Jump to content
Brewer Fanatic

brewerfan82

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,202

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

 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 brewerfan82

  1. brewerfan82
    I think you are underestimating what Braun *could* be worth. Ryan Braun, to an extent, is similar to Cole Hamels. Each is an elite player, owed a lot of money, and on the wrong side of 30. Cole Hamels was traded for quite a haul so I don't think picking up money is even needed. If Braun is hitting like an MVP he *could* bring back a haul quite easily even while shedding the entire contract. I say *could* because like the rest of you I have zero idea what other teams think of Braun. For all I know Braun is the spawn of the devil and no team wants him even if he is hitting .500 I don't know that anyone thinks we *have* to pick up any money, just that we have the financial flexibility to create a greater return value and availability to other teams by doing so. If you refuse to pick up any money, then you're eliminating any teams that don't have the financial flexibility to pick up his contract. So why not be open to it and see what offers you can get? That doesn't mean a team doesn't exist that doesn't mind taking on his contract and will still offer a legitimate return, but if a better offer comes from a team that's willing to pay significantly more in talent if you can pick up some of what he's owed, why not be open to that? And of course, if two teams get in a bidding war and the return is comparable, you go with whichever team takes the most of his contract along with him, but with our payroll so low as it is, I think getting the most talent back is the biggest concern in any trade over the next couple years.
  2. brewerfan82
    Baseball Logic Such a ridiculous stat, lol. While wins probably shouldn't be associated with a single pitcher regardless, if you really want it as a pitcher stat, I wonder if simply changing it to the first pitcher to leave the game with the lead (in a game where their team ends up winning) as the the criteria would cancel out the majority of these silly results. It would give the starter the best chance to receive it (who almost always is the pitcher with the most innings/greatest affect on the game) and won't discount him as much for all the scenarios that are out of his hands once he leaves.
  3. brewerfan82
    And if we win today we'll be on pace for a 69-93 season. Win tomorrow as well and we're on pace for a 76-86 season. Extrapolation is pretty meaningless this early in the season.
  4. brewerfan82
    true but Lucroy is under contract long enough that if that is the case they will be well aware of any new language that they could still trade him before he becomes a free agent The CBA expires this December 1st. Lucroy's contract is up at the end of next season. If indeed there is a change in the QO system this winter that lessens the compensation for losing a free agent, the other teams will know at that point as well, which will lower his value. That combined with his new team only having him for at most 1 year at that point, only solidifies that his value won't be higher than it is now. It would be a huge missed opportunity if he's not traded by the deadline this year.
  5. brewerfan82
    I'd be OK with it normally, but doing it with your big power bat at the plate was a bit of an odd choice. There's a pretty big advantage getting to third with a big flyball hitter up and less than two out. So if you think you can get it, there is sense to it.
  6. brewerfan82
    Wow. Two games in is a little early for the "told you so's" don't you think? I'll check back in a month or two when we've actually seen this team play a bit...
  7. brewerfan82
    Not really outside of the title. Nothing Lucroy said made it sound like that was the case. Though he made it pretty clear he expects to be traded at some point. But surprised he hasn't yet? No. The fact that he doesn't have a place to live in Milwaukee yet 12 days from Opening Day pretty much removes all doubt as to whether he is shocked to still be a Brewer. Not to mention this quote from Lucroy, "I felt like I was going to get traded five times this off-season. I don’t know why it didn’t go down."
  8. brewerfan82
    While a top 5 draft pick may have a better chance of turning into a superstar, I'd argue it'd still be better (after trading half the team and improving the farm system dramatically already in the process mind you) to: - Finish closer to .500, appeasing the fans and having higher interest throughout the season resulting in increased revenue - Have a slew of players over-achieve (or reach their potential that others gave up on too soon) to get to .500, resulting in more talent on the team for the future and/or to swap for more talent in the farm system - Not have the prospects/young talent on the team already this year flop (ie. Santana, Arcia, Phillips, Davies, Nelson, should all have time on the big league roster this year and are hopefully pieces on the next contending team, so they're likely playing well if we reach .500) - And still get a 1st round pick in the 10-15 range as well If we get a top 5 pick, that's great for that one potential player, however it's bad in many other ways. And if we play close to .500 ball after trading away half the team... AND we have all the prospects start rolling in on top of that... that's very good news. So I don't think it's preferable to lose as many games as possible.
  9. brewerfan82
    This may be the crux of the argument. What is a "lousy package"? To me, if Gomez and Fiers returns the talent equivalent of four 1st round draft picks (and assuming that's 2.5-3 1st rounders for Gomez and 1-1.5 1st rounders for Fiers), then a lousy package and what I would assume is the lowest reasonable offer even suggested by other teams for Lucroy, who I think is more valuable than Gomez, is the talent equivalent of two 1st rounders. If I'm Stearns, I'm hoping after showing he's healthy and productive, that I could get a package of 3-4 1st round talent players. So while I would be disappointed with two 1st round talents coming back and hope Stearns holds off for more than that if that's all that's being offered right now, since I don't see the next two years as being competitive seasons for the Brewers, I would be hugely disappointed to keep him and end up with only 1 supplemental 1st round pick. Even a single 1st round talent is better than that, so the offers in that time period would have to be ridiculously below market value to be happy with a supplemental pick.
  10. brewerfan82
    Of course, but considering I'd argue any of the four guys we got for Gomez/Fiers alone were more valuable than a supplemental 1st round pick, I'd find it very hard to believe that Sterns won't be offered a single package worth a single supplemental pick before Lucroy's contract is up... unless of course he gets injured.
  11. brewerfan82
  12. brewerfan82
    I'd be pretty disappointed if it comes down to letting Liriano go in favor of Nieuwenhuis or Presley. I'd much rather use a bench spot this year on a 24 year old with potential than a 28/30 year old who won't play enough to gain any trade potential.
  13. brewerfan82
    A bit harsh are we? If you have no value or interest in Spring Training numbers, that's your prerogative, but it's hard not to notice what Santana's done thus far. No one expects him to have a season with a 1.767 OPS, but it's certainly nice to see him taking a good approach at the plate and not looking as lost out there as he did in his offseason showing, as I'm sure, Spring Training or not, if he had 10 strikeouts and a sub-.200 batting average right now, there'd be some reason for concern. I don't think phrases like "guy could be a borderline All-Star every year" are totally ridiculous as I think that's what his skill set, prospect status, and our hope was when we acquired him, not just a gut reaction to limited Spring Training at bats. His start to Spring Training just backs up that he is capable of playing like that. Hopefully he continues it into the season!
  14. brewerfan82
    At this point it looks like the main article written about the "conspiracy" and the press conference were both meant in jest. They're just having fun, I don't know why anyone would be legitimately upset about this still. It would have been sad and a little odd to find out he had actually died and there was some sort of weird cover up, but I think press conference settled that possibility as I don't think they would go to lengths to produce false vet records, chip, etc. Beyond that, I really don't care if they've used multiple dogs in the past, so it's a non-issue at this point for me and I would hope for most? Back to baseball!
  15. brewerfan82
    The wording in the article is a little ambiguous, but I read that as 2.3M if he makes the team with an additional 1.5M possible in incentives.
  16. brewerfan82
    Didn't see this... I'm not trying to prove any point. Braun might be better, might well be worse. I don't really even care that much about it. But I've easily disproven your proclamation that Braun "will" be worse. Worse isn't even really defined. So that's a blatantly false (you're fond of using the word controversial, apparently) and unprovable statement. No you have not, that is an absolute statement that I do not agree with. You don't agree with his statement about absolute statements being unprovable because it's an absolute statement?
  17. brewerfan82
    Last year the Pirates traded for JA Happ when he had a 4.64 ERA and was coming off 4 straight seasons of 4.22+ ERAs (5.35, 4.79, 4.56, and 4.22). They weren't taking on the additional year that a team would have to take on with Garza, but from a value standpoint, the Bluejays then went and gave Happ a 3 year, $36m contract this offseason. Teams value (over-value?) a veteran arm they can rely on and if Garza provides a half season of sub-4 ERA that makes last year look like a fluke, having him for an additional year at $12.5m is close to market value. I'm not saying we'd get a great return necessarily for him, but I wouldn't think it's too far fetched that he would draw some interest if he's pitching well.
  18. brewerfan82
    The point is that you still don't have much evidence that if Braun shows he's healthy and productive that he doesn't have any trade value. Despite your assertion that "It has been rumored by multiple people/sources that the Brewers would love to trade Braun," you've provided no rumors that he's being actively shopped at this point and with his recent back surgery there is no reason for another team to inquire about him until he proves healthy. Similar to Lucroy, why would you trade Braun at a discount now when you just need him to show he's healthy and productive for half a season. So no, I don't agree that it makes "total sense" to try to trade him right now. Just because he's not being shopped now and teams haven't offered a "sensible" trade package for him, doesn't mean he doesn't have value. I have little doubt that if he's OPS'ing .850+ with 15 homeruns and 10 stolen bases at the break that we could get something of value from a contender for him.
  19. brewerfan82
    And that article got it from the following blurb by Tom Haudricort in this article: http://www.jsonline.com/sports/brewers/what-the-brewers-starting-lineup-would-look-like-if-opening-day-were-tomorrow-b99647430z1-364593341.html So still nothing overly substantial.
  20. brewerfan82
    To be devil's advocate, with that logic, Lucroy doesn't have value either then (which obviously isn't true). Coming off surgery, I'm sure, regardless of how fair his contract is or isn't, teams are going to want to see he's healthy before there's even the possibility of someone making a move for him. Until then, it's hard to speculate interest level based solely on the fact that he hasn't been moved yet. Luc is younger, plays borderline gold glove D at a position of huge need, doesnt have a $95M anvil tied to him. He is many many many times the value of Braun right now. That was my point. It's obvious Lucroy has a ton of value and he hasn't been traded yet, so it's silly to say that Braun doesn't have value just because he hasn't been moved to another team at this point.
  21. brewerfan82
    To be fair, I think everyone here has a slightly biased point of view of just how bad Garza is. Before last year he had 8 straight sub-4 ERA seasons. So we're one bad year away from him likely being the obvious choice to be the opening day starter amongst this group. It's just hard for us to see that because we just had to endure him and Lohse being absolutely awful up close for a full season. I wouldn't be that surprised to see him bounce back and be at least a serviceable starter next season. Not saying he should be the opening day starter after last year, and it would be a little odd after that kind of season, but I also don't think it's a totally ridiculous idea either. It's not like anyone else on the staff was lights out last year and/or has an extended resume of big league success that warrants it. I also don't think whoever starts on opening day says anything one way or the other about whether or not the organization is trying to win games this year. Unless they give it to Capuano or something really strange like that
  22. brewerfan82
    And that is why he is still on this team. Not one single team wants to give up anything for him. The value does not exist. To be devil's advocate, with that logic, Lucroy doesn't have value either then (which obviously isn't true). Coming off surgery, I'm sure, regardless of how fair his contract is or isn't, teams are going to want to see he's healthy before there's even the possibility of someone making a move for him. Until then, it's hard to speculate interest level based solely on the fact that he hasn't been moved yet.
  23. brewerfan82
    If you can pull anything from this, it's probably the fact they've decided to pitch Anderson and Davies on the same day, which probably confirms the plan is to start Davies in AAA, unless Anderson is flipped by opening day.
  24. brewerfan82
    I think the combination of: (1) begins his slide (i.e., makes contact with the ground) before reaching the base; and (3) is able and attempts to remain on the base (except home plate) after completion of the slide; covers this pretty well. If the runner is sliding on the ground before reaching the base and isn't going so fast that they can't remain on the base, that should take care of most flagrant hard slides. Also, with the need to actually go for the base and not the fielder, there should be a smaller danger zone even on a hard slide, so the fielder should have a better chance to rely on that and get out of the way. Sometimes things will all come together at the same time still, but I think this is an improvement.
  25. brewerfan82
    Put me in the camp of liking the sliding rule change/clarification. For a situation where you're trying to discourage an "intention" by the runner, I think they did a pretty good job of defining what physical actions need to be controlled in the process of sliding. If you think of what runners do when they aren't actually trying to slide safely into 2nd base (ie. going in late so they hit the fielder harder or sliding way past the bag because they know they're already out and aren't concerned about getting tagged out after the fact), I think this covers it pretty well. I don't see the confusion in what "making contact with the ground" means in relation to starting a slide before reaching the base. When you start the sliding motion, the leading part of your body is bound to be off the ground for at least a small amount of time. Make sure you land and actually slide into the base before you get there. Otherwise, you probably aren't trying to stop there. Basically, just try to slide safely into the base and you're fine. They even say you can still slide hard, just make sure your first priority is to actually end up on the base. The impressive thing about that Utley "slide" is that he managed to violate every single aspect of the new rule, lol.
×
×
  • Create New...