Jump to content
Brewer Fanatic

Brewers claim Matt Harvey, according to Jon Heyman (Latest: Trade not happening, see post #57)

Lathund

By Lathund,
in Milwaukee Brewers Talk

  • Replies 93
  • Created
  • Last Reply
pacopete4 Nashville Sounds

pacopete4

Verified Member
Posted
Posted
Comparing the Schoop deal to Harvey’s situation is about as apples to oranges as it gets.
"This is a very simple game. You throw the ball, you catch the ball, you hit the ball. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, sometimes it rains." Think about that for a while.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
KeithStone53151 Carolina Mudcats

KeithStone53151

Verified Member
Posted
Posted
I can't tell if Krall is saving face for an ownership decision "don't let the Brewers force us to bend!" or he really thinks that.

 

This makes some sense. Maybe they are trying to show other GM's that they are the best negotiators and can out-posture them at every turn...or some related form of stupidity. Part of me wonders if they have some sort of under the table deal with the Cubs to NOT trade him to us...considering the way they acquired both Theo and Maddon, wouldn't surprise me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
young guns First Round Pick

young guns

Verified Member
Posted
Posted
This sounds like the person at a garage sale walking up with something marked $.50 and asking if you will take a dime for it.

 

More like a quarter priced at .25 cents and say, "No, thanks...I want more for it."

And a sign posted saying anything not bought will be thrown out.

Remember what Yoda said:

 

"Cubs lead to Cardinals. Cardinals lead to dislike. Dislike leads to hate. Hate leads to constipation."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MrTPlush Wisconsin Timber Rattlers

MrTPlush

Verified Member
Posted
Posted
Comparing the Schoop deal to Harvey’s situation is about as apples to oranges as it gets.

 

What one of the 5,000 examples to you want? Teams are always throwing away money in different forms. I mean Eric Hosmer got $144mil from a rebuilding team that paid him just to spend money. We are talking about $1mil, probably even less because someone has to take his spot on the roster.

 

It is meaningless to them either way. The money is nothing and what we were willing to offer was probably worse than a bag of baseballs because paying a MiLB player costs more [sarcasm](barely)[/sarcasm].

 

It was such a pointless move either way it was probably more valuable to waste our time and make sure they don't help us get better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bill hAll Star First Round Pick

bill hAll Star

Verified Member
Posted
Posted
Comparing the Schoop deal to Harvey’s situation is about as apples to oranges as it gets.

 

What one of the 5,000 examples to you want? Teams are always throwing away money in different forms. I mean Eric Hosmer got $144mil from a rebuilding team that paid him just to spend money. We are talking about $1mil, probably even less because someone has to take his spot on the roster.

 

It is meaningless to them either way. The money is nothing and what we were willing to offer was probably worse than a bag of baseballs because paying a MiLB player costs more [sarcasm](barely)[/sarcasm].

 

It was such a pointless move either way it was probably more valuable to waste our time and make sure they don't help us get better.

 

I agree with both sides.

 

$1 million is very insignificant to an MLB owner.

 

However, in every other situation you discuss, even if shortsighted or with stupid intentions, signing Feliz for a year or Hosmer to a giant contract gives you perceived value or trade value in the upcoming full season, several seasons, or playoff stretch that you are a part of.

 

The Reds get literally nothing from this other than "positive momentum."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MrTPlush Wisconsin Timber Rattlers

MrTPlush

Verified Member
Posted
Posted
The Reds get literally nothing from this other than "positive momentum."

 

Oh I agree, I get it. He has been a solid addition for them since picking him up, wouldn't be surprised if they might want to bring him back. They probably thought our offer was worth nothing to them and didn't care about the money. At that point might as well keep him around.

 

All the people freaking out about the Reds holding onto him (Twitter/Writers) make me laugh though. This is like when we add a AAA filler guy for nothing and we argue about it. Does it really matter one way or the other? Saving money isn't a big deal if ownership doesn't care about the money. Are the people of Twitter paying?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KeithStone53151 Carolina Mudcats

KeithStone53151

Verified Member
Posted
Posted
The Reds get literally nothing from this other than "positive momentum."

 

Oh I agree, I get it. He has been a solid addition for them since picking him up, wouldn't be surprised if they might want to bring him back. They probably thought our offer was worth nothing to them and didn't care about the money. At that point might as well keep him around.

 

If the Reds have any more money they feel like setting on fire, they can call me I'll happily come pick it up.

 

I will edit and add I'm not trying to insult yours or anyone else's opinion with my sarcasm the last handful of posts. I have a strong opinion in this case that reds ownership/gm situation is a clown show. Yours and others justifications or trying to see their side have some merit for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KeithStone53151 Carolina Mudcats

KeithStone53151

Verified Member
Posted
Posted
Maybe this has been addressed but it is still a week until Aug 31, can't the Reds just try to get him through waivers again and hope for a better deal than the Brewers offered?

 

If they put him on waivers again, they will have literally 0 leverage as they can't pull him back. The claiming team would simply get him. That won't happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldHeidelberg First Round Pick

OldHeidelberg

Verified Member
Posted
Posted
Maybe this has been addressed but it is still a week until Aug 31, can't the Reds just try to get him through waivers again and hope for a better deal than the Brewers offered?

 

Look back one page.

 

viewtopic.php?f=63&t=37453&start=60#p1147930

 

Got it, thanks. Oh well, I wasn't in the mood for the Brewers to give up anything of value after the Schoop trade and like others have said why not just start Woodruff?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MrTPlush Wisconsin Timber Rattlers

MrTPlush

Verified Member
Posted
Posted
why not just start Woodruff?

 

1) At this point I feel like they have something against Woodruff.

 

2) It is a race for a postseason spot. You want someone experienced and considered more stable. Woodruff has little experience and can't afford growing pains. He is a guy you would rather give a shot towards the start of the season...not with 5 starts to give.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bill hAll Star First Round Pick

bill hAll Star

Verified Member
Posted
Posted
why not just start Woodruff?

 

1) At this point I feel like they have something against Woodruff.

 

2) It is a race for a postseason spot. You want someone experienced and considered more stable. Woodruff has little experience and can't afford growing pains. He is a guy you would rather give a shot towards the start of the season...not with 5 starts to give.

 

3) Why not start Woodruff and have Matt Harvey waiting in the bullpen or other way around? It's not an either/or.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KeithStone53151 Carolina Mudcats

KeithStone53151

Verified Member
Posted
Posted
I’m an occasional poster, persistent lurker. Has anyone in the Brewer’s org ever mentioned a six-man rotation, or is it just people who post here? Why does it keep getting brought up?

 

I mentioned it as an opinion only, I personally never saw mention of a 6 man rotation from CC or Stearns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldHeidelberg First Round Pick

OldHeidelberg

Verified Member
Posted
Posted
why not just start Woodruff?

 

1) At this point I feel like they have something against Woodruff.

 

2) It is a race for a postseason spot. You want someone experienced and considered more stable. Woodruff has little experience and can't afford growing pains. He is a guy you would rather give a shot towards the start of the season...not with 5 starts to give.

 

Point 1 seems valid but I am baffeled by it, for point 2 he has 12 career starts and a few more innings than Peralta and hasn't been a complete disaster. He would be the hardest thrower in the rotation, if they are unhappy with Guerra or someone else he seems like a legit option. Harvey could go either way if they got him, it would have been nice to add him just think we have already spent too much prospect capital on this seasons chase, especially now that we are facing more of a wildcard race than a division race. I am sure the Reds wanted a decent piece or he would be a Brewer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing
The Twins Daily Caretaker Fund
The Brewer Fanatic Caretaker Fund

You all care about this site. The next step is caring for it. We’re asking you to caretake this site so it can remain the premier Brewers community on the internet. Included with caretaking is ad-free browsing of Brewer Fanatic.

Become a Caretaker
×
×
  • Create New...