JosephC

I get more optimistic as time goes on because now I believe there might be a 0.001% chance that small market owners and the bottom 80% of players, on the basis of pay, will form the most unlikely of unions and demand total revenue sharing, a salary cap and a salary floor. Last week I thought the chances for this were 0.0%, so it seems to be moving in the right direction. Still kind of blows my mind that both the MLB and MLBPA continue to complain how their league is losing out to other sports leagues, and yet there remains no consideration to move to the system that has been hugely successful for those other leagues.

Can I ship the testosterone directly to the Yelich residence, or should I use a middle man? Time for Braun to make that big comeback!

Sucks to be us, at least one more year of having to endure watching Mertz play quarterback. Maybe we'll luck out and either Deacon Hill or Myles Burkett will prove to be the real deal.

If betting on games is over the line, is it over the line for owners to put gambling kiosks in the stadiums and directly profit from gambling revenue that is generated from the performance of teams that they own? It was never proven or even believed that Rose ever bet against his team. So the grey area becomes, since he is so close to the game, could he have conspired with an opponent to fix a game and benefit from his gambling? That is why I had previously opposed Rose going into the Hall of Fame. But are owners not so close to the game where it's impossible to think that they could give a direct order to a manager in an effort to try to affect the outcome of a game? I honestly don't think "baseball" (being owners, Hall of Fame voters) can have it both ways. Either ban the concept of owners making 1 penny off of gambling, or put Pete Rose in the Hall of Fame. And to state it again, I was 100% against Rose being in the Hall of Fame prior to a bunch of already filthy rich owners decided they needed to be involved in GAMBLING ON BASEBALL GAMES in order to put even more money in their pockets. I think your point only applies if the owners themselves are gambling on the outcome of the games which they could have done without the in-stadium sportsbooks and kiosks. I'm fine letting everyone in the hall of fame that performed on the field. For some reason, we treat it like getting beatified by the Catholic Church. Completely disagree. Once an MLB owner partners with a sportsbook, then they are in the same bed. If there is a money line on a baseball game and gamblers throw 85% of the bets on one side and the sportsbook stands to make a huge loss, is there now the potential for an owner to fix a game since he and that sportsbook are actual business partners? This is no less questionable than the concept that Rose could have partnered with an opposing player in order to get them to fix a game. I have no idea if an owner gets a flat fee for putting a sportsbook in a stadium or if he gets a percentage of the sportsbook revenue generated at the site? If he gets a percentage, then if he fixes a game and gets the desired outcome, he's made more money just as he had placed a bet himself. If it's a flat fee, then the more money a sportsbook makes from the first contract translates into a bigger fee on the second contract, so the motivation for the owner to see advantageous results in games based on gambling still exists.

This is a horrible concept that really doesn't apply to MLB at all. Does anybody really think that teams like Pittsburgh, Kansas City and Milwaukee in a bad year are not going to sell off assets at mid-season because they would be afraid that they might wind up with the #6 overall pick instead of the #2 overall pick? I could care less if I were a GM. If I'm sitting there with a 35-50 record, I'm in sell mode, period. The "dynamics" of the MLB draft is nothing like the NBA draft. In MLB there is usually only one clear, consensus #1 pick that comes around maybe once every 5 years. Really, the only recent ones are Harper and Strausberg. People talk about Houston and their success that has come from tanking, but their sole #1 pick that contributed was Carlos Correa and he was far from a consensus #1 pick (most rankings I remember at the time had Buxton, Appel and Zunino as the top 3 talents, with Correa in the next group that included guys like Kevin Gausman. Note that Appel and Aiken ended up being #1 picks for Houston and neither of them did anything at the MLB level. When the Twins took Royce Lewis #1, he was rated more in the 4-6 area on most rankings lists but ended up being picked #1 because there was no clear #1 guy and Lewis was willing to sign for a full 1 million under slot value. I very much doubt if the Twins really cared if they had the #1 or #5 pick that year. The last full draft we had under normal scouting conditions was in 2020. There was no clear #1 but I seem to remember Austin Martin getting more #1 mentions than anyone else, he went #5. I was thinking about Corey Ray and how Keith Law had him #1, so I went back and looked at that draft and, to my memory, Ray definitely was not the consensus #1, AJ Puk would have been and probably by a really good margin (not as much as someone like Harper though). Ray went #5 in that draft and Puk went #6. To look at the history of the MLB draft and think that a draft lottery is going to fix tanking, anybody who really believes that just hasn't been paying attention the last 10 years or so. This seems like an obvious change so that MLB can put players where they want players to go under the guise of a lottery system. "Jeez, the Cubs sucked this year and have the 7th worst record....let's give them the 1st pick as they are a big market, have a huge following and the increased interest will be "good for the game." "Man, we really want to rob the public of 1 billion dollars this year, this market needs a new stadium so let's give them the #1 pick to try and generate excitement so the dumb-dumbs in that city hand us whole bunch of free money that we don't need." I really have a hard time seeing this concept being implemented for any other purpose...especially the ridiculous idea that it will stop tanking. If the MLB owners and MLB players are concerned about tanking, then the obvious thing to do would be to do what every other major sports league has done....complete revenue sharing, salary cap, salary floor. 30 teams on an equal playing field and that will go further to stop tanking than anything else they will come up with. Under this current system, how can anyone expect not to have somewhere between 3-5 teams just be tanking from day 1 every single season?

If betting on games is over the line, is it over the line for owners to put gambling kiosks in the stadiums and directly profit from gambling revenue that is generated from the performance of teams that they own? It was never proven or even believed that Rose ever bet against his team. So the grey area becomes, since he is so close to the game, could he have conspired with an opponent to fix a game and benefit from his gambling? That is why I had previously opposed Rose going into the Hall of Fame. But are owners not so close to the game where it's impossible to think that they could give a direct order to a manager in an effort to try to affect the outcome of a game? I honestly don't think "baseball" (being owners, Hall of Fame voters) can have it both ways. Either ban the concept of owners making 1 penny off of gambling, or put Pete Rose in the Hall of Fame. And to state it again, I was 100% against Rose being in the Hall of Fame prior to a bunch of already filthy rich owners decided they needed to be involved in GAMBLING ON BASEBALL GAMES in order to put even more money in their pockets.

The Packers will want a big package for Rodgers, so the team that trades for him will pretty much have to work out an extension prior to any trade being finished. Based on the recent history, that could very well end up being a big sticking point. Every team in the league knows that, before 2018, Rodgers signed a 4-year deal worth 134 million in which 98.2 million was guaranteed, so 33.5 million per season and nearly 25 million guaranteed if that is looked as on a per year basis. Then just a couple years later, he was crying because other QBs were making more money than him. In other words, coming off a MVP and maybe a second MVP season, Rodgers won't be looking to play at any discount. He'll very likely want to be the highest paid QB in the NFL in terms of annual money. So now I look at the top paid QB in the league on a per year basis and that is Patrick Mahomes at 45 million. Then I look at the deal that Josh Allen just signed and that guarantees 60%. If I'm trading for Rodgers, I'm fairly positive that, to keep him happy, I'm going to have to go above Mahomes number and likely hit the Allen number and, thankfully due to his age he probably won't be asking for a seven year deal...but I'd expect to have to go at least four years and then just hope and pray that he doesn't throw a little hissy fit after a couple years like he did the last time. So I'm thinking we'd be looking at a new deal where 2022 of his current deal is thrown out. Probably 4 years, 192 million with about 120 million of that guaranteed. Probably something like an 82 million dollar signing bonus, roster + workout bonuses that would be 8.25, 8.75, 9.25, 9.75 and base salaries that would be 12, 15, 22, 25 (bonuses and base salaries guaranteed for first two seasons). So the yearly cap numbers would be 40.75, 44.25, 51.75, 55.25. Then those guys can deal with the mess after Rodgers actually receives checks for 102.25 million the first year and then it drops to 23.75 million the next year. So I don't see the Rodgers + Adams trade as a likely scenario because the team is already going to be carrying a 40+ million dollar cap number on Rodgers and then would have to tie up another roughly 20 million dollars with Adams/franchise tag. Even if a team works out a new deal with Adams that has a cheaper 10 million dollar cap hit in the first year, by the third year that number would likely be up in the 20 million dollar range. Certainly teams can afford to have a 40 million QB and a 20 million WR...but I just don't see this as likely in a trade scenario. But the first year thing is the biggest problem because a team would be adding 40 million in a QB and 10 million in a WR and there are just a handful of teams that could afford to do this in 2022 and most of those teams already have a young QB prospect that they have invested heavily in. I don't think the Hackett hiring was just a coincidence. They had success with bringing in Manning. Now they can use Hackett and the playbook as incentives to try and get Rodgers to sign a contract if they get a deal worked out. I'd predict- Broncos get- QB - Aaron Rodgers 2022 5th round pick Packers get- 2022 1st round pick (#9 overall) 2022 3rd round pick 2023 1st round pick 2023 2nd round pick Assuming Denver has a good year in 2022 with Rodgers and is picking something like 25th in the 2023 draft...but the Ourlads trade value chart, the points value of the picks are 1350 (#9 in 2022), 215 (#75 in 2022), 720 (projected #25 in 2023), 145 (projected #89 in 2023) = 2430. Then subtract out 23.8 for the 5th going back to Denver and it's 2406.2 going to Green Bay. 2400 is halfway between a #2 and #3 overall pick on the chart, IMO that would represent a pretty reasonable deal for both sides. As far as Adams, I think he just leaves as a free agent and the Packers get a 3rd round comp pick for him. I'd be pretty impressed if Gutekunst could pull off some deal where he franchises him and is able to trade him for a higher draft pick. It kind of sucks because Rodgers pretty much holds all the cards here. If Denver or any other team comes calling and Rodgers refuses to sign an extension, the Packers won't get anything near the package I outlined above. Above contract figures all came from- https://overthecap.com/ The Ourlads trade chart- https://www.ourlads.com/nfldraftvalue/ If the trade and comp pick situation happens as outlined above, the Packer drafts for the next couple of years would look like this- 2022- #9 (1st round pick - from Denver) #28 (1st) #59 (2nd) #75 (3rd - from Denver) #92 (3rd) #128 (4th) #137 (4th - projected compensatory pick, Corey Linsley) #225 (7th - from Chicago through Houston, for Ka'dar Hollman) #246 (7th) #256 (7th - projected compensatory pick, Jamaal Williams) 2023- 1st round pick 1st round pick (from Denver) 2nd round pick 2nd round pick (from Denver) 3rd round pick 3rd round pick (compensatory, for Adams) 4th round pick 5th round pick 7th round pick 7th round pick (from LA Rams, Rams got Packers 6th round pick and Packers got Corey Bojorquez and Rams 7th round pick) Above info from: https://overthecap.com/compensatory-picks/ https://tankathon.com/nfl/full_draft

Brad Hand is projected as a 0.1 WAR player on Fangraphs Free Agent Tracker. If that's the way MLB front offices see him, then he's probably looking at a 1 year deal somewhere around 4 million dollars. There are some red flags in that his 2021 K rate went way down and the BB rate went way up. His slider was as effective as it has been in the past, but his fastball effectiveness went way down. Normally one would then expect to see a big drop in velocity, but his fastball velocity was the best it has been since 2018. The % of hard hit balls also went way down, maybe that's just in line with the move away from a juiced ball, but the key is it dropped by 6% and didn't stay where it was at. Another odd thing was the hitters made contact with pitches outside of the strike zone 70.9% of the time they swung at those pitches, which is much higher than it's been the last few season could be a fluky number that partially explains the drop in the K%. Overall, there's enough in the peripherals to make me want to take a chance on him if the price is right, despite coming off a poor season.

Any plan where Wisconsin does not play Minnesota, Iowa and Illinois every year is a plan that completely sucks. It just may suck so bad that I might have to do with Badger football as I have done with Packer football...and that's not watch any of it.

This is probably where the rumors are coming from- https://soonersports.com/sports/football/roster/caleb-williams/14722 https://uwbadgers.com/sports/football/roster/dean-engram/9634 Check out the high schools and then look at who the next Wisconsin offensive coordinator will be. Still not nearly enough connected dots to make me think Williams would be coming to Wisconsin.

Whatever. Smart money is still on USC...unless someone outbids them...and if that happens it won't be Wisconsin.

I very much doubt the Angels would be looking to trade Adell. As mediocre as his stat sheet was last year, he did finish the year with a .700+ OPS and was positive in both DRS and UZR/150 as a right fielder. Adell still is a very high-upside, athletic type that the Angels spent a top 10 pick on.

Did I miss something?

The Trade Values site has a 19.2 million dollar surplus value on Houser and I come up with 17.2 by my numbers. But when diving deeper into Houser's stat sheet, I'd be very surprised if MLB front offices would give that up. Frankly, he was bad in 2020, and his 2021 peripherals weren't very good. There were 68 pitchers in MLB who hit 140 innings pitched in 2021 (Houser pitched 142 1/3 innings). His K% of 17.5 ranked 59th (bottom 15%), his BB% ranked 66th (bottom 5%), resulting in a K/BB of 1.64 which ranked 66th. He had a FIP (4.33) over a run higher than his ERA (3.22), and a SIERA of 4.73 which was in the bottom 15% of pitchers that threw at least 140 innings. Historically his BABIP has run right around the league average of .300, but in 2021 it dipped to .259. HR/FB ratio was 18.4% in 2019 and 24.2% in 2020 but was only 13.8% in 2021. Put it all together and Steamer has projected him as a 4.74 ERA/4.75 FIP/4.60 xFIP/1.1 WAR pitcher in 2022, and it's not an unreasonable projection when looking at all the numbers over the last two years. Granted, he's a sinker ball pitcher and those guys tend to consistently outpitch their peripherals. But we saw how many difficulties that Keuchel had trying to get a deal in line with his past performance, and considering how awful he was last year, it probably doesn't give GMs much motivation to throw considerable resources at sinker-ballers. If Houser is graded as a 1.1 WAR player in 2022, a 1.1 WAR player in 2023, and then a 0.6 WAR player in 2024 (will be his age 31 season), his surplus value is only in the 7 to 8 million dollar range. I was against trading Houser, but after looking at the numbers...I'd be pretty motivated to deal him if another team offered 19 million in surplus value in one form or another. That definitely looks like it might be a prime sell high opportunity. And as far if other teams would prefer Houser or Lauer, I'd bet that if given the choice, at least 25 of the other 29 teams would take Lauer over Houser.

There is an ESPN reporter named VanHaaren reporting that Bobby Engram is likely to be the new offensive coordinator. Makes sense as Engram was on the staff when Chryst was Pitt's head coach.

That likely happens anyway unless Attanasio/Stearns decide to step up and give either Woodruff or Burnes a 200+ million dollar contract, which I don't see happening with Yelich taking up about 20-25% of the payroll over that same time-frame.

Joey Gallo = middle of the order batter Jeff McNeil = utility man MLB career slash lines- Joey Gallo (2401 plate appearances) = .206/.333/.489/.821 Jeff McNeil (1450 plate appearances) = .299/.364/.459/.824

The Mets look like a strong third wheel candidate in a Brewers/As Matt Olson deal. There is a good chance that Oakland would value Smith higher than Tellez or a role-player prospect. Smith's WAR has been negatively impacted because he is a horrible outfielder. His defensive numbers at first base are merely below average, and he is a more valuable player if he can go to a team where first base is open for him. Smith did slash .299/.366/.571/.937 in 396 plate appearances spread over 2020-2021, so it's not like he's never hit at the MLB level before. And if the Brewers acquired Ginn and took Ashby off the board, then there is pretty much no question that Ginn would be the top pitching prospect they would have to trade and is a guy that would have pretty decent trade value. Milwaukee gets: 1B - Matt Olson (from Oakland) 3B - Jeff McNeil (from Mets) RHP - Lou Trivino (from Oakland) Mets get: LHP - Josh Hader (from Milwaukee) Oakland gets: 1B - Dominic Smith (from Mets) OF - Sal Frelick (from Milwaukee) RHP - J.T. Ginn (from Mets) LHP - Antoine Kelly (from Milwaukee) OF - Jackson Chourio (from Milwaukee) 3B - Jaylen Palmer (from Mets)

Last year McNeil was .294/.356/.444/.800 at home but a terrible .211/.285/.281/.567 on the road. Career wise, he's .387 OBP/.874 OPS at home and .343 OBP/.778 OPS on the road. Those include the dramatic spilt of 2021, exclude those numbers and the 2018-2020 home/road numbers would be much more similar. I really wish I could find a BABIP number at home versus the road for 2021 to see if that could be a contributor to what looks like a fairly fluky number when comparing to the rest of the historical stats. Worth noting that from 2018-2020 McNeil's BABIP numbers were .359 -.337 - .335 but then in 2021 it dipped to .280. He's a career .476 OPS in Miller Park but that is a grand total of 21 plate appearances, so there probably isn't too much that can be gained from that. But it also can't be completely attributed to Brewer pitching either, as he has a .635 OPS against Milwaukee, so he must be hitting Brewer pitching alright in New York. But with as few plate appearances that there is, there is always a chance he faced Woodruff and Burnes in Milwaukee but faced other Brewer pitchers in New York. All of this can be looked up but there are so few plate appearances involved that I don't even think it's worth it. The 2021 road OPS really dragged down the 2021 totals and I would still see that as being somewhat fluky. I still think he'd be a bargain at 15 million in surplus value and would like to see the Brewers add him at that price.

I'd try to save pitching for a possible Matt Olson deal. Would look to move prospects in a McNeil deal. However, if the Mets were willing to overpay for Hader and include McNeil (plus a whole lot more) in the return package, I would listen to that. Mets also could be that third wheel in an Olson-Hader deal where the Mets get Hader, the Brewers get Olson and McNeil and the A's get a bunch of prospects from the Brewers and the Mets.

McNeil has a positive DRS at 2B, 3B, LF, RF. It's possible he could turn out to be the Brewer's best option in RF. How much time will Yelich miss in LF, especially now that he's on the big contract and just may have less motivation to play with minor injuries? I'm more than happy to go into 2022 with Urias as the everyday 3B, but what if he regresses? If I'm to play Brewer GM, and the BaseballTradeValue site's 15.1 million in surplus value estimate is truly what MLB front offices think of him....and the Mets really want to deal him....there would be a 100% chance that he would be in a Brewer uniform next year. I'd probably have his surplus value at 3x that amount. He had a crappy .679 OPS last year and still, on average, was a 1.0 bWAR/fWAR player. Before that season he had posted a .319/.383/.501/.884 slash line in over 1000 plate appearances. He was a .900+ OPS guy in AAA and AA. A very good history of hitting and getting on-base. If he splits the middle between what he was in 2018-2020 versus 2021...he is a .285/.350/.430/.780 hitter that bring plus DRS to four positions and the best comparable to that slash line in 2021 was Alex Verdugo who hit .289/.351/.426 for the Red Sox and graded as an average outfielder (good in left and right, poor in centerfield). Verdugo's WARs as follows: bWAR = 2.2, fWAR= 2.0. Verdugo's left field numbers are way better than McNeil's but McNeil's numbers are slightly better as a right fielder. Add in that McNeil can bring plus defense at 2B and 3B and I'd probably calculates out to a 2.3-2.5 WAR player if he hits at the .285/.350/.430/.780 level. At a price of 15 million in surplus value, IMO he's a great guy to take a chance on. With a year one arbitration estimate of 2.8 million, he's on a track that would probably earn him about 13 million over the next 3 years. If he's worth 6 WAR total over those three seasons, trading 15 million in surplus value away would be a very good move for the Brewers.

My long-term plan would be to trade one of Burnes/Woodruff after this season. Because of that, I'd be very hesitant to move any of the current starters because they'd be needed for 2023. Someone would have to overpay for Houser or Lauer to pry them away...and it would pretty much have to include immediate lineup help as part of the deal.

Let's take a look at the efficiency of Chryst's passing offense in the team's last full season of games, pre-Mertz. In 2019 the team ranked 2nd in the Big 10 with a pass efficiency rating of 151.2. #1 in completion percentage at 70.1%. #3 in average yards per attempt at 8.0. #2 in TD/INT ratio at 3.6. https://bigten.org/stats.aspx?path=football&year=2019 Maybe Mertz is really that bad.

I DVR'ed the game and watched it again today. I honestly think it all comes down to Mertz just sucking that bad and not having any capable backup. When Mertz threw that interception, which by the way was absolutely horrible, you knew that from that point forward the whole strategy was going to be "don't let the QB screw it up and we'll just try to win on defense." And that's what happened. They would only let Mertz drop back and throw the ball when they got in situations where they really couldn't call anything else. Mertz is just terrible. He is one tick above Hornibrook at this point. Up to this point I would also point out that the talent on offense may be the worst I've seen on a Badger team in 20 years. But after watching last night's game, I'm going to pivot and say that good QBs can cover up lots of problems...but Mertz sure isn't going to do that. I've given up on him. Again I'll say that if people have a problem with the coaching staff, they should start with recruiting because they have done a really poor job with the offensive skill positions in recent seasons. That is the problem with the offense. Earlier this week there was a glowing write-up on Deacon Hill, and I am hoping beyond hope that guy turns out to be the real deal. Have to admit I'm pretty glad that I will never have to watch the 2021 Badger offense again.

Ouch. That's painful. And probably unjustified considering the season he just came off. I can get behind saying something like his hit tool is a 30 or 35 though. And it's a shame too, because in all the other categories he might be a 50 or better.