HiAndTight

One spot ahead of the Cubs, but the Cubs are projected to win 4 more games. Hmm ... new math is complicated. Well, power rankings are now and always have been subjective. But just the loss of Knebel and Jeffress the past week+ would make up for those 4 wins. And frankly, just based on projetions, I would think the Cubs would be projected to have an even wider margin. The Brewers seem to be more than the sum of their parts. If I'm a Cubs fan, I'm really upset my team isn't going after Kimbrel. You gave up what looks like at least 2 future superstars to add Chapman and Quintana, so you're willing to give up a massive amount of value in terms of personell, but you're not in on the best pitcher at the area you have the biggest need? If the Brewers can afford 150 million, the Cubs should easily be able to afford far more than 250 million in payroll with the luxury tax hit that brings. Speaking of those trades, I remember at the time being almost happy that the Cubs gave up what they did to get Quintana, but man, that loosk so much better from a Brewers fans perspective today. A Vlad Jr. caliber prospect who is going to be hitting .300, jacking 30 with a nice OBP and a low K rate for 6 years after the Cubs part ways with Quintana Then throw in a potential future ace in Dylan Cease? And then there's the Yankees trade...which won them a WS, but the two together may have cost them a dynasty. Imagine what they'd look like right now with Torres, Jimenez, Cease and all the rest of those guys? They'd be like the Padres with their young talent on top of a team that won 95 games. Sorry, kinda got off on my own happy tangent there.

Claudio also pitches with his left hand. I don't want to speak for someone, but I kinda took that to mean another left handed specialist and he just didnt' word it correctly. Of course Claudio isn't exactly a household name yet.

His 3.20/3.34/3.47 ERA/FIP/xFIP for one. Since his debut in 2014, he's one of the 30 best relievers (min. 200 IP) in the park adjusted versions of all three categories. That's what he's not good at. He is however far better than Jennings against lefties, and Jennings isn't great at getting righties out either. To illustrate his abilities against lefties, since his debut in 2014 he has a wOBA against (Which is not park adjusted FWIW) of .216. Which is the 2nd best in the majors (Minimum 60 IP, the default setting for the splits leaderboard) behind Sean Doolittle. That includes both starters and relievers. 6th highest GB% in the majors in that time, .1% behind Jared Hughes. 13th highest soft contact % per fangraphs, again per the sample above. Statcast has him as the unluckiest pitcher in all of baseball in 2018 with regards to difference between BA and xBA. Average exit velocity against was good but not elite (56 out of 310 pitchers with 250 batted ball events recorded (The default setting)). .1 mph off Blake "0.78 ERA" Treinen. Very He is Nor does he walk anyone. Thank you. I knew the first line as it was used when we traded for him, one of the top pitchers with a minimium of 200 IP in those categories, but the information about the soft contact and everything else was extremely nice to know. I just don't trust soft tossing lefties. Even if you prove to me with empircal evidence this guy is a good pitcher and my brain KNOWS we should be able to trust him to be very effective vs lefties and be a stable in the pen, I think of the Corbin Burnes-esque talent available at pick #39(which IIRC is what we traded for him..if not, around there). Of course that pick woulda been gone with the Grandal signing anyway. Anway, again, thanks. Really nice breakdown on a guy that I was too lazy to look up and more in depth than I'd have gone. Also, you just said he was as good as Blake Treinen, so if he ever struggles, I willl hold you personally accountable and make it my signature that you claimed we had a pitcher who was only slightly worse than him... I don't need to bother to make that last part blue when it's laid on that thick, do I?

I don't like any of those options. I don't want to send Anderson down(not even sure if he has an option, but if he doesn't, don't want to lose him for a loogy. Hader is as effective a he is exactly because he's NOT a closer. We can bring him in with 1 out in the 7th to get Votto and Gennett out(though there'd likely be a right inbetween the two) and then bring him back in the 8th to leave the bottom of the order for our closer. In fact, I think that had a lot to do with JJ's numbes last year. He started out the year and he wasn't the normal SU man and he didn't have to get the best hitters on the other team out in a close game late. If you make Hader a closer, he's just another guy...not nearly the weapon he is now. Also, people are sleeping on Anderson. I know he had trouble keeping the ball in the park last year, but I still like him. He's got good stuff and his fastball, curve combo might play up in the pen. And he may well see time in our rotation yet this year. Again, remember when there was a real debate on this thread in 2017 about who should start a game one or a WC game if we got to one, Nelson or Anderson? He struggled last year, but I wouldn't write him off.

Ever since Stearns became GM, he's poured over DFA's and low-level free agents at this time of year, and pretty consistently has turned over the 24th-25th man right before the start of the season. If they see a guy out there and theoretically is better than Thames or Barnes/Williams, they could very well make a move. I don't think that is any indication that Kimbrel is on his way, though. In fact, I would HIGHLY doubt that Kimbrel would immediately be added to the 25-man roster even if he's signed. He may be keeping himself is some sort of shape, but he still missed all of Spring Training. I don't mean to pee in anyone's Cheerios, but we gotta look at this logically. Stearns should’ve kept his mouth shut on this one, if what you say is correct. This team needs a closer that can be counted on, and I’m pretty confident in saying we’re not gonna get that with the waiver wire pick up, why take a chance on this being our Achilles’ heel? Wow...that's incredibly harsh. He could be saying the door is still open on Kimbrel. He could be saying he's he's looking at other avenues to trade for pitchers as I suggested. I would doubt he's talking about waiver wire pick up in THIS context when everyone in Milwaukee is talking about Knebel and JJ. But even if he was, why should he keep his mouth shut? Even if it IS a normal throw away line from every other year, that's a really harsh reaction. That's a bit over the top on Stearns. He's always done a good job at being proactive and addressing issues as much as he could. That's not always possible, but he's trying. Just the fact that there were reports that Kimbrel is deciding between us and the Braves shows this is a unique situation. We shouldn't be anywhere NEAR a Craig Kimbrel discussion. We should at best be in a David Robertson, Adam Ottavino discussion. But yet we are because he's trying to keep this team atop the NLC and push it 5 more wins further.

Still, I think I can say with 100% certainty that Kimbrel would not be immediately added to the 25-man roster if signed, as you can't just show up and immediately pitch high-leverage big league innings without any sort of spring training. That leads me to believe that Stearns is not referring to Kimbrel. You CAN....you'll probably just have results similar to Greg Holland had with the Cards last year. I do think that was a little bit of a teaser that they're still waiting on Kimbrel or haven't moved on yet since DS has to know that's the guy he's really being asked about or people really want to know about. That said, there are teams with really good relievers who are young and talented we could look at. The Giants have been mentioned...there are likely other teams that have talented young arms who won't compete this year and would rather trade for them now if they can get a big talent into their system. I like the Corey Ray for a young, really high upside reliever and a really good veteran type like the Giants trade proposal.

Those are pretty different situations though. Bell signing for what he did as early as he did was a little confusing, but the Steelers seem like a bit of a mess right now and while it was easy to point to Bell and Brown, the way the GM came out and talked about the rest of the team vs Big Ben, talking about how he has to get 52 "kids" on the same page...the problem in Pitt seems to rest on the QB's shoulders and GM's shoulders as much as anyone. That was an observation, not a judgement - and I agree that the Steelers' dysfunction goes deeper than Bell and Brown. I'm a little surprised by this. It was all over the press last September. Several were highly critical of him for holding out. A search of the Internet will come up with a pile of articles on the subject. The alienation comment was specifically about Bell's situation - how it turned out badly for him - but the observation about giving up an entire year's salary and being no better off after it is the commonality and shouldn't be dismissed because you disagree with one comment. Well, I didn't follow it that closely. The last I'd seen was them publicly supporting him, and it sounds like they were until he didn't report in time for week 1, and it sounds like it was the same group, that had previously been supporting him. The only comments I've found were Reuben Fosters which seemed way out of line. He took to twitter to say that Bell's making 7 times what he's making and twice what Villenueva is making and they're the guys who "do it for him?" I think that's a little silly. Bell's an elite back game changing player who is one of the best recieving backs in a long time catching 80 a year and one of the best runners. https://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2018/9/6/17826802/leveon-bell-steelers-linemen-beef-tweets-contract-holdout-complicated In any event, I had not heard that. You are correct. Though I did see tweets(one from AB in particular) supporting Bell. So just more of a dysfunctional locker room. Generally, players if they don't support the player holding out or trying to get a new contract done, they don't go public with it. It's an un-written rule in sports. You don't talk about someone else's money. That said, you're correct, I missed Foster's comments(and the article suggests he was speaking for the rest of his OL). I didn't dismiss it. I just don't see any similarity to Bell. I'd say it's more similar to the countless players in his own sport who hold out up until and through spring training. Usually not as talented, but they owe no allegiance to anyone and they're unlikely to sit out the whole year. I also doubt they end up with less when they do sign(though possible like with Grandal assuming the reporting was true). It does seem like it almost always hurts the pitchers. Offensive players can wait and get back into the flow rather quickly. Getting ready to pitch in the big leagues is entirely different and guys often struggle, at least early on like Holland did last year for the Cardinals. But frankly I didn't really take that strong of a stance to your post either way. I agreed it didnt' end up helping Bell out. Bell and Pitt had been going back and forth for multiple years. I think they should have just paid him frankly and I think the franchise tag is unfair to the players(who only have themselves to blame, still, in such a violent sport, it's unfair) and I think Bell is so unique that he deserves a bigger deal than a guy like Gurley got....and even AFTER holding out and going to a team with 100 million in cap room he didn't get it. So I agreed with you there. I just didn't see the correlation to the Baseball players. Sorry for the mis-understanding, but I didn't intend to sound dismissive. Which does raise another point. Given that guys usually struggle when they sit out for a while, how long should we even consider these guys for? If you're waiting until the QO no longer applies, you're probably only going to get a good half a year of them with their arms built up and in peak in-season performance. I've never been a big fan of Kuechel...I'd MUCH rather wait until next year when there is a great pitching class and only recently have I gotten on board the "overpay Kimbrel," board due to injuries to our two best right handed relievers.

It's understandable for a Packer fan to think that way because they've had such a rash of injuries particularly on defense the last couple seasons and they've parted ways with some veterans who were beyond their prime. But the fact is it's stars that get teams over the hump and they added solid but unspectacular veterans in FA to bolster overall talent on that side of the ball. I don't think they'll get a shot at Bosa at number 3, but if they think he's an impact All Pro disruptive defensive linemanm it might be time to roll the dice and hope that finally one of these years the core of the defense will stay intact an entire season. Absolutely. Especially after just missing on Mack last year. Bosa...Allen if he's as good as some think. I certainly wouldn't go up for Williams just because 3-4 DT's seldom can make the type of difference we need. But if you could bring in two guys who could be counted on to get 40-60 hurries and 7-8 sacks, and a rookie with all-pro potential who you could almost count on to get 10+ sacks....you've gotta do it. I definitely see the logic in wanting to improve several positions, but real, big time impact players kinda do that by themselves. And in the 2nd round, AJ Brown could be available, Parris Campbell who someone else mentioned could be a big addition, playing the slot, running the occasional Jet Sweep to keep the other team honest, along with returning kicks. Then you add depth with the 3rd, 2 4th and next 4 picks.

Hope so. Claudio looks better to me. I wasn't real high on Jennings, but he was pretty effective, was, as mentioned, a rubber arm and he could get out the occasional righty. As for Claudio, what about him looks good? Can he get righties out at all? I know he was a closer for a minute, but does he get GB's? Soft contact? Does he have an odd deliver? I'm just looking at the surface numbers and he looks like a soft tossing lefty who doesn't strike anyone out. Am I missing something?

Those are pretty different situations though. Bell signing for what he did as early as he did was a little confusing, but the Steelers seem like a bit of a mess right now and while it was easy to point to Bell and Brown, the way the GM came out and talked about the rest of the team vs Big Ben, talking about how he has to get 52 "kids" on the same page...the problem in Pitt seems to rest on the QB's shoulders and GM's shoulders as much as anyone. I also didn't hear anything negative coming out of the locker room about Bell. Maybe you did, but NFL players usually support the player in that type of scenario. But the main difference is that Bell was under control whereas Kuechel doesn't have teammates to alienate. He's a FA. Who is there to feel alienated or abandoned? Those would be Astro's players and I doubt they're worried about him as loaded as they are.

Possible, but I think it's more likely this: Stearns: Hey, since no one is offering you a multi-year deal, we’d be willing to give you this high AAV deal for 1-2 years Kimbrel’s agent: He's the best, most proven closer in MLB and there's no way we're not asking for and getting at least a 4 year deal. I think it ends there, and that's where we are. Kimbrel's camp will continue to find other teams that will offer a long-term deal, and keep pushing the Brewers, Braves, etc. for this as well. Eventually, if no one blinks, they'll come back looking for mas money on a one year deal. Could be wrong, but that's what I think is going on. Knebel/Jeffress situation doesn't help, but that doesn't change their demand for multiple years, and the Brewers/Braves unwilling to offer that. Because that doesn't change before, during, after the Knebel/Jeffress news. I'm fine with the Brewers going even deeper to sign Kimbrel...and if they have to because of the injuries a 2 year deal, as bad an idea as that may be under normal circumstances, you at least have an elite reliever for 2 years, and if you DO get Knebel and JJ back, you've got a Yankee like pen. But 4 years is stupid, 4 years could impact a Yelich extension, or really just any future investments. I would do 2 years absolute max and...I can't even believe I'm saying this, but 2 years and 40 million if that's what it takes. Given what Stearns has done and the young talent we have, I don't really see a defined window. This isn't like the Packers where you have Rodgers and the window is while he's here. Don't sacrifice that much for a closer. One who for the record was as bad as JJ last year in the Championship series if memory serves(he may not have given up the runs, but he was ugly) and who wasn't the same last year.

Well, with Attansio, that'd be a lot higher than 170! I see your point though, obviously he's not going to lose 100 million this year, so there is some limit. But what you're talking about potentially happening....it's already happened to this team and to add the type of talent that we could now, you're talking about giving up significant assets AND money whereas now we can just give up the money. Look at what the Cubs gave up for half a season of Chapman? Torres alone is crazy. I just think the scenario that you're saving this money for has already come to fruition as the most reliable part of our BP has been rocked with injuries to Knebel and Jeffress and I'd rather address it now than wait to see if we can get them healthy...or if we have other issues arise that would require that money. There are 4 good teams in the NLC and the Pirates aren't terrible. We have a tough first half and we can't afford to fall too far out while we're trying out unproven relievers. Of course I think if Kimbrel was willing to take a big salary over 1 year, something around the QO, he'd have already signed.

I actually disagree. Look at the leap the Bears D made this past year with the addition of Mack? Look at the Packers '96 defense. They had some guys who were aging stars in Sean Jones and Dotson, but both were past their prime. It was Reggie and Butler. The 2010 team had Clay and Woodson and then you had Howard rBrown starting, just a big guy they signed off the street to clog up the running game. . And Nick Collins and BJ Raji. Yeah, you can debate where exactly they fall. Neither were elite players. Collins was coming on overall in his career. Raji was pretty good for a couple years. Is Raji as good as Hicks is for the Bears, or Collins as good as Eddie Jackson? Better? Not sure. I just know if you have an elite pass rusher, Mack, Reggie, everyone looks a lot better and esecially in the front, you get a lot more 1 on 1's.

If they didn't think the price was right for Khalil Mack, why would they pay more for an untested Josh Allen? From everything I've read they did think the price was right for Mack and went after him very hard, the Raiders just believed the Packers 1st round picks would be late 1sts while the Bears would be earlier firsts. And had they made that trade, that likely would have been the case. The Bears gave up back to back 1sts, a 3rd, a 5th and then 142 million to sign him. That's a bit more than trading the 30th pick in the draft to move up to the 3rd pick(plus whatever later round picks) to get someone. But I haven't see any evidence that it was the Packers who didn't believe Mack was "worth it." In fact, it sounded like they were the last team bidding against the Bears. I do like the idea of getting back Lee. A 1st round pick from just two years ago. Not sure where he'll play in New York this year with Mosley there.

No offense but there was a 5 - 6 year stretch leading up to the back to back Final Fours where this exact same type of post would show up about Bo. In fairness, he does say it WAS dying, suggesting that even before Gard it was dying. I don't really believe that's the case. We're never going to get the type of athletes the big schools get, just like football. Even Tyler Herro, a kid from Whitnall opted to go to Kentucky(and is now a projected lottery pick). But the key then is recruiting kids who play your style better. Maybe we're just hitting a little bit of a lull that we'd have hit regardless. But the NCAA streak has come to an end, the top 4 fnish in the B10 has come to an end and it just doesn't look like the same type of team on the court.

This is really getting kinda nit-picky. He's played in 75 pct of the games 4 times. It's a arbitrary number anyway saying he's only played in 75 pct of the games 3 times. He's had injuries. Namely two ACL's. Those are almost always the result of bad luck. A linemen engaged and someone rolling up on him. That said, he's healthy right now, 30 years old, he has a manageable cap number and is an elite pass blocking RT when healthy. It'd be foolish to cut him. If you really wanted to part ways with one of the more important players on the roster, you could almost certainly trade him. This is nothing like Josh Sitton. Tackles worse than Bulaga are getting 15 million a year. It's far more likely he's back for another year than it is he is cut before this year begins IMO. Bulaga games played per year; 16,12,9,15,12,16,5(torn ACL),14 He's coming off a ACL, played in 14 games and has one year left on his deal. I'm still not seeing the rationale for possibly cutting him when we've seen how bad this team has looked when it's been without one of it's two tackles since they've drafted Bahktari. Even if Taylor drops to you in the 1st round, why would you even consider cutting ties with when thee single biggest factor in your franchises performance is your star QB who's been hurt in each of the last 3 years? I'd rather not throw Billy Turner a journeyman OL who we signed primarily to play guard, or even Taylor, a top tackle prospect up against Khalil Mack to open the season just so Rodgers can be hobbled for most of the year again.

That definitely is the luxury that Gute gave you by signing not one, but TWO good OLB'ers, a difference making safety and then hopefully a better backup swing tackle who plays guard by day. It would be incredibly unlikely they'd take Ed Oliver in the 1st had they not signed at least one of the two Smith's. Now if he drops... This draft though more than any other in recent memory has so many differing opinions on guys. I've seen Little as a mid 1st and I've seen him as a late 3rd. I've also seen Fant gone before we pick and Hockenson going around 12. I'll still be hoping for Allen to drop a bit, 4 QB's to be targeted in the 1st and the Packers moving up to get him. Outside of that highly unlikely scenario, BPA and then Iowa TE or Irv Smith if the Iowa guys are gone.

I think you're absolutely right. I was half hoping that UV would lose in the 1st round again so that maybe they'd fire Bennett and we could scoop him up. I had no opinion of Gard when Bo stepped down. It seemed like Bo was going to forced Barry into keeping Gard. Wisconsin Basketball isn't exactly a hotbed of talent, and UW is a far-far tougher school to get into for athletes than most in the country. It does feel like we had that momentum of consistently churning out good teams, we always had a Kaminsky backing up a Leur who could step in as Soph, Jr and help lead the team(not quite a Kaminsky). They were somewhat competitive this year because of Happ, but he had arguably the best career in UW history. I don't see him coming again and anyone watching this team had to know that they were very unlikely to make a run in the tourney. You need good, smart guard play and you've got to be able to hit your FT's and 3's especially in the tourney. Happ was none of those things...which is fine, he was still outstanding, but there just wasn't enough around him to make a run. There were talks about Shaka Smart the last time when Bo was on his way out. Now 4 years into his tenure at UT and he's 2-2 in making the Tournament and there's some talk he may not be back. I doubt they fire him after this year, but I also doubt the Badgers fire Gard. Perhaps if the Badgers are as bad as they look like they could be next year and UT doesn't make it again, we might have a Madison native coaching both main sports!

Well, first of all, I'd have gladly given Clay 5 million to come back. He's still clearly worth that much. But nowhere in my post did I even suggest the Packers should have signed him. I pointed out he made one of the biggest plays in Packers history, but it seems to be a play that few really remember, then said it was hard to believe that he had higher offers and then and suggested that maybe he had a higher offer, but with less real(read-guaranteed money in it). Even if that is what I said, I think Clay's career with the Packers amounts to a bit more than one play 9 years ago. That seemed a little unecessarily snide. You're suggesting I'm advocating for signing(and again, didn't even advocate giving Clay the deal) Howard Green because he had a big play 9 years ago(hitting Big Ben as he threw it on the Collins pick).

I feel like people have forgotten that Clay may have saved that SB win for us when he came crashing in late in the game and forced a fumble that the Packers recovered near mid-field when the Steelers were driving. That said, hard to believe he was getting offered more than 2/16.5 with incentives. Perhaps a 3 year 30 million dollar deal that didn't have any more real money in it in two years than the Rams did I guess.

I'm not opposed to that idea either. I guess it comes down to health and expected effectiveness for the money. They'll decide whether, like Cobb, you're willing to carry relievable cap number for 7-10 games or so. Unfortunately, right now at least, the free agent market on offensive tackles is pretty slim. You're either looking at taking a flyer on a guy like George Fant, or a different formerly strong tackle who is now either old or an injury risk. Those guys include Jermey Parnell, Jared Veldheer, Matt Kalil or Chris Clark. If Kalil is finally healthy he would be a solid option, likely for roughly the same kind of money as Bulaga. And laughably bad production. Not sure what happened to him by the way. Looked good out of the gate(first couple years) then dropped off a cliff). You'd also have to swing him over to RT for a year. This is one of those things to me that really isn't even a discussion. You have a 29 year old RT on a bargain deal(not comprable to Cobb as one plays a FAR-FAR more important position and makes significantly less). He's had some injuries, but he finished last year healthy after coming back from an ACL. If you want to get rid of him, at least trade him in camp for a nice draft pick for all those teams that missed out on the "privledge" of paying Nate Solider and company 16 million a year(or whoever the latest Pats FA tackle is who only has to block for about 1.2 seconds as they seemingly run an endless number of zig routes or HB in the flat route with the occasionally dazzling 12 yard pass to Gronk mixed in to keep the lid off the D!).

Problem is, Bulaga has rarely stayed healthy throughout his career- he's only played in more than 75% of the games 3 times in his career thus far. Obviously, the Packers will be better able to make a decision on his health and effectiveness better than we will, but I think there's a strong chance that if they're presented with a better option, they'll cut him if they feel that he either isn't a good bet to stay healthy or ineffective if he does. Also, not sure where you're seeing the $23million and change for the cap- they're closer to $14 at this point, and $7-8 million when factoring in the draft class. Bulaga has played in 75 pct of the games in 6 of his 8 seasons....not seeing where you come up with 3. And he has had two torn ACL's. A huge concern for a WR'er or a CB obviously...not nearly so much so for a RT. He played in 9 games in 2012 and 5 games in 17, the only years he hasn't played in 75 pct of the games since he became a Packer. And I think there's a strong chance that if they're presetnted with a better option, they'd cut literally anyone on the team. But, again, Billy Taylor, more of an issue with injuries than Bulaga. 4 years nearly 29 million dollars. Where do you think they're finding these better deals? I really fail to see why if they kept him last year AFTER coming back from the ACL injury and performing well, they'd suddenly decide to cut him now. It's one thing to cut a guy like Sitton, or Lang(Who wasn't cut, but still). But to move on from Bulaga, a guy that the Vikings or Lions or probably about 27 teams in the NFL would LOVE to have for such a relatively cheap cap number after he came back and played in 14 games last year would make very little sense to me.

Those guys have the longest careers of any position other than QB, Kicker and Punter. And who are the guys that have been studs on the Packers lines and then seen that sudden decline? And it's the NFL. Bulaga is about an average sized RT. Heck, he might even be on the smaller side. They're all mountain of men. The real problem with Bulaga is he's had two lower body injuries that have caused him to miss two games and make him look more injury prone than he is.

I think it'd be totally ridiculous to bring a guy in at a substantially higher cap rate who's a significantly inferior player only to cut Bulaga who has a very reasonable cap number this year. Just because it's the highest doesn't mean it should be cut. Point being, we brought in that depth on the OL and we were so desperate for it, we gave a guy who's never been a good starter 4 years and over 28 million dollars. You think they're then gonna cut Bulaga just once they've attained SOME semblence of depth? I don't get the Nelson comparision. A WR'er with a knee issue, aging and losing even a half step causes a significantly bigger impact on their play. There's also the fact that the Packers aren't huting for cap room. Why cut the guy who's going to be blocking Mack when we play the Bears for Billy Turner, the guy who couldn't make it two years in Miami, a week with the Ravens and has started just 4 games at RT last year?

Ok, I'm with you...kinda. But where you start to lose me is when you even bring up Bud and Ueck. To what end? Bud Selid is the greatest figure in the history of Milwaukee Baseball. I think most of us accept that. Ueck is the most beloved. We get that as well. I'm missing any correlation between them and how much Mark A spends. I'd also say that your rosy picture of old school business owners spending whatever it took to win as being just laugahably incorrect. There are jokes about guys like Ted Williams getting cut after he went from hitting .400 to hitting .380 or whatever. Baseball owners have always been extremely greedy, though one of the few today who really can't be accused of this is Mark A. Now you may feel he "owes" us because we spend more per capita than any other fan base, but that's partially because we've got a tiny fan base. And you keep doting on Mike Illitch. He was a multi-billionaire desperate to see his team win before he died, so he threw around money. He didn't care. Once he died, they started slashing the payroll. I think both sides are pretty skewed on this. Mark A didn't buy a NORMAL business, so lets not pretend he did. He bought a cash cow that relies on public financing in part(the stadium) and on the fan base to spend money to keep his team solvent. We've done MORE than enough on our end. The question seems to be if Mark A has done enough on his end. Not sure how you say no at this point. He hasn't refused to sign Kimbrel for example, he simply hasn't done it YET. The players he's let go...with the excetion of Grienke, were all wise decisions and he's spent when we've needed him to. So what we're owed as opposed to what we're getting is a totally, 100 pct subjective question and it can't possibly be answered factually. Less hyperbole and thinnly vieled politics in this thread might help each other understand what the other is trying to say more clearly.