tmwiese55

Yea but will they have oodles enough to also pay Freeman/Betts level players over and over like LA? Maybe, obviously I don't know but we also haven't really seen evidence of it over the years like we have in LA. And LA has consistently churned out young prospects into the system. Top of my head I think people say Tor is a tough spot because of in general being in Canada but with it comes higher taxes. How accurate that is IDK, especially if comped vs Cali/LA taxes but I would guess its true due to the healthcare there

Which is why he should pick LAD. Its the one team that can pay him and still win. ETA: well not 'one' but the one with the best chance

Gotta think there is a vet of some kind out there who's good at D but not a complete blackhole like Maldonado. At least I hope so. IDK, Jacob Stallings really fell off last two years which made him really not much better of a hitter than Maldonado. But have to think he has a chance of bounce back to blah mediocrity and won't be expensive or take more than 1 year. Knowing the Brewers he seems like one they'd look at. Also, in a real Brewers move would be Manny Pina back after being hurt for two years.

That wasn't my argument. That is yours. There was a discussion on Contreras being a target and I had what I thought was a pretty nothing post saying one factor to remember is his bro is rich and it might be something making it harder to sign him to an early team friendly deal. Which, is the hypothetical. Has family money vs someone who does not. that was my only point. When questioned on, I said I don't think its too crazy since someone just said it matters for Holliday its logical to say it would matter for Contreras. The rest is all you.

Not using the strawman or hypothetical? It is the entire argument you entered in here. It was my whole point I said several days ago now. It was the point/argument. I don't get how you're objecting to it, it was the hypothetical the entire time. Who's making a strawman now? Where did I say William "won't sign extension". I said its a factor working against the need to lock in money early. And yes, I do think he is less likely to sign an early deal because his family is rich already. Somehow you agree for others but not him, which is fine. That doesn't mean he would not sign one. But I think it decreases chances and/or the number would have to inch higher before he says yes. Again, I think its a factor. You for some reason do not (in spite thinking it does matter if someones dad is rich). Fine by me.

Bud, you are arguing about things I've never said or made a point on. The entire comment was based on the hypothetical vs a broke person without family money, that's not me changing anything. It was the whole comment to begin the whole things. Its not changing anything. You are creating an argument over nothing. You are getting caught up on irrelevant things and degrees of it. I never compared brother's money vs dads money. I compared to a broke person. That was my only point the whole time and you're going off on these tangents that I never said and are irrelevant. I find it hard to believe if someone agrees a dad being rich would affect if their kid is less likely to take the safe route I don't understand at all how the same person would think its irrelevant if the kids brother has 100 million. But if you somehow do, so be it. I never said it would affect more, less, or the same as the dad. You are arguing with yourself on it. I said that vs a broke kid (like in the example). You are the one arguing degrees, not me. To me, it was always family money vs broke kid. Me randomly bring up the lottery? You brought up what we would expect from our siblings if they're rich, not me. But for some reason used an example using us as normal people, which makes no sense in this. The real discussion would be what would happens with our siblings if one of us were super rich and the way we become that is winning the lottery, I could've said if I was word class athlete, actor, etc. Taylor was just a way to use a rich sister since dad and bro were in the first. First name that popped in my head for rich younger lady. But, if you think if her (or any rich person's) brother was a good baseball C that he'd for some reason be more likely to play it safe than a broke person thats fine. Again, the player 1 vs player 2 thing above was literally my only point in this. And its very basic and straightforward. That is it, everything else here is you making arguments about irrelevant things to it all and wanting to win the argument. You can literally delete everything else other than the player 1 vs 2 thing. My best guess on those is clear. If somehow you would guess the broke person is more likely to risk it, so be it.

I didn't compare those two. The logic is the same though. But it is vs someone who is broke not vs each other. Lottery is the same or at least a way closer comp than you acting like normal people. His bro has over 100 mil, just like I would if I won the lottery. This is it, which player is more likely/able to gamble and risk it and which is more likely to take the safer route. Player 1: comes from impoverished country to here with nothing with no fallback option, family money, or anyone else to rely on. Likely is also the person his family back home are relying on to help them. Player 2: Brother has 100 million dollars. Or dad has 200 million dollars. Or sister is Taylor Swift. Assuming good relations with all. To me, it not even arguable that 1 would be the more likely to take the safe 'put it in the bank' route. I see no way to do so, but if you somehow disagree (especially since you already said yes to Dad 200) so be it

I think if I won the lottery of like 150 mil my siblings would not have to work and would be set for life. And the other way around as well. And the info we see of these athletes is they take care of their families like crazy with houses and crazy stuff. To the actual discussion. The logic is simply that you're set for money either way (if its your dad, signing bonus or your bro) so its easier to gamble/risk than if you're broke. I honestly don't know how the logic is debatable. I didn't say its the only thing or impossible or that there wouldn't eventually be a number that tips the scales to do an early contract, just that its a factor that works against the need to sign early. That is my only point, thats it, there's no need to continue this. Your spin to the negative on relying on point: If they're cool and legit get along and friends the older bro could very easily be going to him: "No man, don't take that cheaper contract, get to FA and go for the big payday. I got you no matter what". that could be the advise he's giving. Of course I don't know, just like you don't if its him being a drag on his bro the way you assumed. But such a discussion couldn't happen with most other plays. And yea, there's no reason for the Brewers to not try like you said. Why not try.

OK. I see no difference in the logic as we're just guys on the internet and don't know their family dynamics. He very likely has a fallback option (just like a signing bonus or rich dad). If he didn't, its logical you're more urgent to lock in what you can. Is it the number 1 thing, do we actually know if he and his bro are close, No, but if you're deciding whether to gamble year to year risking injury (like he just saw a teammate lose 100 mil due to injury) its way easier to do knowing your brother (if you're close, which stereotypical latin american families are) is rich AF. I really don't even know how the logic can be debated. Think of the bird in the hand vs two in the bush. Well, if you have 0 birds you better take the 1 have. If you already have 10 birds, F it, go for 2.

Yea it wouldn't surprise me if he struggles this year, especially right away if he's up on OD. But by struggle I still assume around .700 as opposed to a Turang/Weimer type struggle. On a team with a good offense you could easily argue to not bring him up or that type of production isn't good enough. but considering we have like two guys you have confidence in having above a low 700s OPS there's probably no reason not to give him a shot right away (assuming he doesn't really struggle in spring training).

Of course its just speculation but I don't think its crazy at all. I mean, someone else was talking about one of the Bal top guys not being likely to take a deal like this early with a factor of it being he comes from family money. Its the same thing, assuming his family is close and gets along. Its not like he's still not going to make his own money of some kind no matter what happens (barring major injury or falloff before arb) but its a lot easier to take the risk of the year to year contracts when your family already has 100+ mil than it would be if it was just you coming to the USA broke from Venezuela with nothing. In that case, if 40-50 mil gets put in front you its hard not to just put that in the bank and be set no matter what rather than getting greedy playing year to year hoping to get 125 mil instead (random numbers, not specific to Contreras). This was actually something nationally discussed when Atl got Albies and Acuna on those deals and if the team was kind of taking advantage of their situations. If you're a gambler, if already rich like he and his family is the year to year risk is like gambling with house money. If he was broke, then he's gambling with the money he needs to pay rent.

After the year Contreras just had have to think he'd be asking for a good amount now. Other factors, as of now he'll be 30 at FA so still young enough for a big FA contract, if healthy. Give up 2-3 years of FA and then he's old for a C. And his brother has banked a ton of money for the family, assuming they are in good standing with each other there isn't as much of a "lock in that life changing money" aspect when your bro has already done it so you're set anyway. Think if they'd have been able to lock him in on this type of a deal right after acquiring him and how possibly cheap that could've been. Who knows if they had that discussion.

Generally agree and everything. I'd just tweak that if he does give up pitching he'd probably want to play RF. At least if in the next few years, but yea once he gets to like 35/36 he might be too slow by then. If I recall correctly, he initially wanted to play RF on his off days for LAA but they shot it down. Ridiculous what this guy has done, too bad he had the two arm surgeries so we couldn't fully see it all.

Sure, but its not bold enough

Yea, that's why I just keep them all and see what happens. But if I'm trading one (just to clear a spot)it's gonna be the one who's over 30 and only has 3 years left and has pretty much proven he is what he is. The others have 6-7 years left and have the upside to be more than a borderline starter type. Of course, I do expect 1-2 to flop as well though to be less than what Taylor has become. Taylor is just such a steady reliable vet to have on the roster as all these young guys get their feet wet. And again, Wiemer has no business in MLB right now so I don't see the roster crunch issue people are worried about. As of now anyway, we'll see what trades happen. But like most here I'd assume one of the young OFs is who would be traded in a move for say some kind of proven corner IF type.

If they make a move for an established MLB player in a trade then sure using one of the young guys makes sense since the other team needs to be given something of value. Otherwise, I don't see the need to trade them in order to clear a jam. Literally 0 of these guys have proven anything at the MLB level. The chances of them all being good starter level guys is very low. The chances of one or more being injured at any given time is high. Yelich should be moved to DH anyway most days. Wiemer should be in AAA to start the year anyway as he was completely overwhelmed at the plate. They all have options left. No rush IMO to make a decision on these guys, see how the year plays out. If your hand does get forced Taylor is the one to go. Sure he's the only one who's proven anything but he's also more money and only has I think 3 years left. Trade him for a lottery ticket or two if needed, hold onto the young guys and see which ones pan out.

For sure. I think everyone has to go into this year with realistic expectations. Basically just be a competent starter this year at such a young age is all I'm expecting, anything more is a bonus. We should not go into it expecting he's young Trout immediately.

Yea it ended up better than I thought after reading the estimates in here in the 100-150 mil range. Add in that it can get to 10 years if he's good and its much better than I thought. Seems like a no-brainer to me. Now just have to fend off the pessimism that creeps in any brewers fans head

In regards to Huira comp or really any other prospect they've had is the age difference. A normal guy comes up in the age 22/23 area. You control them until they're 30ish. Which is right when you get into the decline issues and if you really want to be paying them big money. This guy seems like he'll be up at age 20, so he could leave at 27/28ish or you're trading him at 25/26 in what should be prime window. Normal aged guys who get traded at 29/30ish (though ideally you'd want 1-2 more years usually) you're likely selling them right before they fall off and or the cost/reward balance flips in the wrong direction. Just saying its a bit different to be trading right at heart of prime rather than at the end. In addition, from the players perspective it make sense too. If the normal guy signs something like this that gets him to age 32/33 he might be too old for a big payday. Chouria can sign this and still hit FA at 29/30 for another big payday.

Yea I don't think it means a trade needs to happen. First, none of the young guys are proven hitters at MLB yet, though a couple have shown good signs. Plus they can all be optioned. Also, as we saw last year people will get injured. Besides that, Weimer was so bad at hitting last year that he should not be penciled in at MLB. He should have to start at AAA unless he just tears the cover off the ball in spring. Remember he was really only up last year due to injury. And if really needed Taylor is the easiest one to trade as he's running out of control and is paid more. You keep all the young guys. I'd prefer just keeping them all and seeing who pans out though. And Taylor is a cheap stable average mlber right now so might as well keep around too.

Of course there's a risk in this, that's what makes it possible at all. He risks losing a bunch of money if he's a legit star. We risk paying too much if he flops. Its a risk on both sides. To me, we can't sit back and look at the Braves thinking 'man they are smart for locking in those contracts so young, geniuses, they're one of the smartest organizations' and then not try to do it ourselves when the opportunity presents itself. Based on the luck of the Brewers (and whatever our hitting coaches do to these guys), sure when we do it he'll probably flop but that's just the pessimism creeping in. Assuming this isn't some Tatis level money and is in the ballpark of the numbers folks have thrown around in here I think you have to do it.

Wouldn't say its anything drastic by any means. But, he just saw a guy 3ish years older than he'll be when he hits FA who is not as good as him still get this contract. Again, nothing drastic to change anything but just saying its probably a tick on the side against just "taking 20 mil to put in the bank no matter what happens" that would lead to him taking the team friendly things we've suggested here. Basically just another contract showing its a players market as of now.

Yea Gray is someone I've always liked and generally he's produced well when not hurt the last few years. But 25 mil per year for ages 34-37 is a risky proposition. Also, as it relates to us. Woodruff had to love seeing this deal and probably hurts our chances of a cheap 2 year deal with a team option that some have kicked around here as a hope.

I'd assume that too. I just mean if you're already going to the big paying team why not just do it now. Say he gets traded to LAD, they were the whale you wanted to pay you anyway, just work it out before the year so what happened to Woody doesn't happen to you. If he's on us or a team like say Bal who isn't know to pay then for sure he's doing that. But if you're on LAD, SF, Mets, Yanks, Bos type team then you might as well just figure it out now. Those are the type of teams you want anyway. And yea maybe 215 or whatever I said might be low, I was just throwing something out there.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't pay him this and I assume he's washed. But 2022 he did pull a sub 4 era and was sub 3 the year before and was 3rd in CY. So, he's only been trash for one year and even in that year he was ok/competent for LAD to finish the year. With how stupid money is in the MLB it doesn't surprise me he got that much hoping for a bounceback year. White Sox were a trainwreck all year The annoying part is if any team is gonna get one more good year out of him you know its the cardinals.