JosephC

Chryst derangement syndrome on full display. Some people are obviously obsessed. Fickell's first full season at Wisconsin = 7-6 with a 5-4 Big 10 record. It's been downhill ever since. Keep complaining about Chyrst's horrible tenure at Wisconsin. Personally, I think the .713 winning percentage in the regular season, .705 against the Big 10 and .857 in bowl games is looking pretty good right now. But hey, keep tying the same thing over and over and over and over and eventually you may convince yourself that it is true.

NFL players get paid a lot of money, and when watching them play it's pretty clear that they play at the level they want to play at. I watched the first half, the most I've sat down and watched of the Packers in a couple years. Jordan Love isn't bad, but he's a very, very average NFL QB. He made himself a boatload of money in that playoff game against Dallas a couple years ago. He's not nearly that good. And no, looking at the play-by-play, I did not see the interception. Cornerbacks looked fine in the first half. I thought that would be the big weakness, but next to the defensive line, I didn't see any group out that that looked better than those guys.

Ignoring all the pre-season projections, and just looking at results so far, I think the only winnable games for Wisconsin would be the Iowa, Illinois and Minnesota games. Michigan is post-Harbaugh, and I'm projecting that program to dip a bit. But that will still be a road game for Wisconsin and Michigan did just go on the road and beat Nebraska. Would have to favor Michigan in that one, although I think it could be closer than one would suspect. Iowa went on the road this week and beat Rutgers. Rutgers is nothing special, but that program should get a bump with Schiano back coaching. It's still a Big 10 road win for Iowa. If Iowa can beat Rutgers on the road and Wisconsin gets beat by Maryland at home, one has to assume that Iowa is the better team. I'd still give Wisconsin a chance because Iowa is Iowa, there is always a chance the passing game implodes and just handicaps the offense to the point where they can't win. But this will be a home game for Wisconsin, is a rivalry game for Wisconsin, and I would expect to see Wisconsin's best effort put forth. I will be picking Iowa, but this is a game where I wouldn't be shocked if Wisconsin pulls off the upset. Ohio State/Oregon. Both automatic losses, and likely bad losses. Washington answered a lot of questions yesterday. Washington State's conference is such a mess that this was kind of their "Superbowl." It was a close game for 3 quarters and Washington put a 28-0 on them in the fourth to win what would appear to have been a totally lopsided game. This is a home game for Wisconsin and there is an outside chance that the travel hurts Washington. But based on what has happened so far, Washington seems like a pretty easy pick. Indiana answered all questions yesterday. Wisconsin will go in there and get beatdown just like Bert did yesterday. Could easily be as ugly as the Ohio State and Oregon games. Illinois got beat down in every aspect, Indiana put in backups early in the fourth and just ran all over Illinois' first stringers. Illinois has a win against Duke, but Duke lost a game against Tulane and looks like a bottom tier power four team. Since this game is at Wisconsin, I think it is a winnable game for the Badgers. Only meaningful game that Minnesota played this year was at California and that was a 27-14 loss. They are likely not very good. Too bad this game is at Minnesota. Still appears like it could be a winnable game for Wisconsin. So I think Iowa/Illinois/Minnesota are all winnable games, but Wisconsin are bad, so winning all three is not a real possibility IMO. I would put their win cap at 4.

Well, this off-season I was the first guy to point out Indiana's pitiful schedule in 2024 and question how good they really were. They have brought out the whoopin stick on ole Bert tonight. That beating the Wisconsin got this afternoon is nothing compared to the shellacking that Indiana is putting on Illinois. Granted, Indiana has the home field advantage. But 49-10(?), and still in quarter number three. So much for that top 10 ranking, LOL.

One thing that still bugs me about McIntosh and the Fickell hire, and this never seems to get brought up, is how small the number of candidates for the job was. it's been widely reported that McIntosh only considered 4 people for that job: Fickell, Aranda, Leonhard and Leipold. On top of that, it was also reported that Leipold was basically given a courtesy interview, and wasn't a serious candidate. Nobody ever seems to talk about how ridiculous it was to cast that small of a net for a school like Wisconsin. Wisconsin is a Big 10 school. This wasn't a bad team, they finished that "poor" season with a 7-6 record. It's not like the new coach would take over a Purdue team that had gone 13-25 over the last three years. The previous coach, the coach prior to that, the coach prior to that and the coach prior to that had all been successful. The number of alumni is huge and they were/are in the process of throwing significant money into facilities. USA Today's salary database has Fickell with the 18th best salary in football (for 2024), Wisconsin isn't a crap job. So McIntosh does not consider any coordinators from top programs. He only looks at one candidate from a non-power 5 (now 4) school. He doesn't consider anyone from the NFL. I would love to see the list of people who had submitted applications, and I have little doubt that there are some names there that the fanbase would love to see on the sidelines. And as for anybody who thinks it would be pointless since he only really wanted Fickell, I'll just point out the Rooney rule in the NFL. The Rooney rule was not implemented to force anybody to hire a minority. But it is there to force decision makers to at least give at least one minority a solid look because, upon solid examination, that decision maker may just decide a minority that he wouldn't have considered is actually the best person for the job. McIntosh may have had his favorite when entering the process, but once into the process he should have been looking at a minimum of 10-12 candidates with a completely open mind. The approach of Fickell, then Aranda and if neither I'll just settle for Leonard was complete amateur crap.

Listening to some radio, and it's just like listening to Chicago radio last Sunday night. Badger football has sunk to Bear level of bad.

Against ranked opponents- Alvarez (if I counted it all up correctly) = 26-38-1 = .408 Let's throw out the first 8 losses and a later bowl win and bowl loss as he was just a "fill-in" for a bowl game = 25-29-1 = winning percentage = .464 Bielema = 10-14 = winning percentage = .416 Anderson = 3-4 = winning percentage = .429 Chryst = 12-18 = winning percentage = .400 So Barry is a whole lot better if one is willing to throw out a whole bunch of data points. Otherwise, not much of a difference between the last four coaches. Maybe somebody gets all stupid and wants to argue that .429 (with only 7 data points) is way better than .400, but I fail to see all that much difference.

You just keep typing this over and over and over, like if you type it a million times you will eventually convince yourself that it is the truth. Chryst had a .713 winning percentage in the regular season, .705 against the Big 10 and .857 in bowl games. The Badgers were 9-4 in Chryst's last full season and that was his seventh year. 7+ years of 70% winning percentages is a "bad hire from the beginning." Enjoy the next several seasons of 5 or less wins. Prepare to get one hell of a lesson on what bad coaching is.

I see Wisconsin is a 10-point favorite. That seems like a pretty big number to me, but I can't argue as we don't know anything about Maryland yet. They are 3-0, but the wins are against Florida Atlantic, Northern Illinois and Towson. Florida Atlantic already has lost a game to Florida International. Northern Illinois' only other game was a 2 point win against Holy Cross. Towson does not even count. So we really don't know anything about Maryland at this point. I can't ever remembering calling game #4 of a season a must-win game, but this sure looks like a must-win game for the Badgers. The schedule looks pretty brutal after this game.

Browning started 7 games in 2023, had a 98.4 rating and the Bengals were 4-3 in those games. He's probably a better backup than Willis, and that's not a knock on Willis at all since I personally consider him to be a fine backup. The Bengals are probably only looking for someone to backup Browning, and as a result was only willing to offer a sixth round pick (if the reports are true). Considering the Packers are short on draft picks next year, I think it was reasonable for them to approach Green Bay, even though it does seem to be a low-ball offer.

Excellent post!

I'm looking at the ole' Bears message board, and it seems they've finally figured out that Darnell Wright just isn't very good, But Pro Football Focus will probably have all of those Bear offensive linemen with good grades.

There will be a lot of disappointed people in Madison after this game. Everyone knew the season would start 2-1, and this had a 95% chance of being a loss, and maybe something like a 60% chance of being a bad loss. But after the second game, there was a lot of optimism that this defense was going to be better than expected and the first sign that Fickell could be a success at Wisconsin. Alabama QB currently at 14/15 for 267 yard and 3 touchdowns, complete shred job.

Sorry, the Walker that Packers had talked about an extension with was Quay Walker, not Rasheed Walker. My fault, I should have been more specific. If there has been stuff in the media about the Packers discussing a deal with Rasheed Walker, that would be news I have not heard.

Hopefully a return to form by Watson is better than a 600 yard, 5 touchdown season which is what he's been. I just find it interesting that the Packers said the two priorities were Tom and Walker, and a pretty good deal for Watson happens prior to Walker. Almost have to think that Walker's agent probably went crazy and made something like a 4 year, 72 million dollar ask, and that sent Gutekunst in a different direction. I do think the Watson deal basically forces Jenkins off the roster next year, but I think that has probably been the plan all along (even prior to the Parsons trade).

I'm not really comfortable with the cornerback situation, but if you read the papers, it sounds like the Packers seem pretty happy with the group as a whole. I've gotten the impression that they were not happy with nose tackle depth, and that was before the Kenny Clark trade. The other spot that they did not seem to be happy with is interior OL depth, they helped that by adding Kinnard, but it sounds like Belton is not really ready to see significant snaps and Jennings and Monk (now on injured list) are looking very shaky, even as backups. Things obviously change depending on who is available. If a cornerback is freed up that the Packers think can help, then they would likely try to acquire that player. But all things being equal, just based on what I'm reading, I think the Packers see the need areas as being nose tackle and offensive line.

Updated this morning and it has Wyatt/Brooks/Brinson at one spot and Wooden/Stackhouse at the other DT spot. Using the listed weights on the Packer's website, average of the four starting defensive linemen is 276 pounds. However, that is using 273 pounds as Wooden's weight, and I'm pretty sure that the Journal-Sentinel reported that Wooden was up to 286 pounds about 3 weeks ago (at least, I think that was the number).

Any official announcement on who the starting nose tackle will be? Fair to assume that it will be Colby Wooden at this point?

Personally I don't have an opinion one way or the other on this. I guess I would say that, from the highlights that I had watched when Green Bay obliterated Dallas in that playoff game a couple years ago, is that Parsons wasn't exactly stellar against the run. And then this equation subtracts Kenny Clark. But this is a passing league, so I still don't have an opinion because the pass rush factor could easily outweigh a shoddy run defense because that is what the NFL is. All of the ESPN boobs are saying this is a horrible trade for Dallas. That makes me think this trade will end up being a disaster for Green Bay.

I've had my gallbladder removed. 99% chance that they can just scope it, so just a small incision just below the sternum and a few other small incisions to pump in the gas and blow you up so they can move around in there. However, pre-surgery my surgeon did say there was a small chance that once he gets in there, he may not be able to determine for sure which is the cystic duct and the hepatic duct, and if that would happen he would have to cut me wide open (from sternum all the way to the bottom of the rib cage) in order to see what he was doing. I think he said he has done the surgery 300 times, and only had to make the big cut 3 times. And no, there was no way he could tell before you are on the table. For me, he didn't have any problem. I had the surgery on Tuesday, was back to work on Monday. If you have the big cut though, it sounds like you are in the hospital for about 5 days and have a long recovery ahead. I will note that I think I had the surgery in 2009, so I'm assuming things are likely better now in avoiding getting cut wide open. I've heard people complain non-stop after surgery, but for me it's been no problem. You don't need the gallbladder so you don't have to take any medication following surgery. I do two glasses of Metamucil per day, don't know if I really need to, but I tend to be low fiber anyway, so it helps to move things along. Only thing that sucks about that is Metamucil is expensive IMO, and it's one of those things where the price just went crazy during virus-time. Price of it has dipped down a bit, but it's still about 40% higher then it was pre-virus-time.

2023 average bWAR/fWAR = 4.55 2024 average bWAR/fWAR = 0.05 2025 average bWAR/fWAR - pro-rated to a full season = 1.9 He'd project to a 2.2-2.3 WAR player currently. That would make him a 3.3 WAR player for the rest of this year and next, but I will subtract 0.5 WAR from that number as he is currently 32 years old and rule of thumb is you take off 0.5 WAR per year for players over 30. So I would guess the market sees him as being good for 2.8 WAR from now until the end of 2026. 2.8 WAR * 8 million per WAR = 22.4 million Will make about 4 million this year and I'd project 12 million in arbitration next year. 22.4 million - 16 million = 6.4 million in surplus value. I'd guess a reasonable trade would be something like Bryce Meccage plus a lottery ticket, or Blake Burke plus Carlos Rodriguez. Something along those lines.

I think you are correct, even if the team that trades him had "pre-funded" the future payment, I believe the practice is that money does back to the team that trades him and the new team has to put that money into the "fund" for the future payment. Bregman is attractive because, barring catastrophic injury, he will opt out after this season so he would be a 2.5 month rental at this point. His agent is Scott Boras. Scott Boras won't be satisfied with a 2 year, 80 million dollar deal. Even if the market sees 40 million per year as too high (unlikely, let's just say that's the case), Boras would still opt out and shoot for a 3 year, 105 million dollar deal. It may be 5 million per year less, but 105 million is 25 million more than 80 million....that's the way Boras works. The only way he does not opt out if he suffers an injury so bad that he's projected to miss the first few months of the 2026 season. Otherwise, it's a very safe bet that the team that trades for him is basically getting him for 2.5 months at a 16.67 million dollar price-tag. That's still too much money for the Brewers, but that's not unreasonable money for 2/3 of the teams in the league.

So to redo the math to calculate just how much ESPN thinks Acuna is worth. I've done the Frelick math above. While the unbiased MLB WAR number indicates a surplus value of 70 million, it's probably much more likely the league would value him as a 35 million dollar WAR player. That's about 10 million above what his projected surplus value was when he was a prospect in the minor leagues, It's been awhile since the Point of Pittsburgh surplus value chart has been brought up, but historically it's been very good as predicting prospect value- https://thepointofpittsburgh.com/mlb-prospect-surplus-values-2018-updated-edition/ Note that this is from 2018 and has 1 WAR = 8.5 million, but Fangraphs has gone back to 1 WAR = 8 million, so I've adjusted the estimates down based on that. I've just used the rankings from the MLB pipeline. Made = 65 million surplus value Frelick = 35 million Pena = 28.2 million Henderson = 12.2 million Uribe = let's just say 5 million Total = 145.4 million Frelick's 35 million in surplus value already has his salary end factored in, but then add Acuna's dollars in to what the Brewers would take on...so add 58.55 million. That puts the investment in Acuna at 145.4 + 58.55 million = 203.95 million. So to return that investment = 203.95 million / 8 million per WAR = 25.5 WAR. Acuna would have to return the Brewers 25.5 WAR to make this an even deal. Brewers would control him for 3.44 years, so 25.5/3.44 years = 7.4 WAR per season. Acuna would have be a 7.4 WAR player per season to make this an "even" trade for the Brewers based on current values. Acuna is basically at 7.5 years of MLB service time. Over those 7.5 years, he's accumulated 30.3 fWAR and 27.5 bWAR. If you like Fangraphs, he's been a 4 WAR per season player. If you prefer Baseball Reference, he's been a 3.7 WAR per season player. He's nowhere near the 7.4 WAR per season player that ESPN has valued him at.

Acuna has had one monster season, a 9.1 fWAR effort in 2023. He's never hit 5 fWAR in any other season, although he was very close in 2019 (4.9 fWAR). He has missed half-a-season-plus in 2020, 2021, 2024 and has appeared in less than half the games this year (40 games). He would be on a near 8 WAR pace this year if he had played in 95% of the games, but missed games matter, and he now has a long history of missing games. Pro-rate this year (90 games played by the Braves so far) to a full season, and Acuna's average bWAR/fWAR for 2025 would be 3.5. In 2023 (the huge year) his average WAR was 8.75. In 2024 it was just 0.5 WAR due to all the missed games. I'd put a fair number at him moving forward of 4.25 WAR per season. It's the average of what he has done from 2023-2025. That number could be up around 8 if he was playing full seasons, but that is unlikely as he will only have achieved that once in the last five years. That would put his WAR totals over the next 3 plus seasons at 1.9 (remainder of this year) + 4.25 + 4.25 + 4.25 = 14.65 WAR over the remainder of his contract. 14.65 * 8 million per WAR = 117.2 million in value. Salaries are 7.55 (remainder of this year) + 17 + 17 + 17 = 58.55 million. 117.2 - 58.55 million = 58.65 million in surplus value. Sal Frelick entered this season with 1 year and 72 days of service time. Add in the time this year, and I would guess he is somewhere just short of 2 full seasons of service time. Let's just say 2 years on the nose, it should be really close to that. He's at 291 games played, divide that by 2 and it's 145.5 games which would be 90% of a full season...so I think using 2 years of service time is completely fair. So far Frelick has totaled 5.3 bWAR and 5.1 fWAR. So an average of 5.2 bWAR/fWAR / 2 seasons = 2.6 WAR per season. He has 4 years of team control after this one and is only 25 years old, so there is no reason to predict any sort of decline. So 1.15 WAR (remainder of this year) + 2.6 + 2.6 + 2.6 + 2.6 = 11.55 WAR * 8 million per WAR = 92.4 million in value. Frelick won't be a super two guy as he only had the extra 72 days over one year of service time...so he's very cheap next year and then has 3 arbitration years after that. He's not a big home run hitter, likely won't be perceived as a "big run producer," so his arbitration numbers should fall on the more reasonable end of the spectrum. I'd guess salaries something like 345k (remainder of this year) + 1.0 million + 4.25 + 6.75 + 9.75 (complete guesses as I am not an arbitration expert) = 22.1 million dollars. 92.4 million - 22.1 million = 70.3 million. So using a completely unbiased method based on what these guys have done in the majors recently...Acuna has an estimated surplus value of 58.65 million and Frelick's estimate is 70.3 million. Personally, I believe that the number on Acuna is probably how the majority of MLB front offices view Acuna. Maybe slightly higher, but with all the missed games, I think optimistic teams would probably put the number around 70 million and less optimistic teams would have the number around 55 million. Frelick, probably much less despite all hard evidence showing what his true value is. I'm guessing the majority of MLB front offices would put his number in the 30-35 million range. However, not only would the raw numbers dissuade me from making ESPN's proposed trade, I would have a hard time dealing Frelick straight up for Acuna. As the Dodgers GM, where money is not an issue, I'd make the trade and take the extra 1.5 WAR per season with the upside that Acuna stays healthy and returns an even higher number of WAR. Pretty easy for the Dodgers/Mets/Yankees to make this trade. But when you are the Brewers, and money is a huge issue, the cheaper player controlled for an extra year that is worth 2.6 WAR per season has real value. And when it comes to the bottom line, a pretty unbiased surplus value calculation using Acuna's last 2+ seasons (which included his big year) and Frelick's 2 MLB seasons completely justifies the idea of not making a straight up Acuna for Frelick trade.

I can't see the article because it's behind a paywall, but it looks like there is a report in The Athletic that ESPN is now talking with MLB about a new TV deal.