tmwiese55

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

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.