JefferyLeonard

You're right, it makes ZERO sense to give a player who fits perfectly at perhaps your biggest position of need a multi year contract so you know, you don't have to worry about that position for awhile? You're right, that makes no sense.

It's not trolling, it's truth, and the fact of the matter is, this board can't handle and doesn't want to hear the truth because they drink the kool aid this organization has fed them about not being able to spend more yadda yadda yadda. Guillable, guillable fans, every single one of you.

So just because it didn't work for San Diego(or insert whatever team here that people want to use to make themselves feel better), means it automatically won't/wouldn't work for the Brewers? Okay cool. That's like using the transitory property in sports...Team A, beat Team C, and lost to team B, but team C beat team B etc etc

Only if you're not willing to spend it. That is the ONLY thing that prevents such a scenario. Nothing else. So apparently it IS in fact a hard concept to understand. One does not prevent the other.

Is it your $$?? Yeah, I didn't think so. This is the biggest thing I cannot stand about most sports fans...commenting on how this would be a bad contract or "I don't want him for what it would cost". Who cares?? IT'S NOT YOUR MONEY!

And who since then? I will hang up and listen for your answer.

So I see people want me to stop by here because they THINK this is somehow a slap at me that the Brewers signed Hoskins. Except...it's not. Was I NOT saying all off season here that he was the player I most wanted? Indeed I was, so kudos to the Crew for finally signing him. That being said, I am NOT the least bit surprised it's essentially a 1 year deal. Typical Brewers. So deathly afraid of signing a FA(this means someone not already on their team) to anything other than a 1 year deal or maybe one year with an option or in this case an opt out. I cannot help but laugh at everyone here implying that because Mark "splurged" 17 million for ONE year(OMG wow, $17 million for ONE year), that this makes him "not cheap". Newsflash....it still does. Especially when your payroll next year will have no one(outside of Yelich) making any kind of money. This isn't something he hasn't done before. He's the king of one year deals, and brewer fans suck it up and go "OMG look at Mark spending all this money". It's pathetic really how you all get suckered into that way of thinking. Wake me up when he finally(it won't happen) decides to sign a FA to a standard 3-4 year deal for 80-100 mill total. Then we'll talk about him NOT being cheap. I mean Hoskins is such a perfect fit, and yet, still would only do one year and gave HIM an opt out. LOL Now all you kool aid drinkers will come along and defend him by saying "uhhh derp uhhh how do we know Hoskins would have signed for any more then 1 year". Ummm it's called $$. I'd bet anyone if Mark offered him 3 yrs $60 million or 4 years $80 million he at MINIMUM would have thought long and hard about it, and most likely taken it, that's how I know. OMG OMG OMG this pushes the Brewers payroll to what?? 120 Million?? *faints* I'm just so shocked! What do you think a guy like Jimmy Haslam would have the payroll at? I bet it would be $150 million or more. You know why? All that dude cares about is winning titles and will do anything to put himself in a position to win one. Look what he's done with the bucks already, and how he spends with the Browns. He doesn't care if he loses a few million along the way, or market size or anything like that if it gives him the best chance to win a title. Exactly the way an owner should operate. Are you listening Mark??

As you can see, nothing will change if you are a cable/Dtv subscriber. You will watch the games as you normally would(if you're in the market of course).

https://x.com/JeffPassan/status/1745650235001462874?s=20

That's fine too. Right in the Brewers wheel house then. They love their one year deals.

Okay and this is no offense to anyone here, but so many people here get so excited over prospects. I get it to some extent. But, I'm not sure if many people want to admit to themselves that there is a better then average chance they fail or are no better then mediocre at the big league level. Now, I'm speaking just from an offensive perspective here, but Turang is never going to hit much, we all say what happened with Weimer, Frelick fell off a cliff towards the end of the season, Mitchell is an unknown, Chourio SHOULD be okay. What if Black never reaches the monumental levels here people seem to think he will? Then what happens? That's hurting the organization, because none or only 1 or 2 of them work out. So you're taking steps backwards. And it's going to be really glaring with the rest of the lineup the way it is. You can't live on great pitching/bullpen forever. At some point, you have to be able to hit to win games. The Brewers just don't seem to be all that interested in even TRYING to improve it(even if it fails), and would rather use the "hope" strategy, that several guys figure it out all at the same time. The likelihood of that is very small. You'd think they would know that, but apparently not.

Maybe, but what if...what if he hits .260-.270 with 30-35 bombs? Let's say Tyler Black hits .290 with 15 bombs. What's more valuable?

This lineup needs power hitters, BADLY. I'll take Hoskins's bombs any day in this lineup. I'd be totally fine with JD too

Well, there's a simple solution then, up the damn payroll. Smallest market or not, $120 million is plain laughable. I'd also bet that whatever you want to say Hoskins numbers are(unless they are plain brutally bad), would still likely be better(and maybe substantially so) then anyone else they put over there, at least for the 1st couple years. The numbers may not meet what he's getting paid(hint: most players #'s don't), but if they are still better than anyone else they put over there, isn't that money well spent, since it's still making the team better? Two things can be true at once, that he doesn't live up to whatever contract they give him, but the #'s are still good enough to improve the team.

So let's say they gave Hoskins 4/55 million. Just under $14 mill a year, you mean to tell me that would cripple the franchise if it didn't work? If that's enough to cripple the franchise then Mark has no business owning the team and should sell. Period.

That's not what I'm saying. It's okay to use younger players, all teams do it, but if they go with Black, the whole roster would have young players all over the field. One or two spots okay, but guess what happens in MLB when essentially have your LU is guys that are either rookies or in their 2nd year? You lose... a lot. Unless you get really really really lucky. For some reason the Brewers like to utilize "hope" as their #1 strategy. Hope this guy rebounds, hope this guy Pitches to form etc etc. Since when has hope ever been a strategy? It is with the Brewers for some reason.

I would say it's far more likely they haven't even contacted(let alone offered) Hoskins and/or Chapman then it is they have the high offer. They seem perfectly content in trying to resign Santana to play 1B and roll with Tyler Black and Monasterio at 3rd. If guys want more years then for gods sakes give them more years. Instead of always doing 1 year deals(with an option) give Hoskins 4-5 years. Besides, most of the guys that want more years(if that's what Hoskins is looking for) will take less money per year for the long term security. Have no idea why the Brewers seem so opposed to longer deals with FA's. Especially when it means you almost always get them cheaper than you would on a 1 or 2 year deal.

Cumulatively, sure they MAY make a smidge of a difference. But why sign these guys first? Aren't they also going to be there closer to spring training? You have GAPING crater like holes at first and 3rd, and they are out signing guys to minor league deals BEFORE addressing those gaping holes. If they think Tyler Black and Carlos Santana are the answers...the ONLY reason they would think they are the answers is because they are cheap, and fill those holes. Hardly adequately(maybe more middling), but hey, they won't cost much so..you do you Brewers.

It's not that they are signing these guys, it's that they are signing them BEFORE they sign anyone impactful(they probably won't sign these guys anyway). It's not like you have to get these guys signed now because there is huge competition for them, and if you don't jump now they will be gone. To me, it's a backwards way of doing things. You fill your needs, and get your impact guys FIRST, then after evaluating your team a bit more after those signings, then circle back to guys like this to fill in any holes/depth you think you might have. Plus, there is zero doubt in my mind that this organization views guys like Nola and Ross etc as being "hugely impactful". Their definition of hugely impactful is much different then mine, or I would say most people's.

So what exactly is your point? Who cares who the Rangers sign, and/or when they sign them? I'm a Brewers fan, NOT a rangers fan. People seem to use the excuse that just because other teams aren't signing any impact guys yet, that it's okay the Brewers haven't either. That's nonsense. How about being aggressive, and beating other teams to the punch? Just because other teams haven't signed impact guys, is there a rule saying the Brewers couldn't have thus far? Weird rule if so. Besides, the Rangers already have championship pieces in place, the Brewers are far from that. When you already have the pieces, you can get away with signings like they have made thus far. Apples to oranges comparison.

My god this team is just killing the offseason thus far! Holy crap these signings/trades they have made are what championship level teams do! Love the aggressiveness they have shown thus far this offseason. Just when you think the acquisitions can't get any better, they go and do something like this move. Matt Arnold...if he won't doesn't win GM of the year during the season, he certainly deserves it for the offseason! These moves have been so impactful it's hard to wrap one's head around them!

I have already said a few times what I would do this off season. I said i would go "all in" for Hoskins and Chapman. There isn't an honest person anywhere that could say those moves wouldn't make them better immediately. I also don't think those deals would/should be outrageous. I remember reading the thread when they traded Taylor and Houser and people insisted that by saving the $7.5 million(or whatever it was) automatically meant another deal HAD to be coming. I guess that was their way of coping with the fact that it was likely a move to shed payroll more than anything else. Even if they do end up signing someone with that $7.5 million saved, it won't be used on a Hoskins or Chapman, it will be a fringe bat for 1 year and an option. A guy so cheap that they shouldn't of had to shed the payroll to afford them, especially since said player won't make them significantly better. Here's the problem, I hate to say it but it's true...the fans are the problem. As long as all of you that go to several games per year, keep going, keep buying merchandise etc, Mark A has no incentive to spend more because no matter what, the fans are going to show up regardless it seems. The only way he might be inclined to start spending more is if attendance dips, people stop buying merchandise etc. That's just reality.

All I'm going to say is this. This is an organization that doesn't seem to care about how poor their hitters are. You never see them do much of anything to try to improve it. Maybe marginally at best. Making moves like this is okay, but have you noticed it's always for Pitchers? If they are going to take chances like this and trade for these fringe guys, I'd like to see it be for hitters for once. How you can ignore one side of the ball so blatantly the way they have is mind boggling. It seems like their strategy is to keep trotting the same guys(or sign some fringe guys) and HOPE they turn it around. How has that worked out for them? What are they going to do when Burnes is finally gone and they don't have the pitching to fall back on like they used to?

So your contention is that the Dodgers have been the one team that has been "doing it right" the whole time. That's interesting, because If that's the "right" way to do it, then they certainly should have multiple World series titles in that time span right? Well, they have won 1 WS title the whole time they have been the only team supposedly "doing it the right way the whole time". And it should be noted they won it in a covid shorted season. If that's "the right way to do it", then truly the "right way" is broken and I want no part of it. So, your claiming if Ohtani only pitches 2-3 years it's a bad contract. What if...the Dodgers win the world series in 2 of those 3 years, or even all 3 years? Then is the contract still bad, or was it well worth it? Even if the later years make it a bad contract. Do you think they will really care? And in fact, they are another example of "going for it now" given that Ohtani's contract is severely back loaded. They understand and realize they have an opportunity and the "right way" wasn't necessarily working for them, so they are changing their strategy/philosophy. Is it guaranteed to work? Of course not, but at least after doing things "the right way" all those years and it not working, they changed their strategy and aren't being complacent and keep doing the same thing that wasn't working. I am by no means a Dodger fan, not by any stretch, but I absolutely applaud their aggressiveness and being willing to be more focused on the here and now and worrying about the future when it comes. More of that in sports, please.

And just this offseason have signed Yamamoto and Ohtani. Are they really planning for the future or are they trying to win it all now? Whatever will be will be in the future, but constantly looking ahead to the future blinds you to the here and now and you could be missing a fantastic opportunity that's staring you in the face, but your constant focus on the future doesn't allow you to see it.