True Blue Brew Crew

Not only am I in front of a computer all day, most of my time is spent posting and viewing on Twitter/X via a monetized account. PM sent

Updated the thread title from the one put forth by whomever merged the two threads.. They're having Frelick learn 3rd every bit as much as 2nd. It's 2B/3B as my original topic title indicated. One could even argue that 3rd is the more open position presently. Frelick IS working on both 2nd and 3rd. He's been working on it with Dustin Pedroia at the Brewers prompting and direction. The Brewers came to Frelick with this, not the other way around.

The article goes into how this is more than simple "emergency" prep which the Brewers routinely do with multiple players. What the article doesn't go into is what would trigger the move to the IF. A trade opening up an IF need? A trade opening up an IF need and the logical 1st option falters? Or a dream scenario where all of Yelich, Chourio, Mitchell, Frelick, and Wiemer all not only produce and stay healthy, but all perform so well that they need a solution as to how to get all 5 in the everyday lineup. Could be as simple as that somewhat hopeful and slim scenario. That's a lot of lucky health and achieved potential though. Finally it could all be about building trade leverage by demonstrating they have places to put this glut of OFs and thus don't need to sell any of them at a discount due to a perceived logjam. Honestly, this would be my guess.

Anticipating somewhat of a logjam in the OF Frelick has been working with former Red Sox second baseman Dustin Pedroia... https://theathletic.com/5281943/2024/02/17/milwaukee-brewers-sal-frelick-infield/

Sure. Are you suggesting however that because something happens once, we should expect it will work out the same way again? There's no denying that this current rotation is paper thin and full of question marks.

Definitely paints an exciting potential picture for Hall. But it's based on Hall refining a weakness on every pitch (elevating the FB vs RHB, command of the slider, sheer results with the changeup, and trust in the curveball). All that on top of needing to refine command. If Hall was at the point where confidence was very high that he had made the leap on all of these offerings, the Orioles wouldn't have had the need nor desire to trade him for Burnes. It's fun to dream of what this guy could become, and the Brewers pitching lab is a great place to make it happen, but it's still a long road to travel to get anywhere near that point. Seems like a safe bet to be a useful reliever at the very least. And fans have to be comfortable that the odds rest with that being the most likely outcome.

This isn't really true at all. If I had a dollar for every fan of neither team who crapped on the Brewers for this trade, I'd be a very rich man. Not saying I agree with them, just pointing out that fans and baseball writers around the game have been very critical of what Milwaukee did. And many have rightfully questioned the Hoskins signing if this is what they were going to do so soon after. To me, it only makes sense if they've got something in the works to address the now frighteningly weak rotation. I saw a post early in this thread that the 12 years of team control with Hall/Ortiz plus the draft pick make this a great deal for the Brewers given Burnes 1 year of control. Ummm, that's not at all how this works. If every prospect automatically gave you 6 solid years of MLB production, you'd never see a prospect dealt for a player this close to free agency. There is a much better chance that Hall and Ortiz provide negligible production than there is of them both providing 6 years of significant major league production. Especially given their age. Becoming full time major leaguers at 25 makes them exponentially more likely to be middling performers than becoming everyday, permanent major leaguers at 23. I get that we all want to see things the Brewers do in the best possible light. To me, in this case, that means hoping the Brewers see something they can unlock in both players. Because the data points don't look good to the neutral observer. From an outside perspective, it looks like the Brewers closed their window a year early on the hopes of 3 pieces of which individually the most likely outcome is middling performer at best. The Brewers obviously expect more than that and hopefully what they've spotted in at least one of them (or the pick outcome) is right.

Signing a starter with the money saved on Burnes is the only way the Hoskins signing makes sense. Otherwise that was flushing money right down the toilet with this rotation.

Maybe they'll use the $7.3M saved to introduce and market a new racing sausage

Worried about an amount Yelich makes now, but 9-10 years from now? If Chourio is what the Brewers think he is, they'll giggle while writing those checks in the years 2033 and 2034

Thanks @brewerfan82 and @sveumrules Looks like Jackson will only be around the 9th-11th highest paid player on the team in 2024

Do we have a breakdown of the contract? I was only factoring the guaranteed portion which is 8/80. If it's paid out annually at $10 million per year, he would indeed be the Brewers current 2nd highest paid player pending arbitration for players like Burnes and Adames who may or may not be traded. The only player on the books for the Brewers above $10 million annually is Yelich at $22M. So yeah, aside from some really backloaded structure, which would be odd for Chourio to accept, he's set to be the 2nd highest player on the team right now. Burnes and Adames are projected to surpass 10M if they're retained. But even then Chourio would be 4th.

It makes him exponentially more likely to be on the OD roster. Who are we kidding here? He's currently their 2nd highest paid player and there's also the potential draft pick compensation for the ROTY award he'll be one of the top NL favorites for. Without the deal he'd be a top 5 bat in MLB camp, and that's being conservative. But the team of course would have manipulated service time and kept him down. But with this deal signed and guaranteed there's no reason not to bring him to Milwaukee as one of the team's best hitters.

For those who are (strangely) against this, if not now, and for this player, then when?

I'll guess 9 years, $125 million

Curious, is it just me or does it seem as though there really wasn't much of an exhaustive search or interview process to this? Heard some rumored names, but didn't hear much about formal interviews. Filling the spot just seemed somewhat unimportant and an afterthought.

Cheap stopgap hire ☑️

Here it is... https://www.jsonline.com/story/sports/mlb/brewers/2023/11/07/mark-attanasio-says-brewers-coaching-staff-will-all-be-back-in-2024/71487631007/

I thought I read that Murphy was the only one who wasn't re-upped? Still a candidate for the top job but not under contract, thus affording him the opportunity to tag along with Counsell or go wherever he pleases. Before everyone goes assuming it's Murphy's job, maybe some additional digging is warranted. I get the sense he's leaving for Chicago if he doesn't get the top job in Milwaukee. Don't think he's going to be some new hire's bench coach, even if it's internal.

This team's emphasis on the glove has served them well and has presented itself over and over in tight games. Removing Turang's defense from a close game only half played, as well as him being better at making contact than BOTH Perkins and Caratini is more than enough logic to understand why CC made that choice. Overall, the general idea of pining for Caratini or Perkins is just a little too comical for me to go any further than that.

This screams temporary patch. Why wouldn't they be on the hunt for the best long term candidate they can find? And that would mean giving the right person the ability to bring in people they know and trust. That's off the table now which means they're thinking short term. Short term could be let's see how one of our in-house candidates fares at the helm, maybe we have our long term answer right here -OR- it could mean let's bandaid this thing while I get that other thing done. But it's undeniable that saddling any potential candidate with a staff chosen for them means not opening the process up far and wide. It's definitely limiting and not what you'd expect from someone thinking long term.

Hiring someone under the pretense that you have most if not all of your support staff already picked out for you is completely unserious and just more smoke that something else is going on.

Yeah not only that but there's an argument to be made for why Counsell went with Turang there. Down by one, no outs and the bases loaded. You want a contact hitter there with some speed to avoid the 2 worst outcomes, a strikeout or a double play. Mainly you're just looking for the ball to be put in play. Something Turang profiles well at. You also want to keep his glove in the game since it's close and there are still 4 innings in the field left. It didn't work out but you can't nitpick the logic. Perkins just as easily could have struck out. Perkins struck out at a much higher rate than Turang on the season anyway, lol. Besides, we're really gonna act like not getting Blake Perkins or Victor Caratini an AB in a pivotal moment is some big strike against Counsell? Really?

Thank you for pointing this out. Counsell should definitely be asked about this. He's so principled when it comes to raising the bar for all manager salaries yet he signed on for a job that wasn't even open. Do we know if Ross was gonna be out either way or if he's only out because CC agreed to replace him? That's awfully hypocritical of Counsell to take someone else's job in the name of raising industry salaries