tmwiese55

Think Sveum's post nailed it well. The key point will be whether Burnes/Williams are traded. All these moves are independent of that as even if those two are gone the Brewers goal will still be to field a competitive team with hopes of making the playoffs due to their division being so weak. If they do keep them, well you go from competitive team with a chance to win up to the favorite expecting to win. This isn't like the NBA where if you're not 'going for it' you just punt everything and try to lose. The Brewers stated goals since Stearns has been to be steadily competitive every year, seems that's the route they're going regardless of Burnes/Williams. These fringe moves are what they would be doing in either route. They are also very reliant on gameday attendance so a blatant tear down attempt to lose is very unlikely.

Well no I didn't say they were the only team. I said they were doing it best while also having the most money to spend. Houston would be #2 and some could argue number 1 since they don't have unlimited money. I also was just coming back to point out how was LAD able to do this this offseason? They planned for it years in advance by not having bad contracts, basically by not chasing the shiny object every year approach you're advocating for here. They had targeted Ohtani 2-3 years back and planned for this the whole time. This is why they let all those guys go I listed, so they could get under the tax (I think they accomplished that for one year) and so they could afford this. So, yes if they do get 2-3 titles out of this it was their responsibility/diligence to not go "all in" every year the last 3 years that allowed it. If they had Machado contract, Seager contract, a terrible Kershaw contract, terrible Bellinger contract, etc they wouldn't have been able to do this. And Yes, it would still be a bad contract unless he was the key in getting the Japanese pitcher too and he's awesome and key to winning. If Ohtani hits well of course that's great, but they could've gotten that from someone else for cheaper which won't potentially cripple them down the line. Like if he doesn't really pitch again substantially they could've signed another top level hitter like him for half as much total money (say they would've gotten Harper instead, or Soto). But like I said, this is a great loophole they've found so its really tough to comment or give much opinion say how much that contract will hurt them so far down the line with inflation and who knows how the economics of baseball look down then. It is such an unknown.

The key to this in the future will probably be the players being open to an NFL/NBA style system. As of now it seems they're against it because it would kill the massive lottery style paydays like have been happening. Of course it would all come down to how much money is guaranteed and what split they get, but in general there should be a case to be made that wins a players vote because a system like that would shift the money from very few of them getting those megadeals to more of the second tier/middle class players being paid more. And presumably it would alter the first few years pay so they're not so drastically underpaid then, and would pay more for minor leagues too. Essentially a shift to more even distribution of wealth among players instead of the massive gaps now. In theory, majority of players should vote for that since very few get the mega deals. There's flaws in the NBA setup but that is what they've gotten right from the players perspective. Instead of LBJ making 100 mil the last 20 years (like he would've in a true open market) the other 70 mil gets spread out to 2-3 other players.

And you're missing that the shiny object you're attracted to doesn't allow you to see that its a horrible move that will hurt you down the line. This has been the result over and over and over and over in baseball. Yet you're mad that we don't want to repeat it. This is a deviation for LAD from what they've been doing. We'll see how it plays out. But like I said, they have been the ones playing it correctly the whole time so I don't know how using them as an example is some kind of 'proving it' for you. IMO, if Ohtani doesn't pitch more than 2-3 years that will be a bad contract. that said, they did find a loophole/gap in the system to try to exploit. Kudos for figuring it out, like I said the're the best run team with unlimited money at the same time. Perhaps you should be a fan of theirs.

Well, I'm very happy you're not running the team then because that is an absolutely horrible way to run a sports franchise (especially a cash strapped one like ours). If you look around sports, including baseball, the approach you're pushing is consistently the least successful way. The most basic example in baseball is look what Epstein did with Boston and Cubs that led to their titles, look at what set up Houston to be successful and how they've sustained (who have let Cole go, Greinke go, Springer go, and more). Look at how the Angels have done the last chunk of years. How that worked out for Detroit. How the Yankees have been doing. How have things turned out for Pads and Mets. The list goes on. Dodgers are the best run team in the league, they plan for the future and have unlimited money at the same time. Meanwhile, they let Scherzer go, let Turner go, have refused handing out a terrible contract to Kershaw, let Seager go, let Bellinger go instead of giving him a dumb long term contract that would've hurt them

To play this year, sure I'd take those guys. Thus why our management looks for short term deals though, because 3 years from now those guys are gonna be boat anchors to us. Maybe you should take the blinders off and look at these long term contracts and how they turn out. Also, I know if you look up FA lists Matt Chapman is ranked highly. Have you actually looked at how mediocre of a hitter he is? I've had him in fantasy, he's not great and worth a megacontract. Its basically putting someone like Adames at 3B, that's what he is if not worse. I'm pretty confident Brewers have been trying for Hoskins when he was under the radar a bit and would be ok with giving him a good 2-4 year deal, but I'm doubting the rich teams haven't figured out that now and are going to give him more, which will most likely turn out horribly. And no, when you have a limited budget adding contracts you want is not improving the team. It will end up killing them 2-3 years from now when the player is worse than a rookie you could bring up and he's eating up 30 mil per year. It seems you forget there is more to to it than the one year in front of you right now. To use the past example, if we had Moose/Grandalls contracts on our books the last 4 years we'd have had no chance, thus not improving the team

Here we go on you being proven wrong, you literally asked for an example and I gave it to you. And that example was a bad move overall. Can also go back further to the Suppan/Lohse types too but that was so long ago and they seem to have learned their lesson there. Moose/Grandall are prime ones someone like you would've been complaining about, and both times the team ended up correct that paying 30 year olds a ton of money as they age is bad business. You seem to follow baseball. Are you really not aware that the vast majority of large long term contracts turn out horribly?

Lorenzo Cain and it ended up badly. Should we have paid Grandall that 4-5 deal he got? Which end up bad. Moustakas, also ended up horrible. Stupid Mark shouldn't have been so cheap and signed them!!

As long as the cheap control for 7ish years aspect is there the non-big spenders can still be competitive like they have been. Mostly because the vast majority of these mega contract end up being bad contracts and the 'cheap' teams still control their own good players through the majority of their prime, and then the 'rich' teams overpay them as they age. That combined with the overall flukiness of baseball in playoffs combined with wider playoffs will keep giving the poor teams involved. However, we know the players hate the team control and arbitration type years and will keep hammering at that in future CBAs. Might be wrong but didn't they get that down by 1 year in the new one? Maybe it was talked about and didn't get included though. And I think even us fans of a poor team generally agree with that setup being a bit unfair to the players (especially with how little most are paid in the minors too). So, if that keeps getting reduced and/or the system forces to pay drastically more in those control years a balance has to come in return in regards to FA spending, salary cap, etc. Basically, if the advantage/quirk that keeps the poor teams competing gets reduced/taken away then something has to be done to reduce the rich teams advantage on the other end. Basically if the rich teams start being able to buy all the best players earlier/younger it could be too much to overcome for the poor teams.

Cmon, You can't point out the not cheap moves to try and disprove that he's cheap. Because it doesn't matter he's still cheap. To how does this improve the team, uhhh, we've acquired countless reliever names we've never heard of beforehand in similar moves to this that have greatly helped out our teams the last 6ish years. Having a strong deep bullpen has been one of their greatest assets in this good run. Of course not all will work out, but moves like this is exactly how its been done and with their track record of targeting BP pieces and the success they've gotten out of them it is hard to believe anyone would question it. When it comes to finding hitters, whole different discussion, but pitching you just have to give the benefit of the doubt at this point.

Right, losing LAD as prime trade partner has to be a factor. In addition, as of now Cubs have done nothing so with Burnes back MKE is still the favorite for the division.

In general, why I've for the most part become completely bored by the NFL. If a team doesn't have one of the elite QBs the product is very bad.

I went with Marc Newfield .05%, Darryl Hamilton .6%, and Jace Peterson .1%. You guys win. My rarity for the day was only 27. highest ones I had were 8%

Have to think Kershaw will be back too right? Yea he can't be counted on for 30 starts but when he pitches he's still good. Can't imagine he wants to leave right now with this juggernaut they've put together. Probably is going to take a team friendly deal of some kind, unless I've missed some kind of announcement about him.

Also if they're this high on Quero wouldn't it be beneficial to wait until next year to start his clock? Essentially getting another year later on in his prime and presumably starter level usage rather than a half season of playing once a week. I think Contreras still has 4 years left so kicking the can another year seems to make sense

All 3 guys mocked the second half of last season on here and Miller/PErkins are more the AAAA level guys. Wiemer as of now should be nowhere near an MLB plate. I do agree for depth guys they're fine or whatever, we've certainly had much worse in those spots. But Taylor is better, he was their 2nd best OFer last year. Again, no big deal as its a marginal move but just casting these guys off like they're complete bums and that it doesn't make the team this year worse, as someone else just said seems a bit disingenuous. Going full rebuild, playing the young guys, etc is all fine by me, but we don't have to act like these guys are bad to do so. And with Houser, people keep saying Gasser replaces but that misses then who replaces Gasser on the chain and so on and so on. Again, last year and he's just ok but whoever moves up from our #8 to the #7 type role is likely worse or less reliable than him. Guys like Houser are very useful in MLB as you can see by how much money they've been getting in these ridiculous contracts.

Well if all the other OFs are healthy there's no way Yeli should be playing OF while one of them is DHing. But yea more moves are to come and I had that caveat in there on someone else taking that spot. I do hope they don't have massive faith in Bauer for that spot, for sure would've rather just kept Taylor

He would have got plenty of ABs. Guys are going to get hurt and/or underperform and people just don't play every day anymore so you rotate them. Presumably Yeli is gonna play a ton of DH. Yea he's just a solid 4th OF, not a big thing to be worked up about but the perceived OF crunch isn't nearly as extreme as its been made out. With the caveat that a primary DH isn't being brought in that would push Yeli to OF most days. If a move like that is coming then yea you're probably one guy too many.

Yea they're not stupid, have to think they liked this better than whatever else they could get and that they did their due diligence. However, if its the best you got then I would've probably waited and kept your depth. This team has won on the edges the last few years by being deeper than other teams. They just gave away some of that depth. We'll see though, 3 months until the season to see what else comes in. But as of now its a pretty safe bet there is gonna be a lot of starts/innings rolled out by guys we would have rather had Houser in that we'll all roll our eyes on during BP games, well we're punting this one, etc type days. And I hope all the OFs pan out and aren't hurt, but I'm guessing a couple hundred ABs are gonna go to guys who get made fun of on here like Perkins, Tapia, Ruf etc. Hopefully there's some action soon enough though and there's more to it than just giving up depth to save 6 mil.

Didn't someone just say it says Miley is worse than all these guys too? Sure there is some value on these projections, especially on guys we've never seen. But we've seen Houser for years and we all saw Rea. I know which I'd bank on being better and Houser also seems the easier transferrable guy to the BP too. Drastically different and impossible to be the other way? no of course not. But I know which I'd bet on and my point was to have them all because 5 starters isn't enough especially when 3 are just blah innings eater types and one is 40 years old. And I'm a general a Rea supporter for what he is, low end cheap innings eater in emergency. Looks like we're paying him 4.5 mil right and are cool with it, a smidge more for Houser seems fine then too. Low chance of course but worth mentioning, a pie in the sky thing on Houser too would be if he happen to have a good start of the year, which he has had a few really good 3-4 month stretches a few times over the years and you could more back at the deadline than what you got here. ETA: I know I've said a lot of words, but I know this isn't a huge deal or anything. Not angry etc. I know these are marginal things and more moves are coming to judge it all later, we'll see. But this is one I scratch my head at and chalk up to money saving primarily.

Yea I generally give benefit of the doubt especially when it comes to their views on grabbing unknown pitchers they see something in, they have the track record on it to earn it. But in this case you're getting a guy with TJ, even assuming they like what they see he is on TJ and out all next year. TJ is not nothing. With the Brewers expert eye on pitchers like this you'd think they could find similar other guys not on TJ to add here and there. But of course, hopefully this pans out 2-3 years down the line to get something out of it. But yes the rotation here is the thing. Assume Burnes is gone you have Peralta, Miley as your only reliable (one who is old so can't really bank on 30 starts). Then you're to Gasser, Rea, Ross? That is very very weak, especially on a team with a weak O. And that's just your top 5, you need at least 7 guys due to injury. I keep seeing people say well internet says Gasser can replace him. OK, but what about Houser being better than Rea, Ross and then whoever the next two guys are they have to trot out there 10-15 times at least. As you said, hopefully something else is coming in on this front or this makes little sense given the light return, other than saving money. Sure we have to trust them on their pitcher eye a bit on the guy they acquired here, but sure seems if you weren't getting more back than this you'd have been better off keeping them. But, its early we'll see what other SPs come in and what else this money is spent on. Also for those keeping on about needing OF roster spots, Yeli lots of DH and Weimer would just go to AAA since he can't hit as of now and all guys have options to go up and down based on performance/injury. It wasn't neeeeded right now. But maybe a DH type is coming in soon

As of right now thought Taylor is second most proven outfielder. As of now, he is better and more reliable than any of the rookies. I of course agree with you to play the young guys, but having Taylor there as a kind of insurance policy with how cheap he was seemed to make sense. Weimer should be in AAA playing every day and Yelich is iffy on D (though that's where a future move could change things, like if they added a clear DH type it moves Yeli to full time OF). We have to remember injuries happen all the time. Last year they were still having to sign people like Tapia to play and that was with really lucky injury health from Yelich (have to think thats less likely this year). Id have kept the stable cheap guy who's good at D in all spots. Have the young guys playing based on who pans out and who's not hurt. And then to also give up a year of stable back end rotation guy too for essentially nothing there is no way to not think salary dump. And side note, its kind of surprising they couldn't get more for either of these guys? Have to assume they of course tried but its really shocking to me they couldn't get more back for guys like this, especially with how expensive mediocre starting pitching is

True on possible other moves, but on its surface its trading two serviceable MLB players to free up 6 million salary dump. Sure that 6 mill could be a part of something bigger but chances are you could've just kept them too, 6 mil isn't that much in MLB. As much as Houser isn't anything special with how much MLB starting pitching costs I'd have just kept him another year for depth at that price, unless you were actually getting something back. I'm not a constant whiner on here about being cheap as I know what the Brewers are, but this one sure smells that way.

Someone more tuned in could probably clarify more. But my guess would be No. Quick google seems the family is worth about 1.5b as estimated a few years ago. Of course that's rich af but compared to other owners of sports teams its not, plus its phrased as 'family' so who knows how its actually split up. Probably a fair guess its not a huge huge stake either if Mark is still the primarily owner (and isn't he only in the 40 %s?). With doing next to no research, I'd guess this doesn't' matter much to operations but the current owners got to cash out some nice profit from the equity/stakes they sold here

I mean yea I general I agree, don't break the law and do whats allowed, more power to him. But from a big pic perspective and all that, rich people should actually pay their taxes instead of finding loopholes and skirting them while us normal people can't. I think its somewhere in the 400 billion range per year is scammed out this way while we run up a massive deficit for the future to deal with. Obviously a topic for a way different board though. ETA: I think the 400 number is actually illegal stuff but that we don't have the manpower to do anything about. Number would be even higher (I think a trillion) by closing loopholes and legal things like this and what big corps do. But I may have misread