tmwiese55

Not sure if it was mentioned here or not but I saw a joke that GB has more playoff wins at At&T/Cowboys Stadium than Dallas does. I assume that is true and find it hilarious. Stadium opened in 2009

Minor note on the topic as I've seen it mentioned so many times. But the Yankees dynasty late 90s wasn't purely on the back of FAs. It was primarily done with their own guys and them actually finally having the smarts to hold them instead of trade as prospects. Did a quick looks up: 1998 payrolls they were #2 at 63 mil. The top 10 teams only ranted from 70-50 mil. 1997: #1 at 59 mil. 2 was 55. Top 10 only ranted from 59-45 mil. 99 and 00 is when they and those around them starts to tick up and then it explodes after that and then they and Bos start going bananas. But since then NY only has 1 WS, all the ridiculous FA money and spending since then has only gotten 1 title. I guess I'm just saying its often overlooked the core of that Yanks team was homegrown or brought up with them when young. And without doing a bunch of digging I would guess there was a structural change regarding finances that let them and the other big markets explode, top of my head it would be their local TV contract as cable TV exploded into every house in the late 90s/early 00s rather than being a luxury beforehand.

In such a scenario if Hoskins has played well and we're not really contenders in '25 you can also trade him at that deadline. You save some millions and get at least a couple prospects back

Good joke. Don't need to sidetrack this thread with how heated Hiura discussions get here. But really I don't see why a crap team like KC, Oak, etc doesn't give him league min. Try to coach him up, let him play the first 2 months and hope for the best, what do you have to lose.

Also did not realize he had that good of a year. Also didn't realize his contract was that short. Of course who knows if he had any interest in MKE but in hindsight this would be one to chalk up in the missed opportunity category. He essentially cost about what Winker did last year and you would've had for two years. Most of the pipe dream signings are unrealistic, this is one they could've done last year even if they needed to tack on a bit more to come to MKE, and theoretically it would've worked out so far. Now though, you're having to give stuff up for only 1 year and then you're looking at what do with a 32 year old FA who likely wants a 2-3 year deal (assuming he plays fine next year).

Kind of a surprising deal for Hernandez to take. Could be relevant to us in the discussion on other bats like Hoskins, Soler, Martinez etc. I've said in Hoskins talks that I guessed his deal to be more than the 2/36 ballpark thrown out. Seeing someone take this 1 year deal hold out some hope that I'm wrong and at least one of these guys could be had on a year if they keep Burnes and go for it.

Right. He and Haase provide the depth needed so if an injury happens the prospect doesn't need to be called up. First, because if he's backup he wont' be playing much. And second, to not start his clock. It wouldn't surprise with 4 years left of Contreras that they'd want to push the prospect all the way to next year for one less year of overlap on their control. Sucks for him but that's the business.

Wait, all prospects don't work out? My mind's been blown

Essentially this terrible argument comes to that, every large long term deal we've given out to players in their 30s has turned out badly. The vast majority of them throughout all of baseball turn out badly, and many of them horribly. And someone is advocating that we need to MORE of those and they're cheap and stupid if they don't. Its just a flat out terrible argument and nothing one can do about. For example on better routes in the names thrown out, rather than give out what's likely a terrible contract to Chapman. The smart move is to find the next Chapman and acquire him like Tor did when they got Chapman (I didn't look at the prospects value, I mean on the proven player/controlled for fair money aspect). This is what MKE should be targeting at 3B, a Chapman of 3 years ago or essentially the 1B/3B version of Contreras. They tried similar with Tellez and it kinda worked but didn't end up being sustainable, hopefully the next one is better and a bit more proven if they can find one. Personally, I hope the Cubs give Chapman a 6/150 type deal.

Assume Burnes/Williams are here this year so 'going for it', and you don't have negative vibes on Burnes attitude. A 31 year old coming off a torn ACL and missed a full year. Sure it is what is making him possible for MKE but it is still not ideal. Personally I probably wanna quit at the 2/36-40 area. But I agree with you that won't get it done. So considering the 'go for it a bit mentality, the money freed up with no Wood and the 8 mil they've been spending on vet DH types, along with what others pointed out that after Burnes is gone there is no big commitments. So I could probably grit my teeth and add the 3rd year in comparable years amounts. I would be very skeptical on that deal and do think it ends up bad, but I get the idea of trying to do something in this last year of going for it. Heck, if it helped get the deal done I'd probably figure out some kind of opt out stuff, could be a win if we get a good year or two from him for fair value. He wins by getting out and locking in a longer term deal elsewhere and we avoid having to pay out crap years as he ages. Maybe that could keep us from having to give the 3rd or 4th year if we give opt out after 1 year.

They also did free up a comparable salary slot with having lost Woodruff. So that's gone, the 8 mil slot of the last few years for the vet DH type is free as of now, the 8ish mil dump with Hauser/Taylor. A 1-2 year deal of that kind seems in the budget if they do keep Burnes and 'go for it'. The question is if there is a player of that caliber willing to take it like Moose/Grandall did. My guess is Hoskins does better than that and they end up with another 8ish mil type guy in the Santana vein.

Feel like offseasons have been slower and later for a while now so this isn't so rare. OTOH, maybe its possible teams realized what many of us here did several weeks ago, that this years FA class is quite bad after Ohtani and the new Japanese P (since he's only 25). I think I said something in the Counsell/Cubs discussions that I hope the Cubs do blow their FA wad this year on this crop. The mediocre players are expecting their lottery payouts and the teams are balking at it since they're not that good, plus many big spenders gave out ridiculous contracts the last couple offseasons they're regretting. Oh wait, it must be collusion and if we don't see it we're crazy (for those that remember that fun time)

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%