HiAndTight

Just read that the Colts and Andrew Luck reached a "Settlement," regarding his signing bonus and his roster bonus. The Colts could have asked for 25 million back from Luck and he'd have owed it. The Lions forced Calvin Johnson to pay back part of his signing bonus at the time he retired. The Colts basically said, "keep it," and then Jim Irsay talked about how much he respected Luck for walking away saying he could have made 400-500 million more, but he couldn't look at his teammates in the eye and say he was "all in," and how much character that takes. So the two don't sound like they could be parting on much better terms. My very low opinion of Irsay just went up. 25 million is a lot...even for billionaires and NFL franchises(just think how big the bag of pills he could have bought with that would have been!). But he looked at what Luck did for the franchise and didn't pursue it.

Teams place just way too much value on draft picks. The Packers could have had Moss and Tony G when they were the best in the league at their positions for a 3rd and 4th round pick. Draft picks in the NFL are valued like elite prospects in baseball. Even late round picks have a ridiculous amount of value. I'd love to hear what players the Packers have been targeting in trade talks.

The weird thing about this is Luck finally had a real OL. He came into the league and because he was such a big, physical QB, he could take the beatings almost like Big Ben. Now the Colts invested heavily on their OL and have one of the best in the league, a defense that's getting better and really good, explosive weapons on offense. So just when the Colts have finally built a team that he doesn't have to completely carry, after Ballard hits the lottery on Nelson and Leonard last year and it appeared as though they had a good draft this year, now he retires. Nothing would be more of a slap in the face to the Colts or just bad for the NFL to have Brady play at the absurd level he's playing at through his early to mid 40's and then turn around and grab one of the most talented QB's in the NFL after taking a couple years off. They'd literally be upgrading at the position. Think Luck can't throw those little dig routes and seem routes? Again, the Colts would have to inexplicably renounce their rights to him and Luck would have to be willing to go to their biggest rivals and become one of the NFL's all time villains. So I don't see it. I also didn't see Brady winning SB's into his 40's with virtually no change in his play from when he entered the league. So there's that. But I agree with you 100 pct that in 12 months, 18 months, he'll be feeling good and want to get back out there. I just can't imagine it with anyone but Indy. But it really would be the most Pats thing ever for it to play out like this.

That contract time does not accrue while retired/holding out. He would still be "under contract," with the Colts if he just sat out for two years. That said, I don't believe he would do that to the Colts. The Colts are too good to be bad enough to get one of the two really sought after QB's the next two years. The NFL will most likely also give the Colts some cap relief from Lucks contract this year. Not that it matters. I don't know who has more cap room in the league than the Colts. I guess I haven't looked since before the season, but they had a MASSIVE amount of cap room and they didn't really spend much in free agency. They'll likely be heading into next year with 100+ million in cap space again next year. And if I had that much money, I'd be it that Andrew Luck plays for the Colts again in the future.

David Carr was going to say the same thing, but he was hit before he could get it out. I've said this before, but I feel bad for guys like David Carr and to a lesser degree Kizer. Guys who are highly thought of coming out, thrown in behind absolutely terrible offensive lines on absolutely terrible teams, they get beaten to hell and then it's really tough to get them back mentally. I think that's what happened to Kizer in Cleveland(and pretty much every other QB they picked between Kosar and Mayfield) and Carr went to an expansion team and did they set the record for sacks given up in back to back years? He was sacked 155 times or something like in 2 years. And you're usually hit about 3-4 times per sack. The Packers did it right with Rodgers, the Chiefs with Mahomes. The Colts finally built an OL for Luck, but he was just so big and so good that he could deal with it for a couple of years before they had to put him back together like Steve Austin(not Stone Cold for anyone who doesn't get the reference).

No, his supporting cast was laughably bad. On the very first snap he took, the defense got him in....what, .8 seconds? On the 4th down, again, blown assignments up front and he had maybe 1 second before he was getting hit. The only OL playing with Kizer who has a prayer of making this team is Yosh Nijman if the Packers get high and paranoid that someone else would claim him off waivers. Otherwise, he is headed straight to the practice squad. But your LT is a project...a talented one, but a project all the same, Cole, Madison, Light, deBeer. The Banner's cheerleaders used to make were harder to run through than that group! I think Kizer's says...I won't be shocked either way, but I Boyle's bad as well and I don't think he's got much if any upside. He made some AWFUL throws that should have been picked off early on. But I think fans reflectively prefer the guy who's more of the underdog than the guy who has the stronger pedigree. It's why people were so in love with Callahan(a little hyperbole, but people liked him a lot). But I'm still of the opinion that if you have two guys who are as bad as Boyle and Kizer...go with the one who has the higher upside and has at least played in some games before. Pretty soon though, the Packers need to pull the trigger and use some valuable draft capital on a QB. A guy like Fromm right now has a 2nd round grade on him. I'm sure he moves up, but the Packers would be wise to take a guy like him if he were to be available in the 2nd round since they're obviously not willing to spend any money on a backup QB.

Agreed regarding Davis. He looks like a legit NFL receiver for the first time in his career tonight. EQ's injury may have made it easier for both Davis and Lazard to make the team. Shepherd has looked good as well, though. Have to think he is Davis's main competition. I think there was a chance EQ might have been one of the odd men anyway. Not that I think he should be, but just where he was in the rotations, what the Packers coaches have been saying. And he hasn't looked particularly good this pre-season. He's had a chance to make a couple of plays but didn't. So now you can put him on IR...presuming the injury is at least a sprain. And it certainly appeared to be at least that. But Davis obviously had a good game tonight. It might help make their decision easier there as he's their top return man probably. Shepard's catch on that corner route was just AWESOME. The fake at the top of the route to get separation, the way quickness and then actually finishing the play. I thought Shepard, if he got cut had a chance to make it through the waiver wire heading into tonight. I really doubt that now. And Lazard is basically a hyper-athletic TE out there at 6'5 230. I really wonder if the Packers might try to keep 7 at WR'er even with EQ down. It'd be easier if they could go with just 3 TE's, but there's really nobody there you can cut. Trading or cutting Graham would be really dumb at this point since you've already paid him the roster bonus, Tonyan is a guy you can't let go, you won't cut a 3rd round pick and the one guy they could cut would be Lewis, but I doubt they feel comfortable with the blocking skills of the other 3 who are all much more receiving TE's at this point. You keep Lewis in case Bakh or Bulaga get hurt, he's an elite blocking TE who can help out whoever you'd throw out there. And none of the WR'ers outside of Adams and maybe Allison have any trade value(and Allison's value would be a cond. 7th rounder).

Not one starter is out there. But if all 22 of those guys get hurt, you're probably right. How you can possibly get that amount of pessimism out of this performance I have no idea. I really think some fans can't separate the difference between how an individual is playing and what the cumulative results of the team are. We're in Week 3 of the pre-season...there are issues with the turf so you have your starters and most of your top reserves out...and because for instance Kizer gets sacked because 1 or two guys misses an assignment and the play gets blown up, the team sucks. It's just really annoying. In Baseball, you see results. You might have bad luck, but it's essentially an individual game. Football is 11 people who have to be all on the same page and at any given time half of the people out there in the game tonight won't be on the 54 man roster. Take Gary for example. The only way you can be down on him right now is if you haven't actually watched the first two pre-season games. I don't care what the box score says about a rookie playing a new position after two Pre-season games. I care about how the guy looks. Gary looks WAY more fluid than I thought he'd look..he looks raw, he looks like he doesn't have some of the finesse moves down yet, but his get off, his explosive ability to rock a tackle back and the way he can trail a play or stand up a tackle on a running play on the edge, everything he's done has been incredibly encouraging. But if he had 3 straight sacks like Jayronne Elliot did and he blew several assignments and was letting the offense get to the edge and wasn't getting any other QB pressures, the same fans calling him "invisible," would be talking about how he's a potential star! These threads DURING the game are like the Brewers IGT's. They're reactionary and ridiculous. Outside of the games...they're usually really good discussions.

He didn't announce that it was coming back last year until after cut-downs I believe. Pretty much radio silence until then. I too hope it comes back. Good stuff ... although he does tend to get a little preachy at times. Yeah, I liked when he'd talk to actual experts. I couldn't stand when he'd try to play expert. But I found the articles when he'd talk to 20 scouts or executives to be pretty interesting and informative. Moreso on the players from the other teams in the division as we all know the Packers players. My lasting memory of McGinn will be how he said the Packers were a 10-6 team without Aaron Rodgers because Ted Thompson had done such a great job of building up this roster....and almost immediately after that he got hurt, the Packers were NOT a 10 win team without Rodgers and then McGinn went after Thompson pretty hard for a while. But I do miss the player rankings, the tiers in each division...all those things.

Right, I've heard enough here. You have a total, complete misunderstanding of basic physical fitness and this is you lashing out. You've said you were 135 pounds in college and skinny. So not sure what high-end athletics you participated in or how you came to find that you were 5 pct body fat. I've asked before, I'm assuming it's just one of those useless, wholly inaccurate skin fold tests that anyone and everyone can do and that vary wildly if you don't know what you're doing. Actually, they can vary wildly even if you do know what you're doing. What further proves you lack virtually ANY understanding about actual health and fitness is that you think you can ascertain someone's physical endurance by simply looking at them. The proof of this other than you literally saying it- is that you posted pictures of bodybuilders. Now I'm not vain enough to talk about myself and my own athletic career because I find it to be a bit vain and childish. So I'll use another athlete. Ben Askren, a well-known athlete from Wisconsin. An Olympic athlete, one of the best Wrestlers in college history. Not physically impressive. Not NEARLY as defined as nearly any other wrestler at his weight class in High School...in College, the Olympics, not in the UFC. He won at every level by being in better shape than everyone else.....and a unique approach to things, but fundamentally, by having better endurance. You could have used your elite eyesight and I guarantee you wouldn't have believed he was in better shape than Johnny Hendricks or Jake Herbert any other athlete he competed against. But how could this be? Ben's arms between his shoulder and bicep weren't defined. Yet I could say with a pretty high degree of certainty Ben could run any NBA player off the court. For that matter, he could probably talk them off the court as well. You don't seem to understand the disconnect between actual physical fitness...and a beach body. It's actually irresponsible how you're presenting yourself as an authority on this and you use pictures of bodybuilders from.. men's health I presume and you're operating under this pretense that definition equals actual physical endurance. Yeah, it just doesn't buddy. There's no clearer way to say it. There's absolutely nothing that backs that up. We used to laugh at guys who'd come in, spend no time on their legs, core, back and just do curls. You can sit there, smoke 2 packs a day and look like you're in great shape. That you've repeatedly said you can actually look at someone and SEE if they're physically in shape shows that you fundamentally do not understand how the body works but there's no way your ego would allow you to stop this argument now. But while you'd like to impune the credibility of everyone who doesn't just blindly listen to what you have to say and agree with you, please...tell us who you are. Tell us of your great athletic achievements. I'm trying to glean what sport it's even possible for you to have competed at the level you're suggesting. You've said you were at if you were 135 pounds and I believe you said you were shorter(not short, but I thought it was 5-something). I'm trying to connect the dots here and figure out what sport that could have been that would have given you this absolute level of authority. And normally, I'd never ask something like this, but you've held yourself up multiple times now as this paradigm of elite physical fitness...as well as I guess just elite eyesight and whatever else. So 135, college athlete, high level. You were either a runner(track and field, Cross Country) or you were a Wrestler(a sport you can be a little guy and compete). I literally can't come up with one other one where YOU would have the expertise or be in a position to feel sorry for all those beneath you. So you feel sorry for everyone who is below you, then you shouldn't have any problem telling us what you did from atop your perch.

Maybe Darius Shephard can be that type of guy? I know UDFA from a small school ... but he's getting tons of reps with the #1s, and seems like a very smooth, shifty athlete. They also seem to be shoehorning Kumerow into that role, even though he's much bigger than a typical slot/possession type. But he does run good routes and knows where to be. Agree on Moore, though. He seems to be the least talented of those 3 they drafted last year, but had the reputation for being the most polished coming out. We haven't seen that. Maybe it's Shepard. Outside of Redding, we've heard good things about pretty much everyone. Even Malik Taylor. I guess I don't even really understand what LeFleur's offense is at this point. Zone Blocking Scheme is like "West Coast offense" now in that there are so many iterations of it, it doesn't really have much meaning. It basically means that you run to a spot and then look for a hole. In the passing game if he is going to run as many bunch formations as he's been running, that gets guys open and they don't have to be elite off the LOS like Jennings was. We're kinda picturing the prototypical slot guy. With an X and a Y, but that bunch formation can get guys open with simple spacing routes. I am curious as to how much consideration they put into the fact that Shepard, for example, would be under team control for 4 years vs Davis being a FA after this year? Obviously, it's not like baseball, but if it's a coin flip, you'd have to think they'd rather have the guy who's more likely to be there for the following 3 years cheap. Anyway, Shepard's the only guy I've seen that is more of a slot in the traditional McCarthy offenses. And he could return kicks. I know he ran a slow 40 time...or a relatively slow time, but he looks real quick. Also, slightly off-topic, did anyone watch Hard Knocks last night? They had a picture of Hunter Renfroe shirtless. Lets just say CoolhandLuke would lose his mind. He looked like a 40-year-old father. ZERO muscle...he looked like a thinner version of the "dad bod" thing going around for a while. But he was a helluva slot type WR'er at Clemson and he looked really good with the pads on.

To the first part, yes the Brewers really can say that. You can list a whole bunch of other players who are also not worth the money. That doesn't make your point more valid. Braun has been worth 3.7 WAR the last 3 years and has gotten paid 60 million dollars. There's really no way you can argue he's NOT overpaid. I don't care what Dexter Fowler has done or Jacoby Ellsbury. I'm pretty sure the Royals fans aren't real happy they're carrying Alex Gordon or the Cards fans. To your second point, extending Yelich and buying out a couple FA years for Hiura are two ENTIRELY different things. Most people do NOT want Yelich extended because they'd be extending him for a high price into his 30's. Virtually EVERYONE wants Hiura signed because they'd be signing him for less money through his 20's. This pretty much explains what you're not understanding about the Braun deal. Paying players in their 20's=Lower risk for team. You're picking your most talented young players and adding the years of their prime you're going by buying out FA years for a lower cost than you'd be paying them if you actually signed them in free agency. Paying players in their 30's=Higher risk for team. You're paying higher AAV for older players more likely to decline. Do you like high-risk investments or low-risk investments if there is no difference in the returns? So yeah, I don't know who'd be upset about a Hiura signing. Now if we signed him for 8 years, he played really well and then we signed him for another 5 years at the current market rate for FA's, then some fans who actually follow the team and have some inkling about the finances in baseball probably wouldn't be thrilled about that prospect. And guess what? Even if he was GREAT in those first 8 years....it doesn't mean that no matter what he did in the final 5 that second extension would be a good idea.

No? They pay for prior performance and hope that they can get a few years of that performance knowing the back-end of the deal is probably not going to be very good for the team. What? Teams give players 5 year/100 million dollar contracts knowing their not going to get much for their 40 million dollars but “hopeful” the first 60 million turns out alright? It’s all guaranteed money, if that was the case wouldn’t a team just offer 3 yrs/100 and not worry about the back end? I’m sure when contracts are negotiated the Teams’s decision makers understands the aging process and history of similarly situated players and it’s taken into account Your statement on how the process works seems like nothing more than a quick way to the unemployment line. You don't seem to understand the idea of negotiation. First of all, as to your question, why doesn't the team just pay for 3 years and 100 million instead of the 5 years and 100 million should be painfully obvious, but I'll again explain. See Braun isn't worth 20 million dollars right now. Nobody said he wasn't worth anything though. The team would likely rather pay 3 years and 60 million. The player wants more money than that and longer term security. So they have to agree. You're coming off as being intentionally obtuse. Obviously just because you don't expect the player to be as good at 35 as you do when he's 29, that doesn't mean you just pay him the same and then give away the final 2 or 3 years. I really don't understand what point you're even trying to make here. I don't believe that you believe what you're saying and it honestly feels more like trolling at this point.

Some of these posts are baffling to me. Somehow we got on Ryan Braun. Now this? "Great players don't come to Milwaukee sorry." Well...Yelich IS a great player. He's in Milwaukee. Does the front office deserve any credit for trading one of the top prospects in the game+2 more top 100 prospects+a solid pitching prospect? Drafting Hiura? And I forget, Greinke, he had a no-trade, right? NY wasn't on that list, the Brewers were. Did he approve that trade? Yes, he did. So I don't get what you're saying. We weren't the only team trying to trade for Yelich. We somehow lose credit because we identified a great young talent with 5 years of team control? Lorenzo Cain WANTED to come to Milwaukee. He was a legitimate MVP candidate last year. Mouse, Grandal...very good players that chose to come to Milwaukee.

I'd rather see them go after Cole. They're in a bit of a unique situation with Yelich cheap, Hiura, young pitching that's up in the air. Go out and splurge once on the marquee FA pitcher and then you have to hope some other things can fall in place. I still believe in Corbin Burnes. He's too talented to not get it going, Woodruff is a stud. Lots of power arms coming up to put in the pen. But you'd have to sign Cole knowing it's going to severely hamper your ability to make other moves in the future and that you'll be paying for him for at least a couple years when he's not that good anymore. Or at least expect it. If he had a CC type run, as in when the Yankees signed CC, how good he was before he started falling apart, I'd take that. Teams haven't been paying 30 million over 6-7 years for starters since..I don't know, whenever the D-backs signed Grienke. Even the Yankees are being more fiscally responsible. So while I'd imagine he ends up in NY, if there's one guy who's worth it, it's him. I would definitely not spend on Strausburg or pay Ryu a bunch of money. Otherwise, a pitcher like Hamels on a shorter deal, or Odorizzi are possible options.

This is one of the strongest groups of pitchers that's been available in a while. Assuming nothing changes from now until the end of the year and guys like Strausburg do in fact opt-out.

No kidding. I didn't think he'd come up and perform like Peralta and or Burnes this year, but I thought he might push his way into the pen at some point. Big step backward for him. Not a good year for young MLB ready or near MLB ready arms in Milwaukee.

You might want to stop reaching too much or you're gonna end up with a shoulder injury. He "hurt" his shoulder in the final pre-season game, practiced the next week and was inactive. And I'm not betting on anything. I'm disagreeing with your characterization that he's "useless," or that the coaches are growing impatient with him because of his injury history and inability to handle the "rigors" or returning kicks or being a WR'er. Who exactly would they not be growing impatient of under these criteria? I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then. Which is fine. Perhaps I'm just jaded by never really liking or understanding drafting Davis to begin with. I'm a proponent of WRs who are big and strong, or small, quick and shifty guys who can excel in the slot. I just don't think Davis is either of those. That's how I felt about J'mon Moore in the 4th round. I'm not arguing that he's a great player. I think he's maybe 50/50 to make the team right now. And I agree, he's fast, but he's not shifty. Just not about how big of a concern injuries are with regard to him(and I guess about his value as a return man). I do agree that I'd like a quicker, smoother route runner WR'er. I think the guy that most Packer fans now overlook during the Driver-Adams era is Greg Jennings. He was so smooth and could get open so quickly and he was good at running after the catch. We're lacking that type of WR'er and I think we have been since he left. It's not a pre-requisite to a good offense, but someone who can run such clean routes and make such sudden cuts can really help the QB get some quick completions. We've had more big, physical guys. Maybe MVS can end up doing both.

You're all over the place here. First of all, who said we should have let him "walk?" When was that even close to happening? And there are a lot of people who believe it was a bad deal.....because-it-was-a-bad-deal. The Rockies did almost the same thing with Tulo, a more valuable player in his prime than Braun. Was that a good deal for the franchise? Now lets imagine that Tulo had gotten busted for Roids and then lied about it so convincingly that he actually got a dirty test overturned with hints of anti-semitism by a guy just doing his job-and, therefore, they were unable to trade him. He fits your critera? That a good deal? You love conflating two different issues. Should the Cards have given Pujols the 10 year 250 million dollars because he was the best player they've had in the last 25 years and would have likely spent his entire career with the Cardinals and his career numbers are great(as in all time great, not just Brewers great)? You can't just bundle up all the contracts a team has given to a player and say, "player good, contract must be good." And I don't have a clue what you're talking about how "the fan boys every player should take an extreme team friendly deal, where the Brewers pay way under market,"because just about everything thinks Braun's LAST contract was stupid. But to be equally insulting, how about, 'I get it, player fanboys think that because a player signed a team-friendly deal, the team should then give him whatever amount of money he asks for and they're unable to differentiate between contracts.' I don't know, I guess everyone else has already tried to explain to you they didn't sign him to a single 13-year deal and you're having a great deal coming to terms with that simple, indisputable fact. And then you somehow confuse that for the belief that people who DON'T think signing a guy 5 years before his contract is due to wanting everyone to take a below-market "fanboy" type deal. We're just people who don't think future contracts should be dictated more by PAST production instead of likely future production. OH...silly isn't it!

Maybe a little. But I was a bit jaded by the fact that he'd been benched the past two years in the post-season in favor of a really bad catcher.

I don't think anyone thought it'd 48 hours to get it squared away. It took about 2 and 1/2 weeks. But just going by what they said publicly, it appeared there was a strong chance they were not going to let him back in. I don't think it's a coincidence that after his lawyer made a relatively long, fairly detailed public statement, he was as re-admitted the next day. There were a lot of things going on. You had leaders of different groups publicly getting involved, some calling Cephus a predator after the verdict, some attacking UW for jumping to a conclusion and the way it handles student disciplinary issues. Cephus sued the school, dropped it, the lawyer threatened to pick it back up again. It's a nightmare for the school. They certainly don't want to be seen as not taking this issue seriously. It literally sounds like Blank looked through the evidence, particularly the videotapes that the jurors found to be the most convincing and the "witnesses" from the bar and unilaterally made a decision on this.

You might want to stop reaching too much or you're gonna end up with a shoulder injury. He "hurt" his shoulder in the final pre-season game, practiced the next week and was inactive. And I'm not betting on anything. I'm disagreeing with your characterization that he's "useless," or that the coaches are growing impatient with him because of his injury history and inability to handle the "rigors" or returning kicks or being a WR'er. Who exactly would they not be growing impatient of under these criteria?

You'd certainly hope. I'd think Lazard, Kumerow would. Adams and Allison have already shown they're pretty solid and willing blockers. MVS and St. Brown are pretty thin. I do think it'll be more important than ever to get guys blocked at the 2nd level this year. The way Jenkins looks so far, I think he's gonna be a bulldozer at guard and once we get Jones back, the Packers might having a legit running game. It certainly has done wonders for Brees the past few years.

Theres no doubt that Davis is talented. But there's also the old adage that "you can't make the club in the tub", and that applies fully to him as well. There was some scuttle butt that they tried to deal him last year, but he was hurt (again). I think their patience for this guy is just about done. He just doesn't have the frame to stand up to the rigors and pounding a NFL WR and returner takes. Ok, you're saying they couldn't trade him last year because he was hurt. -Again. He wasn't, that was the first injury that cost him playing time. Healthy his rookie year, healthy his second year, missed time last year with a hamstring injury. So I don't see why this first-year staff and his first-year coach who would be losing their patience with him or why you'd call him "useless." If you don't like him and you just don't think he should make the team, that's fine. But you're exaggerating the facts to support that case. And for the record, the injury he has now is a stinger. A fluke injury. that's as preventable as a concussion. Do you think maybe that stinger was the reason Rodgers was so upset? One of the guys that both Rodgers and Bakhtiari have said could be the "breakout player" because he fits the system so well? So if he doesn't make the team, I really doubt it'll be because of any of the old cliches about "the best ability is...," or being in the "tub" after suffering a stinger during a joint practice that upset Rodgers enough that he publicly spoke out about it. It'll likely just be becuase the Packers liked the younger guys who would be cheaper in future years more than Davis.

So the Astros 3-4 years ago went out and overnight they overhauled their roster? So between 2015 and 2016, right? That's funny; their top 8 position players this year. Alex Bregman 2nd overall pick 2012 draft. Michael Brantley-sign as a FA 2019. George Springer-11th pick overall in 2011 draft Yuli Gurriel-Defected in 2015 from Cuba, a 33 year old rookie in 2016. Carlos Correa 1st pick overall 2012 draft Robinson Chirinos Signed as a FA last year(coming off a year in which he struck out 33 pct of the time. Jose Altuve-signed 2007 amateur FA, lineup mainstay since 2012 Yordan Alvarez-Signed in 2016 Amateur FA, traded to Astros in 2016 Jake Marisnick-Acquired in 2014 as part of a 7 player trade. Top 8 offensive performers on the Astros. I'm not seeing how they changed course overnight? Seems to me that losing 100 games for about 5 years, having 3 straight years drafting 1st overall, having multiple top 5 picks another year, picking in the top 11 for about a 7-8 year stretch had a BIT more to do with it. They made no decision, "conscious," or otherwise. They got premium talent because they tanked for about 5 years. They didn't go out and make an "overnight" change 3-4 years ago. Their key contributors have been in their system for 6-7 years. Unless you believe they viewed 19-year-old Amateur FA Yordan Alvarez as the fix for all their problems in 2016 when they traded for him? I find that rather unlikely. Also... You also said this team had FOUR legitimate aces and next year we'd have 5. So you have both revisionist history AND you claiming to be right and hamming down on this ridiculous. You conflate the "tack on runs," with you claiming they had a "bad offense." I don't remember you beating this drum that their offense would "be their undoing." In fact, I remember you touting how we had X number of players who could hit 20 HR's in our lineup. I thought you landed at 8, but honestly, you're so all over the place, given the time of day or the particular AB, you've predicted a World Series run(you did that before the ASB) to now claiming you knew all along what their "undoing" was. And finally, you're argument now is that the ONLY guys in the lineup who have smart approaches are Grisham and Hiura. Not the reigning MVP who's actually better this year and putting together one of the best if not the best offensive season in Brewers history? Not Cain who had a .400 OBP last year? And not only that, but it's Stearns design to create this type of team?