HiAndTight

If fans want to ignore any bad thing about the Packers, that's on them. The media shouldn't have to. There has been a lot of bad stuff that has happened in sports. The Falcons doctors dispensing painkillers in quantities that were unlawful. Players commiting domestic violence. Dave Kingman being abusive to a female reporter. Ben Roethlisberger's history with women. Ryan Braun's PED suspension and the details around that. The list is very long. Teams shouldn't get to freeze out reporters who choose to write unflattering things about them. You are just totally conflating totally different issues here. You're comparing what was presented to us as a feud and some issues with personalities within a business to people breaking the law, rape accusations, domestic violence and the like. That's a ridiculous comparison. First of all, any business has every right in the world to simply decline to speak with a reporter who has negative things to say about that business and can cause financial harm that business. This isn't politics. As I said, the Brewers have done this with a large personality in the Milwaukee media market due to comments he made about a couple of players on the team. And both things CAN be true. The reporter has every right to REPORT what he finds and what he knows or believes to be true. And the business has every right to then simply refuse to grant him interviews. In this particular case, we're also making the giant assumption that this information would have been available at the time it was going on. There's a reason this didn't come out until after McCarthy was gone. Because people felt free to speak about it. Everyone heard about rumblings inside the organization, but that was it. He almost certainly wasn't going to get people to go on record and provide detailed anecdotes and rebuttals as Dunne does in this article(he does a good job in my opinion of trying to tell the whole story in so much as a reporter writing a piece like this can). But at the end of the day, there were no players put in harm's way here, there were no women abused or raped, there was no PED suspension that was already made public because the league announced it. It was an article based entirely on the opinions of people involved in the 4 most prominent people in an organization and how they interacted. Again, if that reflects badly on the business and hurts their reputation or finances or performance on the field as this almost certainly would have had it been written 4 years ago, then how are the Packers or the people directly involved at fault in any way for simply NOT speaking with the reporter who wrote an article in which almost all of his sources were anonymous and that caused harm to the organization? Wanting to know something doesn't mean you're entitled to know it and I just can't understand how you can compare rape allegations of domestic violence allegations, things that are public by the very fact that we're entitled to know when a crime has been committed or when someone is accused of a crime by an opens records act. You're comparing those things to a QB and a Head Coach not liking each other. And that's primarily what this article was about. They didn't like each other, the QB may not have respected each other. It may have been sensationalized or it may not have. But it's still got absolutely nothing in common with ANY of the issues you listed. Not only is there nothing that says you have to talk to a reporter after he writes an extremely negative article about you, it's every bit their right to simply refuse to talk to him after that and it's human nature to not talk to him anymore.

That all comes after this comment. And this is the SINGLE issue that Jennings had with Rodgers. And I agree he doesn't make throwaway comments....in public. When he's speaking to the media, he's very deliberate. That is what everyone who talks about him says. I don't agree that's the case when he's in the middle of a football game and Jennings, who as you mentioned, is very similar to Rodgers makes a comment about how he's running short routes because it's a contract year. I just don't think that's the context people who know Rodgers is talking about. It's more about how he presents himself to the world via interviews or press conferences. I certainly don't believe the comment was meant to be a jab at Jennings about not wanting him back. Hell, you can't be that deliberate between plays in the NFL. Jennings lays out the timeline really clearly. THAT was when their relationship fractured and that is the only thing he's brought up specifically. And they absolutely could co-exist. They did Jennings entire career in Green Bay until that absolute end(which turned out to be that comment). And at that point, the Packers weren't bringing him back anyway as he only had probably 2, MAYBE 3 good years left and he was fielding 6 or 7 year offers from teams like the Vikes with more guaranteed money. So they co-existed just fine for 7 years and in Rodgers first 4 years as a starter were Jennings best years by far. The only years he was over 1,000 yards. I think the take away is how pathetic it is that a comment like THAT is something that would be enough for Jennings to still be holding onto this many years later(and it appears it's the same with Rodgers). I don't think I'd have a friend in the world of a meaningful relationship if it was that easily broken.

From a Packers fans perspective, it's probably tougher to get behind a tackle at #12 as we've drafted and developed all-pro and pro-bowl guards and centers in the middle rounds, as well as the best pass blocking, left tackle. And the best pass rushers are usually drafted early on. You say mostly ok on Sweat. What would be your hesitation?

There are a lot of ways you could talk about this impacting the CBA, but I'm pretty sure with regard to the luxury tax, they figure the deferred money as you would for a signing bonus in the NFL. Just take the total amount and divide it by the years in the deal. So for the Nats for example, Scherzer has a ton of money deferred, I believe it may be up to 10 million a year. So if he's getting 15 million this year with 10 deferred, for luxury and CBA related issues, they use the 25 million dollar figure. This would only NOT be a comical deal if for instance, it was the same deal he signed with the Phils, but they added on 25 million and paid him a million a year in deferred money. I'd only be interested if it was a bonus to get me to sign on, a pension type arrangement. This was obviously not that and really kinda insulting how they did the whole thing. It KINDA reminds me of the Brewers and Molitor. Just tell the guy you appreciate everything he's done, celebrate him and wish him luck. Don't insult him just so you can say, "hey, we tried." They were better off paying Corbin half as much. They have the pitching and they still have plenty of offense.

Yes, or there would be more guys doing it. Currently there is 1 guy doing it. But it's not a great formula for a team success. There aren't guys who could do what he's doing with the same green light he has, but no contender is going to give anyone the green light to play that way anyway. What I'm getting at is that this is a qualifier to his greatness. "We're in this situation where we have to use a flawed approach to winning, and Harden can execute this flawed approach better than anyone, so we have to give him the MVP." It makes being on an inferior team an asset, when a better team would reduce his usage and he wouldn't have the gaudy stats to make the MVP race a serious contest in the first place. And by extension, it makes Giannis being on a much better team a hindrance to his case, when it's already too much of a hindrance because of how blowouts keep his minutes and volume stats down. That doesn't add up for me. Blowouts should strengthen his case, not weaken it. Giannis has been the best player in the league at his position, on both ends of the court, all season long. He's also playing like an all-time great at both ends. We haven't had that since Lebron was in his prime with the Heat, and I'm not really sure he was the best defensive sf. The last guy who was clearly that (best at his position on both ends) was probably Jordan. You could make a case for KG, Duncan, Olajuwon, Robinson, or Shaq at various times. You can make a case for transcendent offensive stars like Curry or Harden in the absence of a guy like that. But when a great two-way player leads a team without a true second star to the best record in the league and a historic scoring differential, I can't get with that at all. Just with regard to your first paragraph, hasn't it been because of Harden's scoring that the Rockets have been able to play so well this year? I only bring up these two stats because I heard them today(otherwise I frankly don't care enough about him to know either) but the Rockets have the best record in the NBA over the last almost 60 games. It was like 48-8. They were starting with the time injuries hit and when guys started going down and he started his scoring binge. AND I heard them say Harden has the best true shooting pct in the NBA this year by far.....so then it wouldn't be merely a result of the number of shots. Not sure what they deemed "by far," just repeating an argument I heard on sports talk radio rebutting a comment that was made by the play-by-play guy during the Rockets game last night. I'm not arguing for him over Giannis either. I'm all on board with Giannis. I feel like as he continues to get better shooting the 3 and improving his game, he's going to start a run where he's like MJ or LeBron and he only doesn't win MVP because they can't give it to him every year.

And potentially the most talented among the group, Terrance Murphy never got to play in the NFL. That was TT's position though. We'll have to see what Gute's are.

I've seen that and it scares the hell out of me. I really always wonder with guys who have great combines, but don't have great production. To me the combine tests 1 skill at a time, while the games test your ability to combine all those skills. I really don't think the Packers pass up the other options since I think there will be a lot of elite players falling, but just the mention of Metcalf to the Packers makes me anxious... Metcalf is certainly an athletic freak, but drafting him would scare the crap out of me. I just think he's a chronic hamstring strain waiting to happen. Professional athletes just can't function at 1.5 % body fat and take any sort of pounding. Body fat isn't necessarily a bad thing with these guys, as it provides some protection for muscle, tendons, ligaments and cartilage that isn't nearly as durable. I mean, I could be wrong on him, but I have a really hard time seeing Metcalf ever having a major impact in the NFL. Just too many red flags. I can tell you with ALMOST absolute certainty, he does not have 1.5 pct body fat. They throw these ridiculous numbers out. I doubt anyone remembers, but a few college wrestlers died in the late 90's from cutting weight and they implemented body fat tests. You could not go below about 6 pct without a parents signature or your own signature and then you still could only go down to 4.5 pct. You'd take those tests and if it showed you were .5 pounds away from being at the weight you wanted, you had to go up to Madison and get an exact measurement done. I've seen some absolute monsters who were 5-6 pct. AS big as or bigger than Metcalf with less body fat than him. They pull these numbers out of thin air using ridiculously inaccurate sets of data that can be SO easily manipulated by the person doing the test. I can make your body fat 8 pct or 13 pct by making a couple of centimeter change in a few places on your body. Sorry, this is just a pet peeve of mine. I'm about 99 pct sure he had someone do a skinfold test and skew the numbers. Don't get me wrong, he's ripped, but he's not 1.5 pct body fat just like Driver wasn't when he played.

I've seen that and it scares the hell out of me. I really always wonder with guys who have great combines, but don't have great production. To me the combine tests 1 skill at a time, while the games test your ability to combine all those skills. I really don't think the Packers pass up the other options since I think there will be a lot of elite players falling, but just the mention of Metcalf to the Packers makes me anxious... I agree with you normally, but even moreso on Metcalf. Brown was the 1st rounder on that team, not him. Now because he has a tweet in which he looks like a body builder and then runs fast he's suddenly a great WR'er? Please. Jerry Rice was skinny and slow(relatively speaking) and is by far the best ever. I want someone who's fluid, quick in and out of routes and not a body catcher if we're drafting a speedster to play in the slot. I'm happy Metcalf is moving up as long as it doesn't mean we take him. Of course, I feel the same way about Devin Bush(Michigan MLB'er). He wasn't a 1st rounder until well after the season. n fact, he was a disappointment. And I REALLY don't want to see a MLB'er at 12 if it's not White and even then, I have 6-8 people who are at least 80 pct likely to be there that I'd much rather see the Packers get. And honestly, I'm not sure Owen Burks isn't as good as Devin Bush anyway. I know he was banged up last year, but in the few snaps he got early he looked active and athletic. Oliver probably will be gone because teams are likely not as fickle as the writers who put these mock drafts out.

I think the root of that squabble was Jennings own pettiness. Jennings was asked a question and made a joke to the Redskins CB about it being a contract year. Rodgers made a joke to the Redskins CB about how they should sign him. I would think it may be because they were missing SOO badly at the time on free agents or maybe it was a dig at TT whom he knew wouldn't spend the money required. Either way, it's still the sole reason for Jennings believing he was done in GB and having an issue with Rodgers and the only example he's brought up in the past several years. It very well may have just been a throwaway line from Rodgers. I don't believe there's truth behind every joke. In fact I think that's kinda stupid. So agreed that they've both similar, very intelligent, I just can't find fault with Rodgers for saying something as benign as that. Now maybe not showing any support for him during the off-season, that I could see. I don't know how these players are with each other in that regard. But one line how many years ago in a game and Jennings is still holding on to that and calling Rodgers sensitive?

That "freezing out" of media members shouldn't be tolerated. It isn't in the New York media, and it isn't in the NBA. This should have been a Journal/Sentinel or Press-Gazette story. I don't get this statement. Who should it not be "tolerated" by? I personally have zero problems with this on principle and I know for a fact that this has happened with the Brewers. Not with MJS reporters, but very prominent local radio personalities because they had negative things to say about a player or the organization. It's been about 10 years since I've known and really talked to people that work there, but it's a private business at the end of the day(the Packers are technically owned by the public, but are effectively a private business). This isn't politics or something that has an impact on our everyday lives. Why shouldn't they have the right to not talk to someone who writes things they disagree with? And to be clear, this isn't me hating the media. I'm almost totally indifferent on the media. I believe in open records laws and the like. But maybe I'm not understanding you correctly here, but, again, I have no problem with this. Especially since I'm sure the Packers do not believe this article to be an accurate representation. So then you have the business feeling like it's being misrepresented and a writer causing problems. Why WOULDN'T you stop talking to him at that point?

Ok, but as long as that chip makes him throw the ball to the 6'4 and 6'5 guys who run REAL fast and not get all pissy because a couple of kids make a few mistakes, and that chip leads to change where he's taking those chain-moving completions that have been there often in the past that he's passed up while looking for the deep ball...that's all fine. If he just reads it and gets angry, he's just going to be more defensive and it may end up being more of a validation of the story than any benefit to Rodgers. Reading it 50 times would SEEM like the exact problem with him. To be clear, having a chip on your shoulder is great in any sport. Just tossing people aside with that level of passive-aggressive nonsense is not healthy for anyone in any way in any walk of life other than perhaps being a spy or an assassin in which you just ignore the people you've gotten upset with. I can't think of another area that works to your benefit. Maybe I'm wrong though. Maybe it will lead to some introspection.

Well, first of all, I agree with you 100 pct on Jennings. I'm so sick of hearing about that. I can see that being said in Jest and for 100 different reasons, the main one being that Rodgers knew Thompson doesn't like to spend on guys who are getting older. And that is THE main source of contention for Jennings. With regard to Finley, I don't care what he has to say. He just started popping up a little while back and all he talks about in this article is money. Rodgers and his 200 million dollar deal, Rogers sense of entitlement when he was broke. Finley was entitled when he was more broke and a 3rd round TE. With regard to Janis, I think you're being a bit harsh. He was a small school guy and I'm just hearing waaaaay too much about how Rodgers dealt with him and how he deals with other young players and you can see it a little bit on the field. Janis didn't play in a pro-style, he didn't know the routes, he wasn't a great route runner. I don't think calling him dumb is fair, but I can also see Rodgers just dismiss him because he runs the wrong routes. Finally, there is just way too much smoke with Rodgers. I really hoped he wasn't like Favre, but it sounds like he's just incredibly sensitive, something I've heard almost literally everyone who knows him say, not having a relationship with your parents is inexcusable IMO unless they used you, abused you when you were young, or truly mis-treated you. I don't know what happened, but those are your parents. Get over it. And if he can't do it in that case, how is he going to do it with anyone else? Coming out of 2010, every Packers fan thought we were starting a dynasty. 2019, this article answers a lot of questions as to why that never materialized. I'm still wrapping my head around some of this. But there's so much of it that you look back on and now makes sense. McCarthy talking about needing to run the ball more. Rodgers constantly changing the plays. Rodgers passing up the quick, short routes looking for the big plays down the field. That has been my single biggest issue with him as a player(actually....pretty sure that's my only issue). He CONSTANTLY, when healthy, passes up that TE that sits down 8 yards down the field, instead choosing to run out of the pocket, look for the big play, hold, hold.....and then finally try to check down if it's still there or throw it away. The offense, as old and stale as it may have been, ran really well at times when Rodgers got hurt. The Cowboys playoff game, the Seattle game, coming back this year vs the Bears. They still had playmakers. It's like the only thing that could make Rodgers a better player on the field is if he were better able to combine those two strengths like Mahomes does. If he could just keep taking what's there and then when he really needs to, then you bail out and you run the scramble drill. But the Packers offense the last few years has been back shoulder to Jones, Jordy and Adams and then Rodgers catching the D and scrambling trying to find a big play. Finally, as much as this article has my head spinning, there is a TON of room for optimism. Athletes start to know when that clark starts ticking. You can almost hear it...whatever level you're at or sport. It's like the tell-tale-clock. So get the hell over your issue with young WR'ers and get on the same page with St. Brown and MVS, because there's a very real chance those two are going to be your key players when you're 40 years old. They certainly have the talent to be. Man the eff up and talk to any coach you have a problem with on any play call. But more than that, they've got a whole new group in there, and I hope these guys can succeed where the outgoing group failed. That they can get Rodgers and the rest of the offense on the same page, not make the defense the red-headed step child, and that we have leaders like Kenny Clark,Amos, Za'Darius Smith(for whatever reason he strikes me as a vocal guy and a tough guy more than most) Bahktari, Bulaga, Linsley, Adams, and so on who can speak up, the added talent and toughness on defense can make them the top 10 unit that Pettine has had nearly every year(I think literally every year except for his first in GB) and that a fresh outlook will get Rodgers back on track. And even without the leadership issues that some have brought up, people seem to ignore the fact that Rodgers wasn't NOT THAT GOOD this past year. I don't care about TD's-INT's, that's never his problem. He missed too many guys who were running free. He missed probably a dozen throws this year that would have gone for ~40 or more. Not all TD's, but he missed more in this one year than I can remember him missing in any 3-4 others combined. So really troubling article that really answers a lot of questions, one that I find about 90 pct credible(I loved J-Mike, but I just think he's bitter and he was undisciplined early and then when he got his act together his career was unceremoniously ended and he's...just bitter, hence the reference to 200 million every time he shares an opinion). But my two takeaway's moving forward, hopefully now that this is out there, they can figure out what the hell they need to avoid and I am actually kinda impressed with the organization's ability to keep this all quiet for this long while annoyed that this was allowed to go on. Edit-A 3rd takeaway. Too few adults, too many divas. You are 100 pct right about that. In fact Ryan Grant might be the only guy who comes off good in this article as he doesn't seem to have any agenda and seems like he's genuinely more worried about solutions than blame....even though he's not part of the org any longer.

This just isn't true. They moved on from House because they had two of the top Corners in the league, but his first year in Jax he was fine. As for Heyward, he was a day one starter who played every snap until he started getting hurt and his production started to wane. Suggesting what Heyward did was the fault of how he was managed is no the least bit accurate IMO. As for House, pretty much the only thing he was average at was playing press coverage against big WR'ers on the outside. The thing that Heyward struggles the most win. So.....hard to blame them for going with matchup's. But the job was always Heyward's for the taking. He had a great rookie year, was hurt or ineffective the next two and then just ok his FA year. Last year he was as bad as House has ever been with the Chargers.

oh absolutely. I wonder how much of Murphy's weird decision making had to do with the mass exodus of GM "hopefuls" at the time Gute was selected vs. just leaving because they weren't chosen. The assumption is that they just left because they didn't get the job, but not always - depends on the organization and it appears Murphy has created a bad environment. The Triumvirate was just bad leadership... I'm working my way through this thread as I missed a lot, but while they were losing a lot of guys that were highly regarded and well known to us Packers fans, they were rebuilding a staff that may be even more respected as they took some top talent evaluators from other organizations during this time period.

When people talk about how great the pen was last year, they are talking about after the stretch run. Saying Burnes and Woodruff weren't there before the stretch run does nothing to diminish how important they were in making the bullpen the strength of a championship contender last year. The bullpen was struggling before Knebel returned in top form and Woodruff/Burnes joined the pen. They were in danger of missing the playoffs completely before the bullpen took over in August/September. It's totally fair to say they lost Woodruff and Burnes from the bullpen, because the bullpen was the positive difference in a lot of wins last year and they contributed to many of them. I agree. I assume when people are talking about wanting a dominant BP, their concern is about Sept and Oct. The playoff push and then the actual playoffs. And when we talk about how it was our great pen that got us where it did last year, we're talking about when we were at our best. And that absolutely included Burnes and Woodruff in the pen. The conversation is past how to be competitive and is now how can we get closer to teams like the Astros, Sox, Yankees and Dodgers.

I'm trying to think who would be the best option. I don't like the idea of any of them being pulled from the rotation. Burnes certainly seems like he'd be the best reliever. He was effectively a RH'ed Hader late last year, but he does have 4 pitches and the upside to make him an ace(I'd argue all 3 young arms could be low end aces or #2, though they're still a long way away from that). It'll almost certainly be one of them, probably Woodruff as I don't think Davies is much more valuable in the pen. Really excited to see how this team has jumped out to a 4-1 start though with the bad news that came right before the season started. I don't think the decision will be based on who could be the best reliever, rather who is the worst starter. I would be surprised if that was Burnes or Woodruff, seems like Davies going into the season but watching one time though the rotation Peralta could be an option as well. I think it is few weeks out yet for Nelson anyway, by then someone could be injured or the decision could look like an easy one. I could see it either way. Davies isn't exactly the type of guy who's going to help your BP out much in a short series or a must win series, though you don't feel too bad about throwing him out there to pitch 4 innings or however long until he gets in trouble and then when the game starts to develop and you NEED outs and you can't afford to lose games, you can pick and choose when to use a Burnes or Woodruff type. My point is that the difference between them as starters may not be as big as the difference between them as relievers. In that case, I'd go with the guy who'd be a better BP fit. And then if they want to limit the innings, I think it becomes a bit more clear.

Burnes and Woodruff are leaving a pretty big hole too. Bullpen fortunes are whimsical and they could revamp the pen quickly, but the Brewers are on the wrong end of things in a big way right now IMO. Honestly though I think they just have to weather the storm until closer to the trade deadline, cliche as that may sound. They should be able to score a lot of runs. Cliche's are cliche's for a reason. That's pretty much the best I think most informed Brewers fans are hoping for the first couple months. I'd have been happy with a .500 April. I'd have been happier with Ottavino than Moose, but I'll stop kicking that horse. Woody and Burnese are leaving holes as well, that's certainly true. Which is why it'd be great if the could sign Kimbrel and then at the trade deadline at another arm or two. You can find plenty of depth without giving up too much at the deadline. Soria types. It's far tougher to find dominant relievers like many believe Will Smith will be this year or Kimbrell has been his entire career. Sooner or later, the guy who's on record stating that his goal is to break the all-time saves record is going to have to decide how much he really wants to play and how much he's going to cost himself. Take whenever he signs, add at least 3 weeks I'd guess. So right now he's looking at missing a month. There is a team with an offer that was one game away from the WS last year and wants you to close games for them. The longer he misses, the more he's susceptible to putting up bad numbers given it's a short sample size to begin with and the further away he gets from the monster deal he thought he deserved. Come back, pitch a year, put up an ERA like he has just about every year of his career, don't melt down in the postseason and you can get a 5 year 85-90 million dollar deal...or you're more likely to. Keep waiting and that becomes less likely IMO.

Good. That's the kind of impulsive move that got them in this situation in the first place. It's not going to get them out of it; it's just going to prolong it. I hate to say it, but I think you have to ride the young arms pretty hard early in the season to buy time. They'll hit innings limits early, but that gives you time to make other plans for the stretch run (Nelson, Jeffress, trades, maybe some AAA guys like Brown). I'd easily take that option over backing up the money truck for Kimbrel. Sure, but shutting them down, particularly if they're pitching well is going to be easier said than done. If they're in the same position they're in last year, it's gonna be interesting to see how they address it. The results will probably end up doing that for you, ie, Peralta runs out of gas or whomever it may be. But if they're still going strong and the Brewers are back in the NLCS?

They said all offseason that they had no money and their actions backed that up. At least the words, I don't think anyone believes they have no money. Maybe if they keep losing they'll sign one but until then, I don't think they'll even entertain it and if they're still losing are they really going to give a big contract out, have them spend a month getting in game shape without helping the big league roster and then hope they bring enough value to make the signing worth it? They do have the 2nd highest payroll according to spotrac at 210. For some reason I thought they were being a little cheap in not adding to that pen, but they're only behind the Sox and I think THEY are more than Kimbrel away from solving their current problems. Now the Braves on the other hand, how is that team with basically a 6 state market below the league average in payroll and 10 million below us? It's not like they're rebuilding. I'd like to see the Brewers sign Kimbrel, but if they don't, I'm hardly going to be upset with Mark A's commitment to the team and winning. Pretty sure I'd feel differently if I was a Braves fan. By the way, just wondering based on opinions, worse contract, Jason Heyward or Yu Darvish? Heyward, a corner OF with an OPS+ of 80 since signing a 8/184 deal(that Cubs fans on twitter insist is a player that has value and teams should be trying to trade for). Or Yu Darvish and his beautiful 6 year 126 million dollar deal that since he's signed before last year he's thrown a total of 57 IP with an ERA+ 83. They COULD have Ian Happ playing in Heyward's spot and...well, since Darvish hasn't been healthy anyway, whoever is pitching in his place now and they'd have been able to sign Harper. Tell me again how much of a genius Theo is?

What's sad is he's far from being the only one who cares about this crap. Molina gets all pissy about this type of stuff. For instance. LaRussa could just imagine an insult and start directing his pitchers to throw at Brewers heads. It's not just the Cards, but they seem to be the most obvious. The Brewers, on the other hand, they're far from over the top, but they just have fun. Remember when them untucking their shirts got people riled up? I mean....seriously? Untucking your shirt after the final out is "feud" worthy. The chasm between football and baseball is laughable. You make a tackle after a gain of 6, down 28 and you do a dance or whatever. In baseball, if you hit a game-winning HR and don't put your head down and you show some emotion, you're breaking the unwritten rules.

Yeah, come to think of it, I like that idea. We have enough of these "Mexican countries," getting dumped on without some moron pitcher doing it because guys actually show emotion while playing a game. It's like when Carlos Gomez was atop all these lists of most unsportsmanlike MLB players when I just thought he was so much fun to watch and actually cared. He did a few things I didn't like, but as a whole, loved the guy. Plus, he just sounds sooo antithetical to the Brewers current clubhouse. The only problem with Biloxi is it sounds like he's going to be yelling and riding the guys who have more talent than him relentlessly and then "reporting back to the manager," so they can get fined. Let him go back to STL so they can continue their hypocrisy when it comes to doing things the right way.

True....I'd feel a lot better if we had a couple ace relievers to help prop that sky up though. Honestly, I expected this to be a bad month for us. I thought .500 would be great. Get through the first month healthy and at .500 and given the awful news we got to start the year, we'd be in good shape. I always thought chemistry in baseball was kinda stupid. I mean, it's helpful to a point, you feel the support of the guys around you, but Baseball is an individual sport...it's not like football or basketball. This team is starting to make me question that. They're just so resilient and I didn't think the 1 run victories were a fluke with Hader and a guy with an ERA around 1.2, plus several other really solid BP guys, but who would have thought we'd be on the RIGHT side of all these one run wins this year? Maybe it's our manager. Pushing the right buttons so consistently. I don't know if we finish 1st or 4th in the NLC, but this team is fun to watch.

What a totally stupid post you made(though I had the very same doubts and was wondering if Peralta may be the odd man out if/when Nelson comes back). Peralta to the minors? Pfft…. Seriously, I want you to post this about Woodruff and Burnes the next two days and lets just see how it goes. If Spahn and Sain the next two days, this should become a ritual.

That's a very interesting take. I knew his dad was a pro ball player, but little more. The only thing I would say is that he's already proven he can not only be a good, but great major leaguer. So he's way ahead of where his Dad ever was. Still, at 21, that has to be a pretty strong influence on him and his family. Watching his dad spend his life grinding it out and now he can sign this deal and life in luxury. I do wonder if it was the Braves that wanted the extra years or the player. Obviously the Braves wanted FA years or you don't even think about doing this. But the last 2 for instance.....I wonder if the Braves wanted that many FA years in order to commit this much, of if Acuna wanted that guarantee. Either way, just an awesome move if you're a Braves fan. Especially since they seem like one of the cheapest teams in baseball relative to their revenue.

If a person isn't happy with $100M they won't be happy with $300M... You can be happy and still be upset with losing out on 200 million dollars.