homer

If anyone has a subscription to The Athletic, there is an uber comprehensive article about how the Packers offense may look under LaFleur. Really well done with video clips, stats, etc.

Miguel Cabrera and Manny Machado are not even in the same universe offensively. Machado's value derives primarily from his defense. A better comparator would be Jason Heyward. I think the point is that Cabrera was supposedly a doofus and he performed just fine his whole career even after signing a big deal.

Hmmmm....trading #30 might work for me. I certainly wouldn't give up more than that though and would prefer the 2nd round pick.

Great for Jeff but really stinks as he was a terrific writer. Was one of the first (only?) to see a change in stats and then look to the film to see if there was a mechanical reason behind it. Perfect blend of scouting and stats. Hope he does well for the Rays.

It's not that they give up too many attempts...it's that they give up way too many "uncontested" attempts in my opinion. Either get in their hip pocket 2 feet beyond the arc or just stand around in the paint. Tired of watching them run out after a guy two seconds after the ball's left their hand as I hear nothing but net. The article mentions contesting every three.... The reason they don't is because then that opens up the middle for shots in the paint plus it wears out your defense. They are trying to be strategic about who they cover out beyond the arc. Teams like Boston are a bad matchup because they have a lot of good three point shooters and they shoot a lot of them.

Bucks equaled their win total from last year tonight.

That would be absurd.

Turd is the word.

It's behind a pay wall. The gist of it is this:: Despite giving up a ton of threes, they allow far and away the most non corner threes to below average shooters. So basically they are letting bad shooters shoot threes and are closing out on the good shooters while simultaneously not letting anyone get to the rim, not fouling, and not letting opposing teams get offensive boards. The league is shooting more threes - but not everyone shooting threes is a good three point shooter. The Bucks are basically saying "OK, we will let the brick layers shoot away but we will get every rebound and we won't let you get to the rim".

I think there's some confirmation bias at work here. Just playing the number of minutes he plays in games would get him in decent shape not to mention practice time. Why would I have a bias to confirm in the first place? Why would I just invent this bias against him and not against tons of other players? I had to match my interpretation to what I saw and not the other way around. I have nothing against him and I defended his skills vociferously on realgm for years. I compare him to Pierce when everyone calls him a poor man's Klay, but he's not going to be nearly as good as either one of them if he doesn't shed the extra pounds. And what's the point of saying he's in good shape from playing games? Compared to us, yes, but it's all relative. Every starter plays lots of minutes. By NBA swingman standards, he's on the extreme low end for energy and stamina and it's in large part because he's carrying around useless bad weight on a frame not built to carry it. Anyone here who's denying this, do you know any recent stories about guys who got a little too fat and then lost the weight and finally talked about it openly? Did you know they were fat before they admitted it? Have you looked at some before and after pictures to see if you could tell the difference? Because I could tell every single time, and often got sucked into arguments like this over it with people who clearly just can't discern the subtle but critical difference. You see him under-performing and are looking for a reason. Your reason is that he's out of shape so you are looking at his body differently and when he is slow to a spot you presume it's because he's out of shape and not because he's just a step slower than the other guy. That's confirmation bias. I read this article and I don't see anything that leads me to believe he is overweight. It even mentions he thought he had to train more this summer because he felt his legs got tired during last year's Boston series: http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/26041744/khris-middleton-rare-kind-second-star If anything, he gets "lazy" on defense. I put that in quotes because I think it's more he stands and watches rather than he doesn't care. Hence the benching in December when he didn't hustle after some loose balls. having said all that, I am not saying sign him to a max deal.

My point is, if I am going to spend that kind of money, I want to spend it on a non-turd. If I plan to spend that kind of cash, and I have a choice, I'd take the non-turd everytime. EDIT: Actually, if I'm spending that kind of money, I wouldn't waste it on the turd at all, I'd just save the money and let someone else waste their cash on the turd... Yes if player A is a turd and player B is a non turd and they are equally talented I would prefer player B. But if Player A is a turd and a top 10 player and player B is David Eckstein, I would pay Player A if I had the money,

When is Mike Trout up for free agency? He's going to make a lot of money. EDIT: 2021...he's going to make a lot of money. Maybe Yankees are saving up for him.

I'm sure plenty of non-turds have done the same, which would you rather have on YOUR team? That isn't the point. The point is just because someone is a turd doesn't mean they won't play well enough to earn their contract.

I misread that post. Sorry about that.

Pure speculation by the Twitter poster but re-tweeted by Phil Hecken (Uni-Watch). The content of the tweet was something I had been thinking as well. The fact that a completed new stadium uses a tarp with the M with barley on the main entrance seems peculiar. Additionally, the font of the names and numbers leading to the field don't match anything the Brewers currently use. Definitely worth keeping an eye on... They are still the Milwaukee "Brewers" so barley and an M make perfect sense to me.

Human nature > stats. Machado is a turd. I'm sure plenty of turds have signed long term deals and done just fine.

Seconded on the Hulu interface. We got it on Cyber Monday for $12 for a year. I doubt we'll re-up in the fall though.

When Machado's contract is up he will still be younger than Robinson Cano is today.

They will need them because their roster is very meh even with Machado. I think at least three of them are supposed to be up this year. Larger point being that they should be very competitive in due time.

Padres currently have MLB.com's #2, 15, 23, 26, 34, 48, 49 prospects

Well the Rangers signed ARod and here we are today so...yes.

I just like another team signing top tier free agents. Padres have a good system...window is now open for them.

Jeff Passan just tweeted. Not official yet. 10 years, $300 million which is a lot of money

With all the position shifting I'm not sure range at 2nd is everything it used to be (if it ever was?)...particularly with Arcia manning SS.

Their payroll is pretty high in fairness, and they'll have luxury tax to deal with. It's really hard to know how much they have to spend without knowing true revenue/expense figures...especially considering the new tv deal should theoretically lead to more revenue for the Cubs, at least I would assume so or why bother doing it. That's another reason fans typically side with management in sports labor disputes. The fans have no idea how much the owners are making. They do, however, know how much each player makes.