Fear The Chorizo

A cap with a floor, plus full revenue sharing that includes broadcast revenues, can absolutely exist and make everyone happy....because in that scenario the floor would be much closer to the cap than what Passan lays out in your post above. My point is the MLB financial system needs to be entirely redone - not just keeping revenue generation/sharing buckets the same as what they are now when one team gets ~$350M a year in its own TV market money and others get maybe $25M. Would players be happy with a cap/floor under the current revenue system? Heck no, and I wouldn't blame them. Would they be happy if pre arb/arbitration years/team control were reduced, full revenue sharing was implemented, and all 30 MLB clubs could readily spend upwards of $320M a year on their payroll? There sure as heck should be. Additionally, the deferred money nonsense needs to go away - teams could still defer money in contracts if they/players wish, but the actual AAV of that contract would need to count towards a team's salary cap during the years they are actually playing (not deferred).

His filmography has to be among the more impressive lists of roles and work an actor has done - RIP indeed

I get that, but players also need to have some awareness of why this is such a problem. I envision a lockout followed by a strike after a legitimate salary cap is imposed btw, too. Any sort of agreement that doesnt set a limit payroll can reach along with a salary floor, plus broadcast revenue sharing across the league, wont be good enough for the longterm health of baseball.

In all honesty, if every other team spent as much as the Dodgers currently do, do you know what would happen? The Dodgers would just spend a ton more, because they print money and can because the current MLB rules wouldnt prevent it. The argument about the financial disparity in baseball being because of small market teams not spending themselves into oblivion is misleading, inaccurate, and ignorant. Bring on the strike if that is the position taken by the players making quotes (who obviously are among the minority of players who actually have received generational money in contracts - the current system sucks for younger players trying to stick and middling vets working through arbitration who never wind up reaching that 1st big free agent contract)

Twins traded for him and sent Intl' bonus money to the Dodgers....I hate this for baseball and would much rather have the Dodgers be forced to release an arm like Banda because they're out of 40 man space, and then just have another MLB team pick him up for nothing in return to LAD. The amount of bonus pool money is a pittance, but it gives the Dodgers a bigger bit of dough to play in that talent acquisition arena - which is one the Brewers have made a TON of hay in recently in large part due to MLB trying to even the playing field and restrict how much money teams can throw at those players who have not yet played professionally. Screw the Dodgers

The Packers would've had to fire their GM who picked Rodgers, navigated a pretty solid qb transition from Favre to rodgers, and appeared to have a loaded young roster after the 2009 season ( they won the next year's super bowl ) to retain Schneider as GM. Hindsight can be 20/20, but that take off being bummed Schneider isnt the Packers' GM now is pretty unrealistic. Maybe they could have tried to pry him away from Seattle instead of hiring Gute after Thompson aged out of his role in early 2018, but definitely not when he first got a GM gig.

Yep - in today's NFL, maintaining roster depth to o ercome significant injuries is a mirage...to win a Super Bowl without the unquestioned best qb in the league (Mahomes), you need to be among the best 10 teams in the league going into the season, then get lucky with health and schedule quirks.

Despite being a dog of a game, it is quite satisfying watching the Pats get embarrassed...kind of saw it coming 10 miles away after beating a horrible Stroud and backup qb to reach the super bowl out of a conference loaded with really good quarterbacks. They never belonged and Seattle showed why

Easy for a secondary to look fast making tackles when the quarterback doesnt get the ball to receivers running flat out uncovered. The oline is getting handled, but Maye is deer in headlights bad tonight

Health for both of those defenses is the key. Schemes can be aggressive when they also don't respect the opposing quarterback, too. These units are the reason they are in the super bowl....at the start of the year, GB's defense was right there, too.

Pats need to line up and run the ball - their passing game is overmatched upfront

Campbell is a tomato can at LT

Ours was similar early in the season before Wyatt and Parsons blew out knees and Gary became a pumpkin. They are playing downhill because they arent threatened over the top because of the pass rush and iffy pass protection

Helps that both QBs are light years worse than the Packers, too They are super aggressive because neither team thinks the quarterback can make the right decisions consistently....so far thats absolutely correct. Huge passing plays left on the field

50,000 eclipsed on the Dow Jones Industrials...and to think it was under 8,000 just 17 years ago during the housing market recession

Making a team cover more yards to score a touchdown is almost always the best decision, especially if you're debating whether to give the team the ball at midfield or inside their 20 to start a drive. Especially if you have a bad defense. Id argue that being overly aggressive costs your team points in the long run when its not a goal to go situation - unless you truly are in "gotta have it" game scenario mid to late 4th quarter. Sure, there should be some situations within the game and with how it's being played out to go for it at weird times....but I think even that should come after a more predictable playcalled set of downs. I know youre a Bears fan, so you've seen Johnson trying to get gadgety on key 3rd or 4th and shorts when a simple dive up the gut is going to gain a yard against a run defense on its heels. MLF is insanely predictable with getting 8 yards on 1st down, then calling an aggressive 2ns down play, then an unimaginative 3rd down run from the shotgun into a brick wall, followed by a frustrated timeout and 4th down play that ends up being a throw 30 yards downfield. Its like all the probabilities and scenarios make these playcalling "wizards" try to outsmart themselves

As for the trend about shredding coaches who go for it vs taking the points....I think it has gone too far the other direction, and more often than not taking points in those situations makes sense. I will say, I think it makes more sense to "go for it" on 4th down if you're in the red zone than kick a FG if it's a goal to go or very manageable 4th and 5-8 yards or less in those situations, because failing to convert at least pins the opponent deep in their own end taking over on downs. With the improvement in kickers making longer FG's, I actually dont like going for it in most 4th and short or medium situations outside the red zone compared to kicking the FG - the school of thought had been, long fg is a coinflip anyway and punting only nets you 10-20 yards of field position, go for it....i think that calculus has changed a bit. even a conversion on 4th down from the 30 likely means you need at least 1-2 more first down conversions to score a touchdown. Taking 3 points 85 percent of the time the first opportunity you get seems like a better percentage play to finishing the game scoring more points in those spots The crazy 4th and go for it scenarios from midfield or even on your own side of the field that Ben Johnson or other coaches are doing now is just reckless when it isnt a do or die end of game drive.

As long as the NFL is ok with restructuring this "Pro Bowl" to mean what it actually reflects - NFL players who are healthy enough after 17 regular season games who have openings on their calendar to play flag football Does anyone even watch? Is anything even broadcast?? Totally joke

I think some people are putting too much into the Pats' quick turnaround post Belichek, when that team pretty much was below average to stinking after Brady left following the 2019 season. They were an afterthought until Vrabel pulled everything together this year - and they caught some seriously convenient breaks. They hit a home run with Maye with the #2 overall pick last season (he's been decent but not setting the playoff world on fire), spent a ton of money in free agency because they had enormous cap room, and then walked through 3 games of playoffs in the AFC without having to beat Mahomes, Jackson, or Allen. Their defense will keep them in the Super Bowl, but I'd be surprised if they win - and I think it's easy to see them being among the teams who got to a Super Bowl once in a 10-15 year stretch. Lose and you're out in the NFL playoffs deals harsh doses of reality to teams with coaches who let the moment get to them - unfortunately I think MLF is one of those coaches and he just got extended.

Thinking the NFL may just want to replay the NFC championship game for the super bowl instead of having one of these AFC teams in it. Woof

It's alot more about the staff running the labs and how these labs are utilized to change pitcher's deliveries, add a pitch, etc...which still goes back to personnel departments identifying talent that can be enhanced using this type of technology to evaluate performance. Anyone nowadays can get the equipment to have a "lab"...it's more about how you use it - and the Brewers are among the best in the business at doing so.

It's a trade the Brewers need to make in most years under the current financial system - that being said, I get the angst of dealing your Opening Day starter from the past few seasons and how it impacts the MLB club in 2026, which could be the last full regular season for a few years. I think the return in terms of talent + years of control is fantastic for the trade - still stings though....even though Freddy is a roller coaster ride from one start to the next. Hoping the younger starter depth steps up in this organization and minimizes the immediate MLB hole created by Peralta pitching in Gotham.

I'm just wondering if these companies have removal/disposal included in the life cycle cost of the panels - which apparently they don't. I do know the commercial solar industry has concerns on disposal costs, but that's probably more to do with the scale and poor reception of landfilling all the spent panels while claiming a solid portion of the overall mass is recycled....which is basically just the aluminum framing/racking. Guess the cost of individual residential panel disposal isn't that high to just have sent to the dump whenever it's spent. Hopefully that ROI perfectly mirrors the model the company who sold the system to you presented. Maybe those residential models are much more accurate than what I'm seeing with clients I work with for community and generation-capacity solar developments that are less than a decade old - several of which are currently undergoing panel replacements.

Curious, does the company you work with cover removal/disposal costs for the panels, any racking, or inverter/battery systems when things need to either be replaced or removed? You are correct that as panels/system ages, they generate less energy - while the technology has improved somewhat, you're likely to start seeing diminishing returns start to happen right around the time your system "pays for itself". It won't get really significant until between years 20-30, at which point you've hopefully sold and gotten some sort of bump on the home price - without having to worry about the disposal/removal costs.

I think it depends on what you want the team you root for to accomplish - The Packers have been great at being pretty good for a very long time, going on a magical Super Bowl run as a 6 seed once....then they largely underperformed preseason expectations under McCarthy in the postseason until that nucleus got old along with a mix of bad defenses and atrocious special teams, and he got fired. MLF's hiring came with an infusion of free agency and a few good drafts to bolster a defense and saw a Rodgers resurgence, then they couldn't win home playoff games to get to the Super Bowl when they were expected to do so. Since then, they've been in perpetual 7 seed mode - injuries did derail them from having a higher seed and more realistic chance at a Super Bowl run this season, but they still should have at least made the divisional round. With the current roster, I just don't feel like the Packers are on the upswing with the same head coach. They still have consistently awful special teams that cost them games, and their defense has been inconsistent at best with alot less quality depth than what all the draft/free agency capital used to build it should. Some of that is Gute, but player development by the coaching staff is also important. Fact is that McDermott got fired because the NFL still can't figure out what a catch is, and MLF got an extension despite his teams repeatedly showing they can't close at crunch time in the playoffs - that has spanned multiple starting quarterbacks more than good enough to win in the postseason and typical NFL roster and coaching staff churn. The only common denominator is MLF. I don't like the fact he's still the Packers' head coach.