Jump to content
Brewer Fanatic

Turning2

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    564

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

News

2026 Milwaukee Brewers Top Prospects Ranking

Milwaukee Brewers Videos

2022 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks

Milwaukee Brewers Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits

Guides & Resources

2023 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks

2024 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks

The Milwaukee Brewers Players Project

2025 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Pick Tracker

2026 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Tracker: Picks & Bonuses

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by Turning2

  1. Turning2
    It's a slavish submission to speculative measurements versus playing the best ball players based on actual statistics and production. Thank you moneyball for turning managerial expertise into little more than paint by numbers.... duh.... this is what the numbers tell me to do, so that's what I do..... Might as well have AI managers, save on payroll.
  2. Turning2
    Right, both guys will want a long-term extension, rightfully so. If the economic playing field was level, MIL would probably offer those type of deals to them. Generally speaking, they don't extend guys now, not because they don't want to, but because they can't. They want to hold on to guys for the long run. That's why we're seeing the extensions of their best prospects becoming the new normal way to do things. It's a gamble though, as you pointed out with Yeli. Hope they can get Made locked up for ten years. Then maybe Burke and Fischer eventually too. That would give them a good core continuity for most of a decade (assuming they can all blossom into above average MLB talent)
  3. Turning2
    Sure, not always. But sometimes we should if it was possible. Currently, that is often not even feasible. They should be extending Turang and Contreras into their early 30's but they can't.
  4. Turning2
    There are a lot of speculative measurements called metrics these days. But the younger generation thinks they're all that. The game has changed from a managerial perspective pressured by the economics of today's MLB. Yes, W's aren't as meaningful as they once were for a starting pitcher.
  5. Turning2
    Honestly, I'm not that intrigued by it. Like others, it was more ingrained when I was younger, when guys, especially the stars, were on the roster longer. Used to know the 82 guys by memory. Now not so much, that was a long time ago. I'd even be hard pressed to name every Brewers' number currently. But I like 14. I was a #14 at mostly SS, but some 3B/2B too. Pete Rose was my guy, the model of hustle - every play, every day. Seems odd that 14 is a little uncommon. Would just like to see a star player wearing it for MIL. Last I recall, Mona was issued it. Like I said, maybe it will land with Made, that would be great too.
  6. Turning2
    I don't have to like it, but I understand it's a "keeping up with the Jones' " move. Regarding that on the field product though, I agree with Locked On Brewers Chuck Freimund when he said (paraphrase) "yes, it will generate more revenue, but don't expect this to result in signing more of their own stars to extensions or pursuing pricier free agents, it's not going to generate that much extra money while it kicks fans out of the best seats, some who have been there through the lean years." I expect the extra revenue will be spent on more fluff attractions to draw more of the milquetoast, casual fans.
  7. Turning2
    Winning an ugly one, We’ll take it!
  8. Turning2
    common core baseball
  9. Turning2
    I’d have taken my chances with Vaughn
  10. Turning2
    Need Bau Bau to go boom boom
  11. Turning2
    I had forgotten about him until Just A Bit Outside came out..
  12. Turning2
    Attaway big boy!
  13. Turning2
    Kuhnel reminds me of actor Richard Kind
  14. Turning2
    Can’t stand these non baseball related interviews during the game. Don’t like interviews regardless, but at least it’s tolerable if it’s Brewers talk.
  15. Turning2
    In the offseason, he was listed in a couple articles as a possible target for the Brewers. And I recall someone around here saying he could be a "sneaky good" addition. They tried, it didn't work, and it didn't cost them much. He was a rental placeholder which is exactly what most of us figured he was intended to be. I thought/hoped that he'd at least muster .240 avg and held down 3B for the year while they waited for the prospects to develop for next year / post lock out. Bring on the Coooooooop!
  16. Turning2
    12 it is. Maybe Made ends up with 14 eventually.
  17. Turning2
    A festivus for the rest of us!
  18. Turning2
    If they were determined to rush him to the bigs, now is a good time. As you pointed out, it gives them a window to see what he can do before the deadline. Although, if he struggles, do you really believe they would trade for an upgrade. I don't. Per AI, a .650 OPS translates to roughly a .230 -.250 hitter and <10 HRs. Does that fix the position enough while trying to make a serious run at a championship? Maybe.
  19. Turning2
    That's essentially my definition of "positioning". They didn't mail it in or punt as some others have referred to it. Coming off the 97 wins and falling completely on their face in the NLCS, they didn't aggressively go for it either (and I wouldn't want them to). So when I use "positioning" it's more of a mushy, happy medium term. The reality is, even though they dominated the regular season with 97 wins, the NLCS revealed that they weren't really very close to a WS berth. It would have required some incredible serendipity to get past LA. They could have gone crazy in the offseason pursuing talent, hoping to get over the hump. But they knew the lockout and CBA are on the horizon, so the financial ramifications of that are an unknown. Why commit big money and prospect capital to a couple guys, when adding proven talent might be more manageable after the new CBA is settled? They also knew that they have a solid crop of prospects to be harvested shortly after that new CBA too. Overall, it felt like they didn't tank it, but they went status quo, just keep doing what they do making marginal additions, hoping serendipity shines on them for a change this year.
  20. Turning2
    It would look good on him, but they would have to unretire it.
  21. Turning2
    OK, just a little fluff post. Doesn't matter, but I'd love to see him get #14. We need a long term starter trotting out #14 everyday.
  22. Turning2
    That view aligns somewhat with my suggestion that this year is for positioning for the future, i.e. - post lock out, rather than making aggressive moves and going for it this year. Some people were howling that, after a 97 win season, that they didn't make any upgrade moves in the offseason for a serious push this season. I kept telling them, that they are not making moves for this year, but beyond.
  23. Turning2
    Regarding Mitchell's defense, I recall an interview where he was asked about mitigating injury. The response was taking an approach to defense that was a little more mindful of potential injury - essentially, playing a tad less aggressive. Perhaps that might address the data or perception of a defensive drop off. His lack of power is highly disappointing, but I'm glad he's been healthy and available so far. Probably a fair tradeoff for a dip in defense.
  24. Turning2
    Fair points. My instinct leans towards players with proven MLB ability versus projection and potential. However, that depends on if the solution is desired now or later. And of course, nothing is certain either way. They could bring in a proven vet (whoever that might be??) and he could fall flat too at much greater expense. I'm excited to see Pratt, Been keeping an eye on him since he hit AA. Took some flak for declaring he, not Made, is the SS of the future, or at least.. the most gifted defensive SS among the farm prospects.
  25. Turning2
    Not sure what specifically I posted previously that would make you ask that. I think they are both being rushed a season early. I'd suggest that MIL might be able to cover the offensive shortcomings of a rookie in the OF a little easier than one at SS. But it's really an either / or rather than player A versus player B. I think the team could absorb poor offense from one rookie learning the ropes at either spot, but not both - that might be the best way to put it.
×
×
  • Create New...