MNBrew

That offer doesn't seem unreasonable for any team, very well thought out for a 3 team trade. Is that your speculation? Seems light for the Orioles and very heavy towards the Brewers. I know it's only 1 year of Machado but he's a top 3 MLB player. However, the Orioles are idiots and have very little clue as to what they are doing. In a vacuum, I agree. However... - It does seem like CLE would be giving up decent value in return for Machado & Santana. That would seem to be the first key. - The first question is if that's a light return for Machado. I'd kind of think so unless McKenzie is CLE's A#1 prospect (which I didn't look up). - Second question is if anyone would balk at the Brewers picking up that much for Santana and two SP prospects who didn't move the needle much last year. If the Brewers threw just a little more of substance BAL's way...

The brewers paid Garza 12.5 Million this year, so if they give Darvish 20, they are really only adding 7.5 to the budget from last year, and hopefully a whole lot of talent. Just make sure he doesn't pull a Garza and crash into Aguilar while going to cover 1B.

Side thought: 4-5 hours since Crasnick's tweet came out and we've got 8 pages' worth in this thread discussing it. Maybe it amounts to nothing. But a few seemingly legit things (thank, HighHeat19) seem to point toward it being something pretty solid (or better, if multiple moves). I just can't see this involving Braun, but who knows. I didn't see a 38-7 pounding happening tonight, either.

This doesn't necessarily mean other teams haven't made Darvish an offer. It's just that "knowledge" of the Brewers' one has become public. That said, I'm intrigued. And Darvish's posting of it and the hand-chin-raised-eyebrow emoji may be indicative of something relevant to Brewers Nation....

Nothing of consequence there that hasn't already been discussed at length in BF.net speculation.

Just paste the URL then highlight & delete everything after the "...Rodriguez/". Doesn't say anything of consequence.

I think this is it -- May 20, 1986. https://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/MIL/MIL198605200.shtml As I looked over the boxscore and play-by-play, much of it seemed familiar. Here's the short version. - Down 8-0 after the top of the 1st. (Juan Nieves, NOT good.) - Tied it in the bottom of the 4th (HRs by Sveum, Cooper, & Deer along the way, tied on an Oglivie SF). - In the 7th, Earnest Riles singled for the lead. Paul Householder followed with a 3-run HR to open the lead to 12-8. - Cleveland score 1 more on an Andy Allanson single. I'm pretty sure the now-iconic Uecker HR call came on Householder's shot. Fun side note: Dan Plesac was the winning pitcher. Householder was a pretty highly thought-of prospect with the Reds who never fully lived up to his potential. He was then in St. Louis and we got him and 1B/OF Jim Adduci for peanuts from St. Louis and I was really excited about it. Adduci had a super-smooth swing. Householder did alright for his couple years in MIL, eventually becoming the starting LF. I remember sitting in the LF bleachers and watching him nail a runner from medium-deep LF on one of the most perfect throws to the plate (on the fly) I'd ever seen.

I was listening to the game it first happened. Mid-'80s, maybe? It was back when it was mostly road games on TV (channel 18, I believe), which is why I would've been listening to the radio. I want to think it was against Cleveland (I remember Andy Allanson being in the game, probably when he first came up with Cleveland rather than during his MIL tenure). The details are fuzzy, but I definitely remember the moment: - The Brewers were down early by a ton (maybe 10-2 after 2 innings?). I distinctly remember an 8-run deficit. - They kept chipping away and... - Finally completed the comeback victory with a homer (walk-off, I think, to LF), and Ueck's response to the ball's flight was, "Get up... Get up.... Get outta here! Gone!" I can't place the year or who hit the HR, but I'm pretty sure it was a home game. . . . (Now that I say this, I'm going to have to figure out how to look it up. BBRef, here I come.) A few years later is when it started becoming chic for announcers to have their own unique HR call, a fad that grew tired very quickly. I don't care what any announcer's HR call is as long as they're good at calling a game. I loved the balance that Ueck & Pat Hughes had, and then I learned to love Jim Powell as much or more, which I realized after he left for Atlanta. In the '80s Ueck wasn't great at keeping you current on all the details, but his counterpart always made up for it. Even now (because on the radio is how I catch most any game live) I think Ueck's still one of the best there is, flaws of style and age notwithstanding. For about 15 years starting in 1987, I did plenty of long drives across the region and country, back when you could find all sorts of teams' games on AM radio - especially late at night. It was then I began to realize just how good Uecker and Hughes/Powell were and how really blah-to-bad most other teams' announcers were by comparison.... I also realized quickly how good Corey Provus was, and still when I hear him here in Twins Territory, I still occasionally get fooled into thinking I'm hearing a Brewers broadcast -- and I wish he were back in MIL!

I'm not sure Greinke's the new acquisition I'd be hoping for, but no MLB player is paid or worth $100M per year from his team. Where did that figure come from?

I had more hope for Jungmann than Wang in terms of an MLB future. That they both had good years in the batting cage called Colorado Springs was pretty legitimately impressive. I can't imagine the FO thought both guys had meaningful MLB promise but capriciously decided to blow them off anyway, letting them just waltz off to Asia. The Brewers tipped their hand on Jungmann in September by not bringing him up when he had a roster spot and they had a legit SP need. Obviously they had their reasons, and I suspect the same was the case for Wang. Like many here, I find not knowing those reasons a little frustrating, but I don't think Stearns & Co. are fools because their actions don't jive with my fan/armchair opinions.

Neither Brady nor Davis are listed under the Non-Roster tab at the top of the roster. I remember Davis as an NRI but not Brady. http://m.mlb.com/mil/roster/nri/

To my point above: Mark Attanasio hasn't put the team up for sale, so the value increase means nothing to the team's day-to-day finances. And when he sells the team, those proceeds go to Mark A., not the team, so again the day-to-day finances aren't affected. It's still an asset with a value to it. If a person owns a company or companies instead of a pro sports team, that company/companies has a value towards that person's net worth. It's really no different. Take Jerry Jones. He owns the Dallas Cowboys and it's valued at over 3 billion dollars. This is his main financial asset and thus he's a billionaire, even though he isn't selling the team currently. Attanasio has a financial portfolio and part of that is his ownership of the Brewers, and the estimated value of the franchise. So given the franchise is easily worth more than double what he's paid for it, his net worth has gone up that much. No arguments with any of that. My point is that that value isn't realized until he sells the team, which likely has little if any bearing on the team's revenues and payroll. The owner may make good money while owning his team, but that's different money than what the team's worth. The players can point all they want to increased franchise values, but that's not revenue and therefore, as "hypothetical" money, can't go into players' salaries. These days, even crappy players who somehow manage to last for a couple years in the majors often end up making multiple millions per year. If the players are peeved that the pot of gold actually may not be bottomless, I don't feel bad because it was only a matter of time before that wake-up call happened. Thankfully it's happening with the industry incredibly healthy, not collapsing -- which would be infinitely worse -- meaning that players & owners still stands to benefit very well if they can solve this without shooting the golden goose and damaging the game with a work stoppage.

The union may have counters to other ownership arguments but you sure can't come up with anything to counter Danzig's 2 points in Post #35. Comparing unions & caps, the NBA should never enter any of these discussions. Any league whose teams trade guys for their contracts just so they can cut them -- pay them NOT to play -- proves the point that money matters more than the game and the vast majority of players playing it -- or even most of the teams.

1. I'd bet Attanasio has made a large amount of money of the Brewers already. Besides that, he only paid 225 million for the team. If he put the Brewers up for sale after the season, he'd easily get 600-700 million, maybe more given the skyrocketing value for sports franchises. 2. I don't begrudge owners making money, but i'd rather see the players who actually are the product fans go to see get a bigger cut compared to already billionaire owners. To my point above: Mark Attanasio hasn't put the team up for sale, so the value increase means nothing to the team's day-to-day finances. And when he sells the team, those proceeds go to Mark A., not the team, so again the day-to-day finances aren't affected.

A couple thoughts: - Just because franchise values have apparently soared doesn't change the cash flow until you sell, in which case the money made is with the seller, not the new owner. So to my thinking, that point has zero merit in any speculation regarding this winter's stoic FA market. - Whereas there are only a very small handful of players making >$30MM per year currently, it's funny how back in the middle of last season, speculation regarding so many of the top FAs was that they'd be going for an AAV >$30MM per year. Where the heck did that come from? Certainly not from the salaries of players comparable to the subjects of said speculation! . . . Some of these guys are quite good, but there's no single pitcher on the FA market right now whose career production deserves to come anywhere close to Kershaw's currently salary. Also, for instance, JD Martinez had great power output at the perfect time, and he's a nice player but his overall career doesn't equate to a $30MM/yr. player -- really, for a guy with only two years with more than 30 HRs and a good slash line??? He's been a pretty good player for a few years but an elite player for only one. I wouldn't pay him $30MM+ for 6 years and I'm glad to see most any GM is smart enough not to, either. Edit: Corrected a key typo. Addendum: There's already speculation about Bryce Harper possibly being a $40MM/yr. player. Really? He's good but he's not that good. I mean, I'd take his 2015 & 2017, but the rest of his career is an ordinary version of good. To me he's far more hyped than his actual performance deserves -- as has been the case since he was drafted.

We also know that Walker can play at 3B and 1B. Maybe he's not ideal for the long haul at those positions, but the point is that he has some versatility that increases his value over time -- especially compared with the previous 2B-and-only-2B Brewers (Weeks & Gennett) who spanned most of the past decade-plus. In other words, if a young 2B forces his way into the starting lineup in a couple years, Walker's potentially still a very useful player for this team.

When Stearns made similar remarks about Braun, everyone here called "BS" on him. I don't remember the timing of those remarks, whether they came before or after the non-trade to LA, but these days (and for some reasons that are very obvious to all of us) Braun seems rather likely to play out his contract in MIL. I think most of us on here get "GM-speak." Doug Melvin's frequent use of "I'm not motivated to move him" (see: Richie Sexson, Lyle Overbay v1.0, etc.) is another familiar example, but it sure didn't mean he wasn't listening.

I'd still love to trade Broxton to SF and I'd gladly throw Andrew Susac in to, um, sweeten the deal. And all I'd ask for is an A-ball arm or two and the ghost of Matt Cain or Vida Blue.

I think this is a very "meh" move and the only way Choi sees MLB time in MIL this year is if Thames or Aguilar is injured or traded/released. I'd guess injury replacement is the most likely scenario. An AAA 1B was definitely a need, and I'd rather have some promise than a low-ceiling retread-type. That said, I'd still rather have Garrett Cooper back, but that ship already sailed.

Cain's the type of hitter the Brewers could use. Moustakas is redundant and a step away from diversifying the offense. The offense was decent overall in 2017 but too power-reliant and therefore slump-prone.

While I'm interested in the Lorenzo Cain thing, regarding Moustakas & possibly Shaw, as far as we know, Jim Bowden is the only guy who reported anything. Others picked up on it and started talking. Jim Bowden loves player movement. To be more specific, Jim Bowden talks constantly that teams who happen to be .500-ish or under, or who are in small markets, or who are (or should be) rebuilding, should do nothing other than trade good players to large market or good teams. Personally, I can't stand Jim Bowden. For a team at the stage in the rebuilding process that the Brewers are, signing Mike Moustakas and trading Travis Shaw makes zero sense. Such a move would add huge and needless cost for a player who's older, not necessarily any better and actually probably a little worse, and too similar of a hitter to way too much of the rest of the current roster. Shaw may not be the same defensive caliber player as Moustakas, but he was still one of the better fielders on the Brewers last year. Again, per Haudricourt on Twitter this a.m. (boldfacing is mine): What I have learned about Stearns and Co is that they "check in" on nearly every available player, just to make sure they know cost. Very big on due diligence. Doesn't mean it will happen. All Bowden said is that the Brewers "checked in" on Moustakas. The "2+2" he puts together is pure Bowden-like (annoying) conjecture.

There's still a place for vets in any rebuilding mix and I'd much prefer an Arrieta over what we got out of Matt Garza (although the recent revelation of Garza's collision-induced shoulder injury puts his 2nd half struggles in a totally different light). There was really only Braun and Jeffress (and I suppose Vogt) going into this off-season in terms of established vets -- not a bad thing, but rarely does any rebuild gain ALL its steam before you begin adding vets. Now we've added Chacin, Logan, and Gallardo, and only two of those are sure bets to make the club if healthy. Point being, adding an Arrieta or someone comparable, whether as a FA or via trade, doesn't blow the rebuild out of the water. My hunch is that if we add an Arrieta or Lynn or Cobb, it's because the financial cost to signing them represented a better deal for the organization than the cost of prospects to go after an Archer type. I'm not saying Arrieta is my ideal move (I don't know what my ideal move is because I can't know the potential costs of every option), but I do trust Stearns if he feels Arrieta is the best needed strategic option the Brewers have for improving the rotation for not just this year but beyond.

Aren't "over 30" and "regression candidate" pretty much synonymous? In a lot of people's minds here, it seems the answer is an unequivocal "yes." But not every guy regresses as soon as he hits 30. "Regression candidate" isn't the same as "diminished production" until the latter actually happens, and every player's different, so there's no guarantee when that decline will begin for any specific player. I get the fears and I understand production trends vs. age. But really, what potential Brewers FA contract offer/signing doesn't result in most hard-core Brewers fans (or at least BF.net posters) forecasting Doom & Gloom and doing their best Chicken Little, preaching to any who will listen that the sky's falling faster than ever . . . . before the ink's even dry on the guy's contract? For a team like the Brewers to swim in that pool, they need to be very shrewd about it. For as much as many here seem to have Melvin-years trepidation about signing Arrieta, I'm willing to give Stearns and his slant on things a little more slack because (for obvious reasons) he has yet to prove he'll make the same "regret by the contract's end" decisions.

Perez is also a legit backup at SS, though not as strong of an option as Villar. I'd still far prefer a 5-man bench than a 4-man bench. I think a 4-man bench leaves way too little defensive & PH flexibility, especially if someone's out for a couple consecutive days.

One of the beat writer's report of the deal when this came out last week was that contract language was still being worked out. If that's the case, then that's a legit explanation for what otherwise seems like a delay. Lack of info doesn't mean the beat writers aren't doing their work. In this case, given the time it's taking, it's clear something about the deal's not quite finished or else it would need to be announced. I might think differently if the national writers (Rosenthal, Morosi, Heyman, Nightengale, etc.) had reported something since last Friday's flurry of reports on Logan's contract details, but they've all been quiet since then, too.