FVBrewerFan

Good job of explaining what’s likely to happen with Peralta. Goodness gracious the guys only 22 years old and he’s going to get better! And yes our better lineup will lead to more runs scored this year. Actually we averaged 4.6 rpg last year and we should be able to bump that up to five this year. Also, keep in mind he has two different fastballs. So he basically has been using 3 pitches, and his change is fine- he just hasn't really needed it yet. I have been his biggest fanboy since A ball, so I feel the need to bring this up every time someone mentions all he has is a FB.

Bottom of the bullpen doesn't bother me, even the "middle-ish" guys. Those positions turn-over, some over-achieve, some are gas cans, and that often changes month to month. That's no different than last year. What IS different from last year is the number of Counsel Certified Out Getters. These are pitchers who almost always did their job, and you felt comfortable when they came into the game. By the end of the year they had 5 of them- 6 if you count Peralta's stint in the pen. This year they have 2- (3 if Jeffress doesn't have long-term arm issues.) Guys like Hauser, Sanchez, and Diplan aren't going to solve that math problem. Those guys will no doubt get a chance at some point but they're lumped in with Williams, Barnes, and the others. Guys who could best be described by "you could do worse." They will generally get the job done, but struggle too often to be reliable. I fully expect them to let it play out a bit to see what they have. That means the starters, relievers, and the minors. Let the puzzle become more clear. They have Nelson and Peralta waiting in the wings, and they could be used as a starter or late inning guy. They could always move Woodruff into that role. Brown/Webb may be ready to join as starter or late inning guy down the road. I think that's how the Brewers are looking at it. They have enough in the pen to start the year, and plenty of options as the year goes on. That said, they really need either Davies/Anderson to be "good enough." If both falter, really limits the options in the pen because they'll need all hands on deck to fill the rotation.

I get he hasn't looked good as of late...or has been hit or miss and he does run ISO a bit, but he's our 2nd best player. 3rd at worst. You're actually HOPING the Bucks lose him this off-season? It's not like hoping the Packers move on from a guy who's been one of their best players but you just don't think fits. If they lose him, they are replacing him with a very late 1st round pick or with Tony Snell likely stepping into the lineup. Middleton's a very good player and the Bucks can't afford to lose him. I do wish he'd take fewer deep 2's, wish he'd pass more instead of taking that contested 12-16 foot turnaround, but he FAR more of an asset than a negative. That's the problem though, that's Middleton's game. When he's on, he can't miss those kind of shots. He can't just be a 3 point shooter, his avg just isn't good enough. And he's not much of a drive into the lane guy either. At his best, he's a guy who can knock down that 2 point jumper, and at time get hot from 3.

Breeland was not very good. He made a couple flash plays to make us all think he was good, but bottom line is he is just....slow.

Shopko, Kmart, so many others can't compete with WalMart, and especially Amazon. Kohls and Target are making it work, at least for now, but they have vision and much smarter management. I mean Amazon is nothing new, some retailers have found ways to be unique enough in various ways. Locations, adding Amazon return counter in stores, etc. Retailers like Shopko did essentially nothing and they're going the way of the buggy whip.

Not having Brogdon might be affecting this team more than we think. It's been one game. I do think it will hurt, hopefully they can keep their #1 overall seed, get through the 1st round and then have Brogdon back. As far as the Bucks being a marginal playoff team without Middleton, that's ridiculous. That would mean they're at or below .500 and that's not going to happen. I agree the way the rules are set-up they need to keep him, but it's crazy to think they go from the best record in the NBA to a marginal playoff team in the East without Middleton.

I feel they may have tried this at times, I know other teams have. Makes a lot of sense to put Arcia in shallow OF where the ball is most likely to be hit. When they use the extreme shifts traditional positions really dont matter.

Exactly. Bigger/better strike zone, and shorten pitching change times. This three batter minimum nonsense doesn't help the game. Can't wait for a pitcher to come in, get in trouble, have to muddle through an extra batter or two (making him unavailable to pitch the next day), and then have an even worse pitcher come in to relieve him. Great stuff. I am optimistic that this rule will never see the field. Hopefully, it will get negotiated away for something less stupid, and something the players actually agree to. Which is why this nonsense won't even speed up the game. Managers don't pull a pitcher just for fun. It's because hes either struggling or about to face a horrible match-up. Williams starts the 8th in a 3-1 lead. Walks first rh hitter, walks 2nd rh hitter. LH on deck. Disaster waiting to happen. Force him to stay in the game for another batter and that inning could last a half hour. One example, but plenty of similar situations arise. Its stuff like that, not eliminating the loogy. If youve noticed, that role is dying off anyhow. Brewers dont have one, didnt have one last year. Teams want more outs from a reliever, not less. But it just makes strategic sense that an outing will often wrap around part of one inning and the next, based on lineup. This rule takes away a manager's ability to manage. A side effect is burning out your late inning guys, because you cant risk a late inning trying to sneak by with a Barnes or Williams. Finally, Ive never bought the whole argument of "young people will tune in if the game is shorter." Its not an action sport, and will never appeal to masses of young people. Theres barely any baseball diamonds around anywhere, kids dont play baseball. Thats where the problem starts. It will appeal to analytical types, except theyre taking the strategy out of the game. Having more to do, see, eat, drink at the ballpark will draw the millennials too, big reason why Miller Park is popular, even before last season. Nascar and other sports tried to appeal to the masses and failed miserably by driving away their core fans. NFL is getting close to that, if not for the off the charts interest in fantasy football. So lets try this. Keep baseball.....baseball. Then promote it, promote fantasy leagues, educate fans on the game, continue to innovate the game day experience. Work on bringing baseball back to the youth level. What wont work? Stupid rule changes and cutting commercial breaks by 5 seconds. Now get off my lawn!

Wily Peralta? Wow Exactly!

How soon we forget Wily Peralta. As with every comparison, it's not exact, but same concept. Bad season, one really good season, then back to bad. Spare me the reasons, it doesn't matter. (He's out of shape....yea he was out of shape during his good season too.) There are all sorts of things that come into play that causes a player to have one really good year above the norm.

I doubt signing Bledsoe first was the plan. My guess is they're simultaneously trying to extend all these guys, and Bledsoe was the first to accept. With others, maybe they don't want to deal with it during the season, the offer isn't seen as good enough yet, or they may want to test FA no matter what. It takes two to tango, and Bledsoe was the fist to dance.

I don't care. In fact, watching a manager argue with an umpire is WAY more entertaining than watching 4 union hacks huddle around with headsets on waiting to hear if a runner is out at 1B in 0-0 game with 2 outs in the 3rd inning.

Instant replay, DH, now dictating how pitching staff I sued. That's strike 3, but I'm not quite out. More like I fouled that one off. If they ever institute that stupid ghost runner experiment they've used in the minors I am officially done with MLB. And I'm not kidding.

$26,500,000, the highest on the team by far and 13.5% of the Packers' total cap. And it goes up another $6MM next season. These 4 FA s signed will have higher cap numbers next year also, so there won't be much room to maneuver. But that's next year, doesn't matter to me after we win the SB this year.

Prior to these signings and factoring in the Perry cut, the Packers had ~$38.2 million in cap space. Their draft pool is estimated at $10.3 million. Including that, and assuming your number for 2019, they've got about $1.9 million to work with free and clear, and more pending other cuts/restructures. Za'Darius' contract is the only one I haven't seen official numbers on yet, which implies some skepticism about his agents' details from yesterday. The others total $16,150,000, so I'm curious how his was officially structured. Update: Spotrac has his cap # at $7,250,000, leaving the Packers ~$4.5 million under the cap right now. According to this, the Packers have much more cap space than is being noted here. I corrected my numbers above now that we have Za'Darius break-out. As far as what's left: $38MM - $23MM= $15MM remaining. Tom has an extra couple million, not sure why. But relatively close. After rookie pool, they have $5-$7MM to spend yet.

Strawman argument. Nobody is saying he will regress back into a pumpkin. We're saying we don't know, and until we do by definition 2017 was an outlier.

Since I've seen a lot of incorrect information out there, even from usually reliable Packers- related sites, I figured it would be helpful to post the cap hits for these deals. These are rounded numbers, and may not be 100% accurate, but should be very, very close. The up-shot is they still have money to spend this year if they want to assign more FAs and/or swing a trade. Also, always the option to free-up more space by cutting/trading one or more of Williams, Graham, Crosby, Bulaga. They still need to save space for the rookie class, but the point of all this is they do have more room to maneuver than I expected. Here are the total CAP SPACE hits for all 4 signings combined. If I have time later I can post the individual info if anyone's interested. Important to note, in each case they are 4 yr contracts. Although after the first two years they have options. 3rd yr is a push or slightly in the Packers favor (Cap savings vs dead money) And by the 4th yr they could easily be cut to save big cap room. 4 yrs/ $182MM/ incl $56MM Signing Bonus 2019: $23MM 2020: $48MM 2021: $54MM 2022: $57MM

Yea, I didn't say anything about ST. He needs to sit at 95 in the regular season, I don't care what he's throwing now.

Main thing keeping me from being overly optimistic is FB velocity. He always sat at 94-95, and touched 96-97 quite often. His FB is pretty straight, doesn't hide his delivery or anything funky. So if that drops even a couple ticks it could make a huge difference. Otherwise he'll need to really command another pitch or two, that's another route but not as easy.

So meaner, bigger, more fundamentally sound. I'll take it. I agree on Amos btw, he's the only guy I'm really familiar with. He's better than Burnett ever was. Contest between him and HHCD for most overrated S in Packers history. I really think this makes Martinez better too. He doesn't have to cover for everyone not doing their job, he can just seek and destroy.

For those of you that know these 3 defensive additions very well, how would you sum up how they improve the defense as a whole? Is the defense now faster? Tougher?

Not yet, but at some point the Vikes will sign at least one former Packer. That's a guarantee.

Rough numbers, after Perry cut they're at $39MM cap space. (Not including all these signings of course.) They can still find $17MM in cap space between Bulaga, Tramon Williams, Graham. Not that they should/will cut all 3- just the flexibility they have. If the avg cap hit for these 4 players signed is, let's say $8MM, it brings them down to $8MM left in cap room, but another $17MM to play with. So, still room to sign another FA- or even 2 if they're players farther down the food chain. That would still leave them enough to pay the rookies from this year's draft. As I said earlier, we need confirmation on exactly how these deals are structured though. This stuff gets miss-reported all the time because most reporters don't understand SB, cap hit, etc.

We would need to know exact numbers for the 1st year of these contracts. Could be 1st year is less than the 2nd year of some/all of these deals. Not WAY less, but maybe $1MM each or so, saves let's say $5MM off this year's cap. The players would be fine with that, since they get the whole SB up front anyhow. Hey...there's my OL I wanted...perfect!!!

All I want now out of FA is an OL, really any position on the line. Even if it's just a quality back-up. Or a vet WR with a little something left in the tank. I'll take either one of those, the rest is gravy since they can address other needs in the draft. Two big upgrades on defense is awesome, and I think there's a chance a couple of the young guys (Burks, King, Jones) can improve- that's what could turn the defense from an improved defense into a really good defense. , (Also, interesting but not surprising nobody jumped on Matthews early.)