best hitters we'd have and those two positions are loaded. Nelson would be the only one arguable and since he started yesterday, he's basically ineligible. Nothing to get worked up about imo.

Yea i'm still on the don't go crazy side of things, but I certainly see the logic of it. So I'm not going to stomp my feet if they do maybe give up more than I'd prefer. My point was I bet the last 10 games have changed their views a bit. being essentially tied right now is much different than 5.5 games and the Cubs look like a shell of themselves. As this report shows, they're doing their homework and they should be. Our 10 games after the break are vs Phil, Pit, Phi. Obviously not good teams, win 7 or 8 while the Cubs and Cards win 4-5 and all of a sudden you have an 8-9 game lead on July 23. If the reverse happens, then go back to what we were all thinking a month ago Big thing for me is with Broxton/Braun pretty much entrenched at two OF spots for the next 3-4 years it's creating a clear spot to trade from. At least one of Broxton, Brinson, Phillips is tradeable and should have pretty good value. For me I'd prefer keeping Brinson over the other two. So Phillips, a lower level OF like Ray should be good starting points to conversations. Maybe Quintana's price is just too high and you end up with Brad Hand instead for obviously much less than Quintana. I think the SPs will end up too much but one or two solid bullpen additions could be critical. Or even a Hellickson type guy who will likely cost almost nothing in terms of prospects could be a depth option to add. I know he's been poor this year, but right now our 5th spot is hurt. And Davies has been blah, can we really trust Garza and Guerra? Might not hurt to grab someone as insurance for depth in the rotation. Another bullpen guy I've not seen mentioned is Robertson from White Sox. He's so financially expensive that he shouldn't cost any prospects of significance, you're doing them a favor by taking on the money. With our low payroll, moves like that might be the 'happy medium' type route we should go. Spend dollars rather than prospects. But seemingly one of Brinson/Phillips/Broxton looks like a prime trade candidate just because there's nowhere to play them

"There will be a point in this process where a deal like this makes sense, puts them over the top. All this trade would do this year is make them marginally better, but still not as good as the big dogs." While I do agree that you're correct. Baseball is the biggest sport where in the postseason anything can happen and the best team doesn't always win so i see the logic in 'going for it'. Especially for a franchise with 2 playoff appearances and one series win in 30 years to make the most of any opportunities you get. I suppose NFL could make an argument, but I'd go with MLB. Obviously NBA is the opposite where the best team almost always wins. Think of all the Wild Cards who've won recently. All the Phils years with those aces and they didn't make the WS (they won it before they got all of them if I remember correctly). Dodgers haven't made it inspite of Kershaw/Greinke for several years. Cards winning in 2011. KC winning basically all on bullpen. There's countless examples.

To me, the prospects offer two things: 1. Potential trade chips. 2. Replacements for people traded. Don't just think about dealing Garrett Cooper - maybe the Brewers can get a better bullpen arm by moving Aguilar, and them promoting Cooper. Or including Broxton in a trade and promoting Brinson type thing.

The way the last week or two has gone you have to think this has all just gotten very real all of a sudden. Others have pointed out the records the Cards/Cubs would need to have if we just play .500. And frankly the Cubs look just really bad right now, the division is theirs for the taking. Have to think they're going to be buyers in some way, my guess is they won't pony up for the top starters but one or two bullpen additions seems likely to me, probably using some of the non top OF prospects since we kind of have a logjam right now.

I'm really not all that high on Gray so would only be interested if it costs none of the top top prospects. I'd be in the discussion for Quintana and see what happens, he's been legit for years and is cost controlled longer. But again, this talk of a Hader, Brinson, Woodruff/Ortiz package just can't happen. Think about it this way, when we were trading our guys the last few years we all sat here and pointed out why the top top guys in other people's farms were off limits and generally had to settle for other deals. But now it's the other way around and we have to give up our top 3 prospects for non-ace pitcher? It shouldn't require that much, and if it does you just walk away. We do have an abundance of OF prospects to use though for something, and it will likely be relief help instead. Kick the tires and all, but like has been said, even getting Quintana doesn't make them favorites to win the NL, let alone the WS. Now, if you were getting a CC/Greinke level true ace that changes things but they're not out there this year.

Good thing the Cubs cancelled the other game to save their bullpen.

I can fairly confidently say that if they win today, they're going all the way.

Ben McLemore has the same skill set, was unrestricted and was signed for two less years and $32 million less. Of course there was some options out there. He would be one, but Mclemore has not been good in his career and is 3 inches shorter than Snell for D purposes. I liked him as a buy low guy and hope was to get him out of Sacto and see how he improves. Jodie Meeks would've been a cheap option too. But to think Snell after leading the NBA in 3 pt shooting from January on in the upper 40s wasn't going to get at least a 10ish mil offer is what I was talking about. For every McLemore you can find, I can find another guy like Roberson who just got 10mil per. I for sure can see an argument to save money and go for cheap guys and hope for the best, just like we did with Snell last year. My point was that Snell was going to get that offer or better from somewhere else so it was better to just wrap him at 11 than to risk the Nets giving him 16 and matching. I see an argument that it would've been better to let go and roll the dice cheap instead, but that's not what I was talking about here. Plumlee was laughable from the minute it was signed and no one else had cap space at the time to sign him. Henson was at least debateable at the time but I didn't see the rush to sign him before his last year even started, at least play out the year for more info. And you always have to factor in that it's much harder to get people to sign in MKE than elsewhere, so it's not easy to say "joe schmo just go this much, we could've done that" Well, would he really want to play here unless we offered at least a bit more than what he got elsewhere?

Wow, what a play from Villar there. I think that buys him one day of positive vibes from everyone here, gotta support the team.

Smart's lack of shooting makes him a tough fit here with Giannis. And with him still being a rookie contract it probably doesn't save them too much money, but I didn't look. I'd actually think Bradley makes more sense here, it saves them more money. He's a FA after this year too so they're probably ok to move him. Problem of course is we'd probably let him go too, but if somehow we could get him for nothing I'd do it, it would make this year better. Plus with teams all capped out now maybe they could resign him at a reasonable price next offseason.

I agree overall. But look at this way, Henson at roughly 3/30 or Rose at the same, or even only a two year deal instead. I for sure would go Rose, and I hate Rose. Henson can't even get on the floor. If we give some ridiculous 4 year deal though for 15+ mil it's a huge mistake.

The Snell situation is a little different than Henson/Plumlee. they basically got him at the minimum they'd be able to get him at, a healthy player with his skillset was getting signed to at least that in RFA. Letting him sign one elsewhere first could've led to a team giving him a Crabbe type contract and put trade kickers in it and other stipulations that hurt. the Nets basically effed multiple teams the last few years by signing them to huge offer sheets just to force the teams to match, Bucks avoided that here. Now the Wiz are paying Otto Porter 27 mil per year. I want nothing to do with Rose unless it's a cheap 1-2 year deal, definitely under 10 mil per year and preferably 7-8. Still don't really want him but I can accept him on something like that. If they do a sign/trade with someone like Henson and give him 4/70-80 mil I might be done. If they sign and trade and basically just give Henson's money to him instead then so be it, there's no way he's worse than Henson.