tmwiese55

If you didn't already have Hoskins I could see it. Or simply put, him at 3 mil or Hoskins at 17, I'd probably take him. But with current roster I don't see it, you have Black to take the Bauers role already and he's LH so it makes more sense and is cheaper. If I recall, he's below avg at D too so don't really see it as a cheap Dejong type guy to play 3B either

Yea the playoffs and ineptitude is there, but have to note they're in the same division as the Pats. So division titles are tough to come by the last 25 years. Also, as much as I like watching Rodgers struggle and be mediocre unless there is some contract/financial reason or that they think its his crap attitude that is tricking down to the team he shouldn't be benched(based on just play). He's at 17/7 so on pace to finish the year in the 25 td/10int world. I assume yards per play and that are very light though. Still, he's being the definition of mediocre, not like he's been awful. I think I saw something recently that next year he's down to 23 mil for that season. Again, based on pure gameplay alone you're probably best to keep him at that number. If the attitude stuff, further contract demands, or that you just want a full on rebuild then sure. But a mid level mediocre QB these days at 23 mil isn't bad. I could've misread that info though as the NFL cap is so messed up.

That was the dumbest thing to me the whole time from Rodgers pespective. Say, he demanded a move to a good team that just needed a QB it would've made sense. Back then SF, maybe Den, maybe TB type teams. Basically, do the same move Brady did. But after all those spots had filled and your option was one of the 2-3 worst run teams in the NFL, what were you thinking to leave GB.

I'd still be pretty discouraged for next year. If you or anyone haven't looked at the schedule yet, its brutal again and it will be a surprise to make a bowl. As much as it is impossible to not think things have been going about as bad as possible since the coaching change, you basically have to give him through '26 before making a decision. The schedules this year and next are hopeless so can't freak out and fire due to it, but if progress isn't clear in '26 that should be it. Also, it wouldn't surprise me knowing that schedule next year if Fickell pulls an Anderson and pre-emptively leaves for a lower level school if the right opportunity presents itself this offseason. I don't think he will because if he waits and gets fired he still gets the money and can take a new job then, but it wouldn't surprise me Still too early to fully judge, but the 'fire everyone and blow it up' camp of a few years ago are somewhat seeing the risk firsthand right now. IMO, the hindsight move would probably have been to keep Leonhard as HC so that you maintained that awesome D they had the PC era, but tell him he has to shake things up on O with his OC hire to modernize things a bit.

Same, I don't think I'd want to go past 4 years. The only compromise type thing I can think of would be something shorter like that but he has an opt out after like year 2 so he could try to trick someone else into giving him a 5-6 year deal at age 32. So like rather than get an extra 2 years locked in now, he'd have the chance to get 4 more down the line

Info points for any discussion. has about 6/223 left on his deal and turns 34 during next season. LAD would probably just take the contract off their hands. Or NYY too if they lose Soto.

Someone in another thread said how LAA were going to increase payroll this year and my first thought was "Why?". Well this looks like that person was correct. And the Angels will continue to be the Angels and continue to lose. Odds that Soler is traded at the deadline?

At his age I think you'd just be better off giving Adames the extra 1-2 years of extra cost over him instead. Not that I'd want to do either. Sure if they kick in money and prospects you have to listen. But if they're kicking in money it defeats the point. Plus, I really can't see TX punting on trying to win just a year after the WS while also having Seager and Degrom, etc. paid and trying to win with them

I did expect they'd sneak into the 25 this week. Though I'm still very skeptical they're actually legit and truly deserve it. NW and Rutgers don't suck though, they're just not anything special, but those are fine wins. Generally speaking I still don't think UW is actually good, but 3 good weeks in a row helps with some cautious optimism they can be competitive this weekend. Guess we'll see, either way its much better to be in the spot than if they'd lost 2 of the last 3. Solid progress from how it looked after USC collapse. Actually running the ball again helps, who would've thought. And of course, the D looking similar to pre coaching change has been huge, we'll see if it holds up the next few weeks.

If the market is way more than the compensation pick they'd be getting after next year they should do it before the year. It makes them know they have that 10 mil free to spend elsewhere and its very likely they'll get better value out of that 10 mil elsewhere, such as the IF replacement for Adames. And they have proven over and over they can replace bullpen arms. Its almost assured they'll be in contention so the mid season trade becomes really difficult again. You also take the injury risk. Your return likely goes down and becomes closer to the comp pick. So, I'd say it do it offseason because the money is better spent elsewhere (assuming you value what you get more than the comp pick by a lot). If you keep you have to plan on keeping the whole year and 'going for it' with him, take the pick like with Adames.

Yet he still cost them two WSs. that's what is nuts about his stats, they are that ridiculous yet he still lost the AZ series and blew those games to Bos with the 3-0 lead.

He turns 30 during next season. That's all I said. So the 6-7 year contract would be taking him into age 36-37

If that mid level contract is a possibility yes it makes sense. I assumed he's wanting to lock in his 5-6 year payday though. I'd personally guess Kim would be considered the better SS on D and stay there. I'd also think he'd demand that in his signing in order to keep his future value higher. But my basic understanding on him is that he's considered at the top top on D at SS so most teams would put him over Ortiz, but who knows. If its considered a wash then it doesn't really matter for the Brewers

Think I'd go with that play in style thing someone mentioned early in this thread. Or like you said here, the 10 set up before this. That way all 3 division winnerrs get the same perk rather than one being kinda boned in this one. Perhaps the compromise from the before since the beef was on the 1 game play in, have the 2 WC teams do the 3 game all at the higher records place. The 3 division winners all get the bye

Also, Willy turns 30 during next season, not 28. So you'd be signing him until he's 36-38ish. Yes he's a good player and forgeetting money I'd want him on the team, especailly for the next 2-3 years. 5-8 years, I'll pass unless I'm the Yanks/Dodgers with unlimited money where you can just cut him and eat it

we weren't talking about whether it was a playoff. We were talking about how successful it was at the actual best team ended up champion. It was likely the highest % hit rate on "did the actual best team end up champion?", though debatable with NBA. And yea due to the occasional issue you said is why I was fine with going to 4.

Yup to the bolded. Essentially what people are arguing for here is the exact opposite of what was argued for in CFB for 20 years. CFB had the best system for actual best team actually being crowned (besides possibly NBA), yet people stomped their feet demanding playoffs and for it to be decided on the field!!! (as if regular season doesn't happen on a field). Now in baseball people are arguing against it. Sorry, I know I'm a rare BCS supporter (was generally fine with it going to 4 teams, could be talked into 6 to create 'need' to be top 2 for the bye)

I really like the 2 here, it kind of steals that NBA play in game thing. Issue is people who hate 3 game series and the chaos will say it sucks its all coming down 1 game (which is what led to this 3 game thing). But, those paying closer attention will realize its more important to value the division winners in regular season. I'd just add, as the smallest market we shouldn't be too urgent to get rid of the chaos this creates. Generally its good for us as we'll never be the Dodgers/Yanks top team every year. Its just lately we've been on the crap end of it.

I know one of those ex Cardinals infielder utility types of the last 10 years has a house in central/northern WI and spends a bunch of time there. Due to family, his wife's family, or maybe just being an outdoors guy and having played up there in minors or something. They are all so similar and I do mix up which is which, but I'm fairly confident it is Dejong. If I'm correct, he probably would be one calling MKE up looking at it as a fit. Sure he's not anything special, but a cheap one year deal he's a perfectly competent MLB player

I know its seems we're cursed and can't win. But seriously, look at what Det is doing. All of our teams the last chunk of years has been better than them. It sucks for us on the other end of it, but we've just been on the bad end of the flukiness of baseball playoffs. Good for KC, AZ, and now possibly Det to be on the other end. Also, Cle fans have to be feeling pretty similar. Sure, had the WS run in '16 only to have your heart ripped out in game 7. Since then its been pretty much like us.

Sure adding the extra teams does make it harder than when it was just 4 on each side. But generally speaking, baseball playoffs are still the flukiest off all sports besides march madness. So yes, the added round did make it harder, but the nature of the playoffs themselves is a key as to why MKE actually has a chance every year they make it. We're frustrated that as a consistently good team we keep losing so kind of looking at it from the normal big market perspective in that sense. But, the overall nature of MLB playoffs is what even gives the small market team like MKE a legit chance. So in a way its a chicken/egg or catch22. We have a chance because of the fluky system, but right now we're on the bad end of the fluky so we complain about it. This system is far superior to the past which would have had NYY/LAD as 50% of the playoff teams every year. The fluky and bloated system is what's giving us a chance, so we can't really get too mad at it(other than generally pushing for salary rules similar to NFL/NBA so things are even). 3/4 teams in the AL right now are KC, Det, Cle. And sure the Yanks will probably still win but in baseball no game is more than 60/40 at this stage so its not some foregone conclusion the others have no chance. If we keep getting there every year there will be a deep run eventually. There is really nothing structurally/strategically different they should be doing for us to be angry at or 'demand more' etc. You just have to keep rolling the dice. I'd say the strategic 1-2 year 'go for it' spending moves could be increased. But IMO they have been open to it when the situation presents it like it did with Moose/Grandal/Hoskins. So generally I think they do have that as part of the strategy like they should.

I'd say only if he ends up having to take the 1-3 year (hoskins, snell, chapman) prove it type deal with the opt out options for him. Hope you get a great year out of him, let him sign elsewhere next year. If he's not available on that type of deal so be it, let someone else eat the back end of a bad contract.

Would not have guessed it off top of my head. But after a little thinking it does make sense due to playoff expansion and that for the first big chunk of years only 2-4 teams even made the postseason, so the super long standing teams % gets killed by that

I know just an easy joke and its generally true for his time here the last few years. But just last year we staked him a 3-0 lead immediately and he blew it in game 1. Yet another eyeroll frustration of this stretch of playoff shortcomings.

If Hoskins doesn't opt out I just don't see this making sense, those two just seem reduntant. If we didn't have Hoskins, sure why not as long as its 1 year. But with Hoskins here and Contreras/Yeli needing a bunch of DH ABs already it just doesn't seem to fit to me. Let Bauers/Sanchez go and give Black have that role for league min, that's like 10 mil saved to help get an IF to replace Adames, and/or maybe helps them keep Williams for his last year.