JosephC

I like Dozier but wouldn't make any sort of significant financial commitment to him until I found out what is up with Grandal. With Hiura waiting in the wings, I see catcher as a much bigger hole than 2B. Still like the idea of Logan Forsythe as a nice, cheap bridge to cover the first couple months until the Super Two game with Hiura is over. If the Brewers are already out on both Grandal and Keuchel (I've already assumed they are out with Keuchel but one never knows for sure), Dozier would be my next target.

The Red Sox project to be about 30 million over the luxury tax threshold. Trading Bogaerts only subtracts about 1/3rd of that total. I don't see any other realistic moves to subtract another 20 million off of their payroll. When the Red Sox signed Eovaldi, it was pretty much a statement that they were going to be playing 2019 over the luxury tax threshold and are fine with doing so. Can't really imagine the Red Sox would have any motivation at this point to trade Bogaerts.

I'd only be voting for: Mike Mussina Mariano Rivera Curt Schilling

I love this trade. Assuming Houser makes the opening day roster because he's out of options, Wahl teams nicely with Taylor Williams to give the Brewers outstanding right handed relief insurance policies. Add two more prospects on top of that. I don't mind taking Broxton and his low OPB out of the equation. It looks pretty solid for the Mets too. The Mets only have 4 outfielders on their 40-man and Cespedes is likely to miss the entire season which brings them down to 3. They get a MLB outfielder that has an attractive power/speed combo and can play all three spots and they don't have to give up a necessary MLB piece or a top 25 prospect to get him.

Wait a second. So the Mariners traded Segura's 14.25 million AAV salaries away when Segura is only 28 years old and is a proven 4'ish WAR player. Meanwhile they turn around and, after adding in the posting fee, put themselves on the hook for even more money annually with a 27 year old pitcher who has not thrown a single pitch in MLB and has a history of shoulder problems. And then in the first press conference, basically admit they have to protect him by bullpen'ing one of his every five starts. That would limit him to 162 innings. So a 27 year old who has never pitched in the majors with shoulder problems who is already being put on a pretty low inning count brings more to the team than a 28 year old MLB proven All-Star shortstop that has OPS'ed .803 over the last three seasons. But hey, this will extend their league-leading streak of having a Japanese player on the roster.

THIS ALL ASSUMES THE NEW HEAD COACH KEEPS THE 3 WR - 1 TE PREFERENCE FOR OFFENSE AND THE 3-4 (?) DEFENSE. I'd probably go with something like: QB (5): Agree with LouisEly's starter/backup breakdown. Starter is not needed, but I'd say that this is at least an "average" need considering Rodgers is clearly declining physically and it's probably too much to expect him to make it through seasons even at 85+% health. RB (4): Only thing that kind of sucks is that the back with good running skills can't block worth a lick, and the one with blocking skills has speed/quickness deficiencies. The combination of the two is still good enough. But there isn't anybody after these two, so an injury to one or the other could end up being a big deal. Need to find a competent #3. FB (0): If the new coach runs the same 3 WR/1 TE preference as the last coach, having a fullback on the roster is a waste of space. Would bring more value in covering kickoffs, so if there is a good special teamer that happens to play fullback.... TE (9): Graham can't run anymore and Kendricks might not even grade as a decent #2. WR (6): I've seen too many flash-in-the-pan receivers to get over-excited about Valdes-Scantling and St. Brown just yet. And this offense needs plenty of receivers to work properly. OT (8): Spriggs is average at best, Bulaga is on his absolute last leg and if Bulaga is out then there is no depth at the position. OG (9): Right guard doesn't have a starter and IMO Lane Taylor is regressing and has the look of being a below average player in the near future. C (2): I like Linsley. Defense: DL (7): Depth has been an issue here for quite awhile now. If Lancaster is legitimate then nose tackle is locked down because there are no issues with Clark. But I don't think Wilkerson will be back. Daniels was hurt and at the age where a decline should be expected. Lowry is decent enough for a rotation. Adams showed some flashes. I think end is a pretty significant need. OLB (11): Obviously. It's too bad Thompson kept continually botching the CB position and OLB had to be ignored for so long. Just say no, no, no, no, no to a Clay Matthews return. ILB (7): It's too bad Morrison can't run because at least he brings some thump to the position. Burks will get a spot on the off-season roster, but if he is as bad next year as he was this year then he shouldn't be on the roster once the regular season starts. CB (6): I don't trust King's health and Jackson...that guy looked completely lost at times this year. Still enough young bodies here with upside to downgrade CB on the needs list. S (10): There isn't one guy that I trust back there except for Tramon Williams and I don't know if he should be playing safety. The rest of the guys might be big and fast, but they all seem to be slow reactors, have trouble judging the ball in the air and sometimes just appear to be lost out there. Special teams: K (0): Crosby had a bad year this year IMO but he had a bad one in 2012 and bounced-back with a great run after that. I think he's got a few more good years left in him. P (0): Wasn't real happy that the Packer's net punting average actually dropped from 41.6 last year to 38.8 this year. But Scott showed enough where he shouldn't be replaced. LS (7): I don't know about Bradley. I saw Scott reaching around for many of those snaps (as a holder, not a punter) and I think McGinn had some comments that question Bradley's short-snap performance but I might be wrong about that.

I wouldn't take Edwards in the first four rounds based on the way he played this year and the way he played at the end of last year. He was a nothing more than a turnstile in the previous year's bowl game. But pretty much every NFL team now drafts based on the workout numbers, so if he goes to Indianapolis, runs a 4.95 40 time, has a 33 inch vertical jump and does the 3 cone drill in 7.42 seconds, he would very likely be a first round pick and would be a virtual lock to be picked in the top 50. But a guy (1) coming off a bad year and (2) has reported shoulder problems that seem to have lingered for some time now...personally I just don't see him as a player to get all that excited about.

As best as I can figure it, add another 8.15 million onto this for the cost of the posting fee. That would take the 3 year payout to 51.15 million, an average yearly value of 17.05 million. If the Mariners pick up that four year option, it's likely that they pay 15% of that value as a supplement to the posting fee. That makes those four years a 66 million salary + 9.9 million posting fee = 75.9 million dollar payout. Total cost of 7 years would be 109 million in salary plus 18.05 million in a posting fee for a total of 127.05 million. 127.05/7 = 18.15 million average for the seven seasons. IMO, that would be crazy money for a small market team like Milwaukee. If anyone finds information that proves my numbers incorrect, please post that information so we all can get a better idea on how the payouts for the posting system work. I am not pretending to be very knowledgeable in this area.

Will he be bringing Tim Tebow with him? I have no problem with hiring McDaniels but if so Murphy has to make sure there is about a 1000 mile gap between the front office and coaching staff. https://broncoswire.usatoday.com/2017/04/25/denver-broncos-news-josh-mcdaniels-von-miller/

You are a bit more optimistic than I am. At this point I would prioritize OLB and see every single non-special teams position after that as just about an equal need. I don't like the depth on this team at all and haven't for the last couple of seasons. Sunday's game is the perfect example. They probably shouldn't be expected to win having that many starters out. But the Lions weren't a good team, the Packers were at home and the game was not the slightest bit competitive. There are significant depth issues pretty much at every position. Just some more notes. Smartest move that Thompson ever made was drafting Rodgers when Favre still seemingly had a couple good years left. The Packers should not rule out drafting a QB high if the right one is there. If anything, it would be foolish to assume that Rodgers will start 16 games per season from this point forward. Favre was (still is) the gold standard when it comes to QB durability, and history has proven that Thompson was smart for taking Rodgers when he did. They would be foolish to assume that Valdes-Scantling and St. Brown makes WR a non-need. I think both of them have good upside but if I had a nickel for every flash-in-the-pan NFL receiver I've seen..... If the Packers make a big investment in a receiver and Valdes-Scantling and St. Brown both become good players, then the Packers have four good receivers and there is no rule against putting four receivers on the field at the same time. Thankfully Alexander has solidified the CB position enough where it's not such a glaring need like it's been the last few off-seasons. I thought Gutekunst was basically locked into taking a CB last year because they were just so awful at that spot. But I have zero confidence in King's durability and Josh Jackson started badly, looked a bit better and then ended badly again. CB isn't a huge need, but is still a position that is shakey and I wouldn't mind seeing another upgrade there. But OLB is just brutally bad. If the new coach sticks with a 3-4, I just don't think there is any question that Gutekunst will be forced to take an OLB with at least one those first round picks unless the quality is just completely off-the-board when those picks are made.

I don't know if having NFL connections is a big advantage or disadvantage. Logic would say it's a big advantage. But how many times have we seen NFL coaches just hire all their old lackeys or guys they worked with in the past? Mike McCarthy had worked with Ron Zook in New Orleans...was it such a big coup for the Packers when they hired him as the special teams coordinator? Wasn't Winston Moss among the first guys that McCarthy hired, and wasn't that largely because they worked together in New Orleans? Obviously it's probably a bad move if the Packers hire Fitzgerald and he just brings his entire coaching staff from Northwestern. But if he is hired, only brings a couple of those guys, and then hires from a pool of NFL guys after extensive interviews...based on the actual resumes and interviews and not "I worked with him in the past"...I almost like that situation better than the "buddy-buddy" system we see so much when coaching staffs are put together. Check out the new Raider's GM. Hard to believe that move could have been made without Gruden's experience at ESPN. Checking his wiki page, the new GM has no NFL front office experience. I know I'd be feeling great about this if I was a Raiders fan. Yeah, I realize that Gruden is making all the calls there but I'd sure feel better if the main support there consisted of a guy that actually worked in an NFL front office before. Probably all this talk about Fitzgerald will be for nothing. I'm guessing he will not be the next Packer's coach.

Rebuild isn't the right word for this situation. Rebuild is when a team is at the point where they don't have many good players, have salary cap problems and desperately need more draft picks. I don't think any of those apply to Green Bay. There is no reason to keep Rodgers and tear everything else down for the purpose of rebuilding. Yes, I kind of see them as NOT being a playoff team the next couple of years, but at the same time I don't see them as having a pick in the top 8. I just look at this team and see too many major holes (still no pass rusher, Rodgers still good but no longer super-elite, declining offensive line, cornerback may be fixed but safety?, and poor depth basically everywhere) and think it will be hard for the team to fix all of holes in one or two off-seasons. If Gutekunst can work some magic, hit big on two free agent pickups and maybe get four guys in the next draft that turn into good players right away...then the Packers are back in the playoffs next year. But getting six "hits" in one off-season is probably too much to ask. I think it will take a bit longer than that.

Gutekunst and Fitzgerald are also reported to really like one another. Gutekunst crossed paths with him quite often when on the scouting trail and there is a lot of respect between the two of them.

I kind of feel about Fitzgerald like I felt about Bielema. There may be bigger money at that next job, but if the guy stays where he is at he's basically set for life. It's probably a given that Fitzgerald is towards the bottom of the pay-scale for Big 10 coaches, and I wouldn't be surprised if a move to Green Bay would get him three to four times the annual salary he currently makes. But if I were in his shoes, it would be very tough for me to leave Northwestern for any other job. He's got it good there and it's obviously a wonderful fit for both sides.

I'm not as down on this team as superfly but it's been pretty obvious the last couple of years that this team was basically Rodgers and little else. I saw Rodgers miss enough easy passes this year to know that he's on the decline. It's also more and more likely he will miss more games from here on out as the nagging injuries are really starting to pile up. Unless the front office can work some real magic, this is looking like a 6-7 win team the next couple of years while the foundation is rebuilt. I'm really happy the Packers will be bringing in Milt Hendrickson (National Scout) from the Ravens. That's a pretty good move as the guy is widely respected and has a solid history with a pretty good organization.

I think everyone has just assumed he's going to the Giants. Quick internet search shows that the Mariners might be in play.

I definitely would not oppose a Shaw extension. I've pretty much given up on Erceg and I don't see another good 3B candidate on the horizon in the Brewer's system. Shaw was brutal against lefties last year, but was a very respectable .250/.312/.464/.776 against them in 2017. While I don't think he'll be a plus-performer against lefties in the future, I think he'll do enough to hold his own and remain a solid everyday player. The big question with Shaw coming up through the minors was if he'd get on base enough. He's been a .347 OBP performer during his time in Milwaukee. That more than anything would make me comfortable with giving him an extension.

Gray's fWAR/bWAR over the last three seasons: 2016 = 0.2 2017 = 2.7 2018 = 1.15 Three year average = 1.35 WAR 1.35 WAR * 9 million (2019 $/WAR) = 12.15 million - 9 million arbitration projection = 3.15 million in surplus value Role-player prospect = 5.5 million Fringe prospect = 2.2 million Gray is really worth no more than 1 or 2 fringe prospects. In terms of the Brewer's top 30 list on MLB.com, take out the top 20 players on the list and then we would be looking at "proper" players to include in a trade like this. The Yankees would likely claim that the trading team would be trading for 2017 Sonny Gray and that 2016 and 2018 should be ignored. If one just pretends like 2 of the last 3 years didn't happen, then maybe his surplus value pushes up to the 15 million dollar range which could return someone like Lutz. All I can say to Cashman is good luck with convincing teams that 2/3rds of the recent data is meaningless. Asking for a legitimate top 20 prospect in all of baseball is an insult IMO. I wouldn't give up the worst prospect in the system for Gray because I would rather use that money elsewhere. Defintely would have rather given Wilson Ramos 2 years, 24 million than sink 9 million into Gray. Definitely would not give the slightest consideration to trading for Gray until at least I know what is happening with Grandal and maybe some bridge opportunities for second base.

Last I heard, when the Yankees were talking with the Reds they wanted Taylor Trammell as the return. Taylor Trammell is #17 on MLB's Top 100 list. Not really any surprise the Reds went in a different direction.

Hornibrook isn't good enough to play for any Big 10 team. But he is good enough to start for Miami, Fl.

It's pretty easy to look at Castro and assume that he would be a negative value player. But last year he had a bWAR/fWAR of 2.8, three year average 0f 2.0. Even counting for some decline, he probably should be considered a slightly positive value player. Would the Marlins just forego that and throw him into a Realmuto deal to unload his salary? I think that's pretty likely. But I think it's just as likely that a team will not get a discount on Realmuto if Castro is thrown in. Urena is a tough guy to figure. Posted a 3.90 ERA and 1.23 WHIP in his age 25 and 26 seasons. That looks pretty good. However, he's been a 6.4 K/9, 4.68 FIP, 97 ERA+ pitcher over those same two seasons and that's not very good. He'd have positive value, but probably not as much as many people would anticipate for a guy with 3 years of control remaining.

It's an above average salary for a DH but not a crazy number. Take the 15 players that had the most DH at-bats for their respective American League clubs, and the average 2018 salary for those players was 11.66 million. Median number was 11 million. And those numbers ignore some other financial considerations. These figures do not account for a 6 million dollar signing bonus that was given to Salvador Perez (yes, led KC last year in DH at-bats) and a 5 million dollar signing bonus that was given to Edwin Encarnacion. Also does not account for things like the 20 million dollar posting fee to acquire Shohei Ohtani. It's probably fair to say the going rate for a good DH these days is 12+ million.

The Diamondbacks already have him signed up for the next 6 years at extremely reasonable rates. Have to believe the price-tag on him would be sky high.

Of all the top free agents this off-season, I thought Keuchel had the biggest probability of landing a contract that would be less than expected. For the record, I like the guy and think he's a good fit for Milwaukee because he's sits at or near the top of the ground-ball pitcher list. But how attractive will he be on the market? Last year his K/9 rate was 6.7. Pitch info had his average fastball at 90.2 last season, which is actually a high number for him but certainly doesn't qualify as eye-popping. Bottom line, we are in an era where the strikeout is considered king. When considering that, Keuchel isn't all that attractive as a front-line pitcher. Over the last three years he has a 3.78 FIP and 106 ERA+. Not a thing wrong with those numbers, but it's certainly not Cy Young type peripherals and most big market GMs might see him as a #2- or #3+++ type starting pitcher. Last year his WHIP jumped to 1.31, the worst number he's had since 2013. It's been 3 years since he's won the Cy Young and in those three seasons: average 173 innings pitched, 3.77 ERA, 1.25 WHIP, 3.78 WHIP, 106 ERA+, 2.7 BB/9, 7.3 K/9 Then there is the qualifying offer attached to him, making him a bit more unattractive. I think 4 years, 72 million could end up being a more likely figure for him. But I wouldn't be shocked if it ended up being a 3 year, 60 million type deal (19 million in 2019, 19 million in 2020, 18 million in 2021...team option in 2022, 20 million with a 4 million buyout).

Taking recent results, but throwing out Santana's 30 HR season. Santana in 2016 and 2018 = .260/.337/.431/.768 Gamel in 2017 and 2018 = .274/.335/.398/.733