Jump to content
Brewer Fanatic

tmwiese55

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    7,313

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 Content Type 

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Milwaukee Brewers News, Rumors & Analysis

2026 Milwaukee Brewers Top Prospect Rankings

Milwaukee Brewers Videos

2022 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Milwaukee Brewers Trade & Free Agent Rumors

Milwaukee Brewers Fan Guides & Resources

2023 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

2024 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

The Milwaukee Brewers Players Project

2025 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

2026 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by tmwiese55

  1. tmwiese55
    Well that's contrary to the assessments by most. Parker has always been considered a poor defender. Monroe considered average at best. While Zaza and Dudley lack the physical tools they were very smart team defenders and keys to why the D was so good last year. That being said, there are many more problems right now. Can't wait until May, Jabari, and Henson are back to get a good feel for the team. Right now there is way too many minutes for the likes of JOB and Bayless. And too much on offense is being left to MCW who can't handle it all.
  2. tmwiese55
    Can't believe they gave up a 1st rounder for one year of Vasquez. He's a proven player (hasn't shown it here yet though) and kind of insurance for MCW but we're not focused on this season, it's about #ownthefuture so would have preferred to keep that asset. Can use Mayo/Giannis as backup PGs in a pinch and sign guys like Nate Wolters for depth if injuries happen. From what I understand the moving of Milk Dud and Zaza for nothing was kind of done as favors to them. MKE wanted to play young guys in their place (henson/Jabari) regardless this year, so their minutes were going to be limited. With them being in contract years they did them favors by putting them in better situations to earn a new contract, which is even more important with the cap spike. It's a classy thing for the organization to do and does get good vibes out there with the players by doing things like that. Also, it saved MKE a lot of money.
  3. tmwiese55
    Vasquez was sleeping on Wednesday. I agree though, big step back on D with Monroe replacing Zaza and Parker replacing Dudley. The D was the only reason the were good last year so they need to minimize that fall off and make up for by better offense. Which should happen with Parker, Monroe, and improvement from Giannis. Theoretically it should balance but I really haven't seen anything to think MCW and Giannis will be reliable shooters so the lack of spacing will still greatly hinder the O. Monroe will be there to clean up though which should help.
  4. tmwiese55
    Rough first game but there's no reason to overreact since they were missing 3 of their top 6 players. Give some time to learn how to play together. I agree on MCW needs to be more of a facilitator on O while maintaining his high level of D. Hopefully you'll see more of that going forward once Giannis, Jabari, and Mayo are back. Game 1 he was kind of forced to try and score. I think a lot of the turnover issues start from him not being able to shoot or is hesitant to, so he forces drives into traffic which inevitably lead to turnovers. If he gained confidence in his shot just to knock down the wide open 3 or midrange in the flow without hesitating it could really help. First thing, he just has to take the shots or no one will respect it. Same really goes for Giannis, if he's wide open because they sag off him by 10 ft he just has to catch and shoot in rhythm.
  5. tmwiese55
    good post Clancy. That's always been my stance on this as everyone blames those trades as to why our system has been weak, the draft/development is by far the biggest reason. Also I think they got a little unlucky with players they could have potentially traded. They made the signings of buying out a couple years of FA moves that everyone likes with several players. But come the last year or two they got hurt or weren't good (Hart, Weeks, Hall, got lucky with Hardy that in spite of selling low they hit a HR with Gomez, got low back on Gallardo too). However, if those guys weren't hurt or underperforming who knows if they would have actually traded them rather than trying to keep the competitive window going.
  6. tmwiese55
    Call it what you will. I don't think he should be mad at the Brewers or anything, he agreed to it and at the time it seemed fair. Just that in hindsight he has greatly outplayed the deal and now he's looking at being low 30s with only having made 10mil-ish in his career before taxes/agent. So he's not set for life and playing catcher I wouldn't want to roll the dice on two more healthy seasons. I'd want to put that 30-50 mil in the bank and never have to think about it again. For all the people on here that complain about how bad our management is and how the right way is to sign these player early to buy out some FA and get them to the early 30s and that our management didn't do it, another example of it right here along with guys like Gallardo, Weeks, Hart, even Gomez.
  7. tmwiese55
    Lucroy is our best trade chip left if he comes back hitting next year, should get a lot back for him in that case. Unless he takes a team friendly deal, which he might just to put money in the bank, I think you have to trade him. If he insists on a Molina type 15/yr like ya'll have been discussing here then you just trade him. But if he'll take that extension to age 35 at 8-10/mil per year then I'd be fine with it. He got so ripped off in the last deal and still has two years left before he gets truly paid that he might say yes, give me my 40 mil now so I never have to worry about money again.
  8. tmwiese55
    Gotcha, maybe the few times I've been around it they just don't have the right equipment. Thanks
  9. tmwiese55
    Though not on 'free' tv other than Saturday afternoons. Baseball is on nationally Sunday afternoon, Sunday night, Monday night, and Wednesday night on basic cable which up until recently was close to 90% of TVs. Which was more than adequate. It's all changing now and they'll have to adjust. Also, I don't use it much but from what I can tell the "free tv" over the antenna boxes is garbage for quality. Where I'm originally from in rural WI near the Fox Valley it doesn't even work because it's too far from Milwaukee and too far from Green Bay. And the few times I've seen it with people who live in Madison it cuts out and is glitchy. So even putting things on 'free' wouldn't even matter since you need a real provider to give a signal on it. For those that use it regularly, how is the quality?
  10. tmwiese55
    True very tough to predict. My guess though would be that it won't be streaming services bidding on it, but rather the Leagues themselves providing the streaming with their own subscriptions. As much as people pick on WWE, I think their WWE Network model is the way this will go. We'll see though, who knows what other things will be invented a few years down the line.
  11. tmwiese55
    I think they've done Green Bay several times. One game in GB, Madison, and western WI each preseason is a good idea. Jabari is going to be very limited to start the year. MCW and Giannis still don't seem like they can shoot so the offense will struggle like it did last year. I'm taking the under based on the turnover in players, Jabari's injury, but probably biggest reason being general improvement in the Eastern conference top to bottom. Remember after the trade last year their record wasn't good.
  12. tmwiese55
    Like those numbers show. It's gone down 4% in the last 5 years and I bet it drops even more drastically in the next 5. The whole model will have to change. Eventually it will likely go to each league having their own subscriptions and streaming it out.
  13. tmwiese55
    My Nephew just got his first apartment and he didn't even consider cable. He has the money for it but just doesn't want to spend it on cable. I think that is more of the norm than just old or poor people. Exactly, it's changing now with all the streaming options. My guess is in the past that was their logic on it, now it's way different as so many are cutting the cord and young people are tech savvy enough that they don't even consider it.
  14. tmwiese55
    It makes a difference if you don't have cable. I don't, so Im not able to watch games at home, though I would. I also don't wanna have to go to a bar, or find a friends house till 1030-11 pm on a weeknight. Of course, but they're betting on this being such a small fraction of people that it doesn't matter in their game of large numbers. This way they don't have to disrupt their normal TV shows on big networks while simultaneously inflating the rating on the secondary channels so they can charge more for them.
  15. tmwiese55
    IDK, a Yankees/Sox Game 7 off with a 3-0 comeback in works would still crazy good ratings even if on ESPN/basic cable. Very tough to say what it would be. Quick search on the Cubs play in game said they drew 9.7 million and averaged 8.3 according to CBS. That game was on TBS. And that's with a small city like Pittsburgh involved.
  16. tmwiese55
    Also, if you're not using MLB Network a lot they basically do that, flipping from game to game when something is happening. Problem is in between things you have to listen Harold Reynolds babble, it's really well done otherwise imo. I just looked up the numbers and according to the internet, 83% still pay for cable. Down from 87% 5 years ago. IMO, they haven't really been missing out on all that much doing it this way (same reason MNF is on ESPN) as I would assume almost all of that 13% was old folks and very poor people (not exactly key demographics) , but that is going to change as more and more drop cable.
  17. tmwiese55
    I did the under. Figure some growing pains with the turnover in players. Atmosphere in the Kohl Center last night was amazing. No reason they don't do that every preseason. And really, why not play one or two regular season games there each year until the new arena is done.
  18. tmwiese55
    Agree that's a good guy to target from Colorado. Peralta being a sinker baller could be a good thing for Colorado want but after his bad season they'd probably want more with him.
  19. tmwiese55
    When most of these deals were made they were probably looking at the old statistics where something like 92% of Americans had cable TV. So as long as all the games are major networks like ESPN and TBS, and now FS1 (which is on all packages I think) then everyone will be able to have them still. Now, that cable % number has to be dropping big time so they might have to re-think it a little bit.
  20. tmwiese55
    I was speaking for the Murphy idea. Sounds good on Asche, roll the dice if you want but don't give anything up for him
  21. tmwiese55
    This idea would be fine if it was 2012. I don't see the point right now and I don't see why he would sign here unless we paid him much more than anyone (which would mean we are overpaying). Plug in any of the number of mediocre infielders we have at 3B next year and see what happens, it doesn't matter. If there is some Casey McGehee (I mean when we first got him) type out there sure grab him and hope you get lucky, but no need to spend any money on this now. Need to get a 3B prospect back from possible Lind, Lucroy, Krod, Davis trades.
  22. tmwiese55
    Didn't realize Grandal was that old, still the contract situation would make sense to keep him over Lucroy. Puig was injured and/or bad this season at age 24, factor in the attitude issues and who knows what comes of him. If you're just playing next season you take Braun. Of course youth/contract wise he has higher value than Braun though. This is a very tough trade to pull with LAD. Especially with Ethier having had a good season last year, so the only garbage contract they have left is Crawford's to take back. And you still have Puig/Ethier/Peterson in the OF.
  23. tmwiese55
    Though I wouldn't completely rule it out as I'm sure it can be worked around, I don't see the need to deal with the potential issues when you have other good viable options. Extremely close to Mexico you have the rapidly expanding Austin/San Antonio market with only one other pro franchise. Throw in Montreal, Charlotte, Portland and you have plenty of options. There's also no teams between Atlanta and Dallas further south than what St Louis/Cinncy. Something there could work, like Little Rock, Memphis, Nashville, New Orleans. Though I think Charlotte would still be better in the general southeast region.
  24. tmwiese55
    The NBA, NFL, MLB regular season is commonly on the big networks all season. Not sure what you mean. Nobody even knows where Rivals or CBS sports is on their network because they probably air hunting and racing shows all day. You even just said their Finals game was on that weird channel, they only put it on big networks if it's on the weekend probably. You're kind of making my point. Edit: college football and basketball are on all regular season on the big networks too. Making the NHL what 6th on the list?
  25. tmwiese55
    That's what I mean, you have to find NBC Sports or Versus or whatever they're on. After the last strike the big networks didn't even bother. But yea locally they're just like FSN for Bucks or Brewers games.
×
×
  • Create New...