SeaBass
-
Posts
3,419 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
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 SeaBass
-
Thing is having a legit source doesn't mean the source is always correct on everything since the source is only hearing the Brewers side of things and doesn't have access to the player's views or other teams views. The source itself is working with limited info, passing on what he can, then someone like an HH passes on what he can. There's so many variables in there, that's why it's so dumb to try and discredit someone and 'prove' they're a fraud. Just take it for what it is. Have to agree. My feeling is that talks and decisions are very fluid among GM's. Things can easily change minute by minute, hour by hour. Like dropping a message in a bottle into the ocean and trying to predict exactly when and where it will make landfall. More on topic, the Brewers signing Cobb would be welcome news. I just want what's going to happen, to actually happen sooner rather than later.
-
It's not that I strictly doubt him or his source, I'm actually rooting for him to be right, but he deleted his previous account in the last week already, started this one a day later and got 1000 followers in the first 24 hrs, I don't think he's that worried about deleting his account again. He never had a Twitter account before Monday. He did, however, have Twitter troll imitators. Probably alternate Twitter handles from the Wild West Brewer Twitterverse. viewtopic.php?f=67&t=36399 I think he did, I can't prove it because it's deleted but he had the same tweet about proof on bf.net Off Topic forum. It wasn't there long. I could be wrong but it seemed more convincing than the more obvious fake accounts I saw. Either way, my point remains he knows he can delete it and pretty much regain any followers nearly immediately.
-
It's not that I strictly doubt him or his source, I'm actually rooting for him to be right, but he deleted his previous account in the last week already, started this one a day later and got 1000 followers in the first 24 hrs, I don't think he's that worried about deleting his account again.
-
The reports of the Cubs offering Arrieta the same deal Darvish took, and Arrieta turning them down, appear to be inaccurate: https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2018/02/jake-arrieta-turned-down-six-year-offer-from-cubs.html A careful reading of Heyman’s phrasing is advised, as he at no point states that the Cubs actually made a six-year offer to Arrieta. Nor could one accurately say Arrieta turned down a six-year offer from the Cubs, as we erroneously did in an earlier version of this post. His phrasing is a little more clear here and is more recent than that article.
-
If two things reported in the wake of the Darvish deal are true, first being that Cubs contacted Arrieta and offered same deal to him and he didn't say yes, implying he wanted more, and second being that the Brewers did not have a huge offer in to Darvish (perhaps topping out at $100 million), my question would be how would the Brewers be in on Arrieta if they weren't in on Darvish? Was it only because the Brewers knew Darvish didn't prefer to play in Milwaukee so they never bothered to raise their offer? Or was it that the Brewers didn't want to pay any more than what they had already offered? Based on the past I'm more inclined to think it was scenario B, they didn't want to go any higher with their offer. If that's the reason I don't think there's any chance they sign Arrieta.
-
The interesting question would be, if/when the NL adopts the DH, would baseball look to re-align leagues/divisions? In theory it would become more palatable to teams since rules changes wouldn't be a factor in the realignment. Maybe not, as I recall Texas/Houston both may not be wild about being in the West divisions but I'm not sure there are any better options. Unless MLB decided to go with two 4 team West divisions and four 6 team East and Central divisions. I don't think that would fly with the majority of teams. Edit: My math above is off, only one 6 team division would be required per league. So it would be two 4 team West divisions. Probably both East divisions stay at 5 and the Central divisions would have 6 teams each. -
I prefer and really enjoy the NL style of play but am in favor of both leagues playing by the same rules. So DH it is. The sooner the better. It's kind of dumb that it hasn't happened yet.
-
Jeez that guy's like a host from Westworld. Keeps resurrecting his career. At season's end: "Cease all motor functions." Spring training: "Bring yourself back online."
-
I don't think they're stupid at all. It's just the politics of baseball being played out in the media.
-
I don't think it's suddenly news that those big deals of the past are sometimes really bad. It hasn't stopped the big spenders from spending before. I think it's more that the players/agents didn't forsee, or didn't believe, that the luxury tax penalty increases would actually work to curb spending for the usual big spending clubs, and for so many of them to self-administer fiscal restraint in the same off-season. It's really been a perfect storm of those clubs having their "come to Jesus" moment and it coinciding with teams trying to reset their tax position heading into next off-season's projected free agent bonanza. I'm not sure it's strike worthy after just one instance, but the players are on alert and if there's another off-season similar to this in two to three years they aren't going to sit back and tolerate it. Which is why I think the talk right now from agents isn't pointing at an actual strike per se, but that the talk of boycotting spring training is their warning shot that a strike is possible down the line if they don't see signs of a more normal signing period in the near future.
