Jump to content
Want to get your head around free agents the WORLD CHAMPION Brewers can spend on this winter? Click here and check out our top 75 free agents ranking! ×
Brewer Fanatic

anglotiger

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    261

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Milwaukee Brewers News, Rumors & Analysis

2026 Milwaukee Brewers Top Prospect Rankings

Milwaukee Brewers Videos

2022 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Milwaukee Brewers Trade & Free Agent Rumors

Milwaukee Brewers Fan Guides & Resources

2023 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

2024 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

The Milwaukee Brewers Players Project

2025 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

2026 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by anglotiger

  1. anglotiger
    I've been on the fence about Archer's true value, but even I think that would be too good to not take the chance on. I'd be shocked if TB did it though...
  2. anglotiger
    So... am I misunderstanding or are you saying this uncertainty is a justification for trading Santana for Yelich and adding a lot more...? (sincere question - I truly might be misunderstanding) I have never once said to trade Santana. Actually in other threads I have said that I could see Stearns trading Santana because of his atrocious defense but no where in this thread have I advocated for trading Santana and I have no idea how anyone came to that conclusion. I was simply using Santana as an example when someone earlier said that Yelich wouldn't improve out outfield and, in terms of MLB production, Santana is a one year wonder (so far) while Yelich has been a successful hitter (and better hitter than Santana prior to 2017) since the year he was called up. Thanks for clarifying. I read that statement as support for trading Santana plus top prospects for Yelich but wanted to check if that was your intent.
  3. anglotiger
    So... am I misunderstanding or are you saying this uncertainty is a justification for trading Santana for Yelich and adding a lot more...? (sincere question - I truly might be misunderstanding)
  4. anglotiger
    For me, it's Darvish. Darvish Anderson Davies Chacin Woodruff (Gallardo, Suter and possibly Guerra competing in Spring Training, Nelson perhaps coming back later in the season and Ortiz/Burnes on the horizon) That's pretty solid... Why Darvish over Lynn and Arrieta? I have this (perhaps ridiculous) fantasy that having a star player from Japan might help the club a little financially. Plus no draft pick loss... I hope that everyone who celebrated it had a great Christmas...!
  5. anglotiger
    If you only want to focus on this past season. I've been impressed by all of the success he had pitching half of his games in one of the most pitcher-unfriendly parks - especially given that the slider is reportedly his best pitch. Granted that wasn't his most recent years, and last year shouldn't be ignored, but I really think it unwise to look at this past year in a vacuum.
  6. anglotiger
    RoCo - even though I didn't grow up watching baseball, I remember the days of Ripken Jr, Trammel, Smith and Fernández. For me, those were the golden days of SS play. His numbers may not seem gaudy by today's standards, but he was one of the best of his time. An outstanding player.
  7. anglotiger
    I don't understand why Schwarber is worth anything more than Broxton or Villar. He can't hit and doesn't have a position. Why do Cub fans think this guy is worth a haul? He’s 24 years old and popped 30 bombs in under 500 plate appearances a year ago. That alone is more intriguing than a Broxton or Villar. Especially if you think he can play first base. That .211 average and .782 OPS doesn't look too appealing (especially if you're thinking of him as a first baseman). So far Schwarber looks like a AAAA player whose only hit tool that's translated to the majors is power, and isn't that good a defensive player. Right now, he looks like a young Chris Carter. Granted, he's probably a lot better than that, but if we're going to look at his major league production, we need to look at it all and not just one statistic - right? Sure, he's only 24 and has some power, but any team that values him that much is banking on him being young enough to figure out how to translate his hitting prowess in the minors to the majors - which hasn't happened yet.
  8. anglotiger
    What have they scored - 57 runs since the break? A little over 3.5 per game? It's even worse when you think that of those runs, 31 came in four games (3 wins and a loss). The average for the other 12 games is under 2.2... I have to say that I've been hoping for a good controllable starter, or some relief help (like most others here), but it's kind of hard to argue with this. Yes, the bullpen has often been poor and sometimes the starters haven't gone deep enough but you're not going to win too many games with that lack of run support. I'm not expecting anything exciting by the trade deadline, so hopefully Brinson lives up to expectations and Braun stays healthy - that could make quite a difference...
  9. anglotiger
    I'm paraphrasing a little here, but I heard a short interview with Stearns this morning where he said: "I try not to pay too much attention to the rumors... I think that we've been linked to everyone who is available in a trade... Some of them are true and most are completely wrong" He also said that they are still actively talking to a number of teams. Make of that what you will...
  10. anglotiger
    Dylan Bundy's next start was just pushed back by a few days... 2+2 = 5?
  11. anglotiger
    This makes sense to me. A win-now trade doesn't (or shouldn't) involve replacing a proven bat with an unproven one in the lineup - especially given the lack of runs since the break (last night notwithstanding).
  12. anglotiger
    This is probably just wishful thinking but perhaps it's Hernán Pérez who's being included in a trade? That would leave the Brewers short in the OF... Pérez alone won't bring much, but as a part of a package his versatility adds some value. Or even Villar (although his performance this year makes it seem less likely)? Pérez would need to play more IF so an OF to replace him might make sense. Yeah, I know that it's unlikely that either of these are the case but I think that every single other possibility has been covered, some even less likely...
  13. anglotiger
    I'm on board with this. I never understand the people who want to package Hader with several other prospects to get back a young pitcher who's just a middle-of-the-rotation starter (or #2 at best). Hader has a lot of potential, has been great out of the bullpen and, really, should be plugged into the rotation at this point just to see how he does when hitters get to see him more than once in a game. It's not as if Hader is a couple of years away - he's here now, so let's see what he can do rather than dump him -along with other prospects - for a mid-rotation starter who would leave in year or two. Just MHO...
  14. anglotiger
    I might be misunderstanding your point here (and I apologize if I am) but, without Marcum's performance through the first week of September, the Brewers may not have made the playoffs at all that year. Yes, I paid to see the debacle that was his start against the Cardinals in the championship series but he was a major factor in them being there in the first place. Given how Lawrie's career has progressed, I don't regret that trade at all. What do you mean by "more valuable"? Edit: I see that you mean he might have returned more after his successful (and apparently misleading) cameo in Toronto, but the Brewers got what they wanted - and if they hadn't made the trade they probably wouldn't have wanted to trade him and would have held onto him for too long and gotten even less.
  15. anglotiger
    Thinking long term, there's a big difference between getting a little cash from the Rockies to give them a potential long-term asset and doing the same for the Cubs. Unless Sterns really did think that the fact was that Smith was garbage...
  16. anglotiger
    Okay I think I figured it out. We picked up an asset for free, weighed whether we wanted to keep the asset, then decided we wanted to use the roster spot elsewhere so put feelers out to see if anyone else wanted asset. Then we got $$ for asset. I'm not sure that it was worth it. The Brewers had to pay for the right to select a player. If the player didn't stay on the active roster all season (barring injury) then they would have to offer him back to his original team for half the price they paid for selecting him. Presumably the Cubs paid enough money more than the selection fee to make it worth the Brewers' while to help them. I know that the Brewers are a small-market team, and that (in theory at least) there's no harm helping the Cubs while you're not contending, but to pass on gaining a potential asset for the future and give one to the Cubs for what was probably a relatively small amount of money seems unwise. Are the Brewers, with their reduced payroll, that hard up for a little cash? I get that they didn't see a player they felt worth taking up a spot on the active roster when they have a lot of young talent to look at already, but I don't see the point of this move at all. It just feels to me like Stearns decided to do them a favour... Perhaps others can enlighten me?
  17. anglotiger
    That's a fair point but perhaps that's exactly the reason for it. A catcher who can be a significant offensive contributor is a much bigger upgrade in your lineup than someone who hits at the same level at another position.
  18. anglotiger
    Here's a question - there's a lot of talk about not taking AAA players because of the time it will take the team (as a whole) to be competitive. Why not though? If a player is good enough then why not just take him? Do you really want all of your young core to eventually become free agents at once? Another way to look at it is that you can always flip him in a year or two for more prospects (assuming, of course, that he's good enough to warrant that).
  19. anglotiger
    I understand that Lucroy is well within his rights to enforce his no-trade restriction, and that he may have non-baseball reasons for choosing to veto the deal, but may I express my disappointment by saying that I hope that Cleveland win it all this year while Lucroy watches the playoffs from his home - wherever that might be - and wishes he was there....? Does this move the Mets back to pole position?
  20. anglotiger
    To be the PTBNL, the player has to be eligible for trade on date of original trade. MLB changed trade rules after craziness of SD/ Washington a year or so ago.. That would be why it hasn't been discussed...
  21. anglotiger
    I'm just throwing out another couple of possibilities which I haven't seen discussed here: - the fourth player mentioned is conditional upon Lucroy agreeing to an extension with the Indians prior to the trade deadline. - the fourth player mentioned will end up being a PTBNL, because he's not eligible to be traded yet.
  22. anglotiger
    As one who has used the term "arse" for most of his life - based upon where I'm from - I just want to stress that this isn't me with two accounts...
  23. anglotiger
    I know that a lot of you don't like him but Mike Wickett correctly predicted the reaction of some here on twitter earlier today: I'm not making a judgement on whose opinion is right and whose is wrong - I'm just giving a little credit where it is due...
  24. anglotiger
    That's a pretty good "lesser prospect". I hope that you're right.
  25. anglotiger
    Hopefully the "lesser prospect" is Yu-Cheng Chang and not the one we're waiting to hear about.
×
×
  • Create New...