tmwiese55

Seems if both are down to having to take Hoskins/Bellinger style deals we should be in the conversation, these are the spots we should be open to spending and taking some risks (since its way less than massive 6-8 year deals) like the Moose/Grandall year. I'm not one with all this data like many here have but just off top of my head isn't Snell a bit of fly ball pitcher so our stadium isn't ideal for him (assuming he wants to have a 1 year show it season). I don't really recall Montgomery's profile and am not too confident in my Snell memory, but if anyone had that data/info I'd be interested to know. If not, no worries as both seem like long shots. IDK, if I'm Snell (or I guess both) I'd be all about San Fran. Big pitcher park, team that's been trying to spend money, has to be something that can be worked out.

I'm generally low on Chapman and didn't think he was worthy of the big deals talked about. That said, at that deal and MKEs general plight at corner IF for a while now I could've gotten behind that deal. Baseballwise, MKE would probably be a better spot for him to inflate his O stats to hope for a bigger payday next offseason but who knows where he preferred to live. Being from CA and coming up with Oak that is likely much tilted in their favor so we would have had to pay more. I'd guess MKE wasn't willing to do more than the 1+1 Hoskins type structure for him, and I'm fine with that. He's just not that good of a hitter. Fine to roll with the young guy and see what happens. With the SPs left hanging out thee if a 1+1 or 1+2 type deal shows with one of them its better than on Chapman.

Better this than having to roster a backup IF who is a complete waste of an AB when needed, like we seem to do almost every year. And of course that guy has to get 1-2 starts a week to stay fresh.

Generally good news, depending on the money of course. I'd thought a few weeks ago this seemed more and more likely as a possibility. And who knows, if the team is hanging around in the race he could be a good 'trade deadline' acquisition for the stretch. Otherwise just get ready for '25

Negro League Museum too. Tons of great BBQ. I did a random trip to KC for the first time last year, thought it was a underrated city and worth going for everyone. Was going to note Brewers do play there in early May, pretty sure its a M-W though.

Yea he seems perfectly fine depth guy, and with our pitching programs it wouldn't surprise me if he has his best year. I was also surprised he commanded 7 mil though. But hey, if you got the same guy for 3 mil you're being cheap, now you're not which is what matters to some.

Yea the conjecture would be that we're not 'going for it' since they traded Burnes so why bother. While of course that's generally true, Brewers management still plans on being competitive and trying to win the division so signing Hoskins still makes sense. And they're not wrong either with how weak the division is and the expanded WC.

Add that to the Hader trade midseason being problematic. I'd guess management knows long term it was best to trade and get more than a comp pick, even if it moves your WS chances this year from 4% down to 1% with the trade. If they went into the year with him and he does well, with the crap division and expanded playoffs there's almost no way they can trade him at the deadline while likely in 1st place or very close. Combine that with injury risk you said and Burnes' slightly combative attitude last year they thought it best to just get it done now. As fans it hurts this year as you go from clear division favorites back to the pack with the other mediocre teams in the division. Still, the division is so weak they can still be competitive and have a chance. Especially if some kind of stable starting pitching is added with this freed up money.

Kind of thought Hoskins deal meant they were more likely to play it out so this came as a surprise. I'm nowhere near the prospect expert many here so generally default to ya'll. First thought was surprised it was only two plays, then noticed they're both MLB ready and understood it. I'd guess the Brewers pitching experts think they can make a lot of the P like they did with Wood, Burnes, and so many others. Reading the SS is glove heavy and questionable hitting from ya'll does make me think I'd have liked at least one more lower level 'lottery ticket' type. But have to remember Burnes is only 1 year and Bal probably won't resign him, once the Dodgers were out of play it probably killed his trade value. Curious if one of the remaining FA SPs is open to a 1-2 year prove it Hoskins deal too since they're not seeing the money they hoped. Otherwise our starting pitching is really underwhelming. Division is so weak though they could still win with some luck, but maybe this will entice the Cubs to spend up.

Yea after seeing the kicker isn't good I went from no-brainer to I get it and don't think he was crazy wrong, but still would've taken the kick due to the value of 3 score lead with only 4ish possessions left for the other team. If you had prime Vinatieri or Crosby type guy I think it leads to clear take the points no brainer level.

Right, that's why he's available at all. Also why its only a 1 year risk so could be a spot for MKE. If they have decided to splurge a bit this year in last year of Burnes while knowing their financial commitments drop off to nothing other than Yelich next year he could be one that make sense. Hope you get over 20 starts out of him with good results could help shift 100+ innings away from unknowns or known replacement level Rhea/Ross/Teheran or whatever random they pick up midseason type starts

I think Ryu is still out there and expected to take a 1 year. Did generally fine after coming back form injury last year. I'm also a bit underwhelmed by our rotation and would prefer another proven guy of some kind.

Wouldn't surprise if the expected points goes up slightly by going for that first one. But does it properly weigh the 3 score lead with your opponent only having 4-5 possession remaining in the game? No turnovers, and essentially one more stop or one more score by you and the game is basically over. That said, I did look up later and saw they do not have the most reliable kicker situation. So could be a factor move things a bit but 45 yds in todays NFL is nothing

All big too but do they even happen if not for the missed FG? Changes whole course of game. Also not sure I'm agreeing with the narrative on the pass off facemask I've seen out there. The throw was right on target if not for the pass interference and it doesn't him in the fact if not for that. Chances are if defender didn't interfere it just ends up an incomplete as they both battle for the ball. I know they 'picked up' the flag but that's just because he caught it, it was a blatant interference no matter what and didn't change much if he caught it or not

Changes the whole game if he takes the first FG. Have no idea on the differences of play calls and ensuing stuff. It might've ended an easy Lions win for all we know. Say they make the kick and SF has to punt next possession, its basically game over as you'd be almost to the 4th with the ball. It was a horrible decision not take that FG, just opened the door for SF and they barged through it.

I'd go Det for sure. They've been so bad forever that its tough to even view them as a hated rival or anything, like it would with Det/MN. Really with all the SF butt kicking we've taken the last 10 years they feel more rival/hated than them. Det seem to fall in line with all the classic underdog/cindarella type stuff,

This could be a big "I've made a huge mistake" moment. Huge butterfly moment for the whole game. Det has shown resolve all year so think they're gonna come out hard here but the pressure is now on big time. Also, SF offense has scored 5/7 possessions this game (counting missed FG as one) so even if Det does come out hard there's good chance this is going to an interesting ending.

I'm generally a big go for it on 4th guy. But in that situation I take the points and keep the 3 score lead. Time is running out, 3 possessions is big. Also, you're still far out that there's still a lot of work left for a TD. 4th and goal at the goaline or 1-2 inside the 10 is a bit different. Probably won't matter, but a SF TD here and all of a sudden you're sweating.

He was mocked out of LA and then as Det was bad the first 1.5 years of his in Det. He was mocked and bashed over and over. It was to point out that even the best QBs can't jus score every time (and often lose playoff games as we've seen here over and over in GB) so if the mediocre one has a mediocre game at this time it doesn't prove he sucks, since even the best suck at times vs this level of competition.

Yea Det is playing well and physical so I can't act too confident like it would be a W for GB. But they beat them there already, ,Goff is just good not some elite guy, Det crowd would've been nuts though. Probably 60/40 type game in Dets favore. But so far IDK how the takeaway is to bash the QB in the "this team is so loaded any QB can do it narrative". The D has got torched all game. First O possession normal drive for a FG, kickers miss. Next drive, normal TD drive but including multiple 3rd down pickups by the QB including a scramble to create one. 3rd, O lineman fault creates INT. 4th possession, just normal out. But under pressure 3rd down, qb gets away and gives it a chance but WR can't make the catch. They have shown no wide open misses or mistakes by the QB and he has had heavy pressure the whole time. So far, the "loaded all pro team" have been the ones Fn up and yea the only good/mediocre QB isn't good enough to do it himself. Also, didn't we just see the best QB in the world just not score the entire 2H of an AFC champ game, maybe he's just riding the loaded team around him I guess. Also, Goff was another guy I've had the same discussion about over the years, including since he's been in Det. Turns out he doesn't suck either

Gotcha. I saw in 22 he still played 3B quite a bit so figured 2-3 times a week when Contreras is at DH could be do-able. But yea if he's viewed that way now then he's like the other 1B/DH types. Due to our awfulness on O though I would sacrifice some D for it though. Who knows, he might view himself as being done with 3B and it would be a negative if we pushed him to it though. So then you're essentially left with the others mentioned.

Said in the Hoskins I would guess if they do sign another somewhat name of a FA it would make more sense to be a 3B type rather than 1B. Have to think a ton of DH starts are planned for Contreras so you would want the other guy to be able to play somewhere other than 1B (overlap with Hoskins). Running through the FA list. Donaldson seems to be the cheaper route and as I think someone said he seems to still be able to play good D (not sure if advanced stats back it, but eye test did). Justin Turner would be the next level up and in theory a safer step up on O, but seems he's trailing off on D. Gio Urshela seems to be flying under the radar but you'd think he's be very cheap too. Less power but better BA type. I'd guess if they were in on him they wouldn't have signed Arroyo though. Can cover all positions as backup too, including SS. I suppose if the FA market is going badly (somewhat supported by Hoskins taking a 1 year) then maybe Chapman isn't getting what he wants either and one posters wet dream could come true (but on short term deals, which we all would like). I still doubt the market is bad enough he'd try for a 1 year prove it deal too but hey it happened with Moose/Grandal so who knows. Assume Chapman is not possible. Assume a 1 year deal, I probably go with Turner planning a mix of DH/3B. He has still hit when healthy the last few years. I'd go Donaldson 2nd assuming one year cheap and that locker room stuff was all good (never heard a negative last year). Assuming 1 year, I would've taken Urshela over Arroyo even if you had to give him an MLB contract.

Good question. Financially it does create a question for sure. My best guess is that if Woodruff was healthy it would've increased their chances of doing this and 'going for it'. I think MKE has been open to this type of short team deal every year but it only worked out with Moose/Grandall, the years since a player and his situation didn't line up. So my best guess is having Woody would've made it easier to decide on an all in type year and willingness to spend this. Whereas in the current situation there is a gray area if they should be trading away instead. But what do I know, watch Burnes get traded a week from now so nothing makes sense. Spitballing another route in that scenario. If you still had Woodruff then you could trade Burnes and still 'go for it' with this move. Free Burnes money for this, keep Woodruff to compete, spend the money on Hoskins plus have the prospects from Burnes. That might've been your best cake/eat it too route but obviously ruined with the injury.

Wouldn't surprise me if that's what MKE and several other teams preferred too. But the player wanted the 1 year so he could get to FA again as young as possible. It is possible us doing it this way is what got him to sign with us instead of other. OF course we'll never know though. And from the team's perspective (especially a team like Brewers) its better to be on short side of a contract than the long side.

Avi Garcia, another example of our idiot cheap owner not paying up. 4 year contract to a 31 year old that has gone awful. Agree with what others have said, giving that opt out and option was probably what he was looking for and you don't get him without it. Acceptable risk imo. And Brewers are in a financials spot next year to deal with it if something bad does happen (gets hurt again, doesn't return to form etc) and its only one year and then you're done with it if that is the case. Otherwise its a win win, we get him for a fair deal in our 'go for it' year with Burnes, if he does well he gets paid by someone else. And then we'll chuckle 3-4 years from now when he's hitting .220 for 25 mil per year. ETA: Well all of us but one who will be mad we're not the ones paying it