BillScottCanRake

The thing I wonder about is if the nature of negotiations have changed recently with analytics seemingly playing a large part in teams determining player value. Are teams less willing to engage in back-and-forth negotiations because they feel like they better know what a players value is than perhaps they did before? Are they more willing go to players and say "This is what we are willing to pay based on projected future performance, but this is our best offer"? If things have changed over the last several years, I totally get why players, especially those who are still unsigned, feel like they aren't being negotiated with. If someone thinks they have a certain value and potential employers are continually telling them they don't think they are worth that much, that is difficult to take regardless of profession or the money involved. I guess there have always been differences in opinion regarding player values, so this isn't new. What does seem to be new, or maybe more common than it has been, is that both sides are more willing to stick to their guns. Keuchel thinks his services have a certain value, and right now teams don't agree. I don't think Keuchel is wrong to wait for a contract he thinks is fair, and I don't think teams are wrong for not signing him long-term because they fear the last few years of his contract could be really bad for the team. I don't think either side should feel compelled into an agreement they aren't comfortable with. I'm not sure what the solution is; I am inclined to think there isn't one.

I suspect the draft value chart does take into account player grades; it almost has to, because you don't want trade up into a round and select a player which doesn't have a corresponding grade. Andrew Brandt's re-telling of the 2005 draft in my mind hints that is the case. Brandt was interviewed by Gary V (you can find the video on Youtube; I'm not going to link directly to it because the language is a bit salty) and he talks about their 2005 draft board only having 20 first round grades, and how the only guy left when the Packers pick game up was Rodgers. He also speculates a bit about what it would have taken for another team to move back to 24 to pick Rodgers, but no one called to ask about the pick so the Packers picked Rodgers. When you combined all these things together, I think it provides some evidence the draft value chart can be fluid and can to some degree be tied into the grades a team give players.

Endgame was the first 3d movie I have seen since... I don't know, something from the 80s. I enjoyed that "new to me" aspect very much. As a 3d movie, how does Endgame compare to other movies? Was it really good, or are most 3d movies this good?

This isn't petty because the money being spent doesnt come from some infinite supply. As long as resources are finite, Stearns needs to be allowed to make the decisions he feels are best. Forcing this on him effectively limits him against his will down the road. Unless Attanasio and the other 62% of the folks who own the team are willing to say yes 100% of the time Stearns wants to spend money on players, forcing a contract on him he doesnt agree with is a big deal. Because if the signing ends up being a mistake, and if we have learned anything in sports it is there are 0 guarantees, you have created a situation where: - The man responsible for roster makeup was overruled - The person who made the mess isn't responsible for fixing the mistake - You have put the guy responsible for fixing your mistake at a disadvantage because while you were willing to throw money around once now you aren't. The idea that adding payroll isn't a big deal and mistakes can be easily overcome fails to learn from the mistakes of the past. The Brewers suffered because of the contracts they paid guys like Jeffery Hammonds and Jeff Suppan and Marquis Grissom. All of those decisions were driven by ownership more so than the personnel guys. At the end of the day, Attanasio owns the team and can do what he wants. I just hope he doesnt make bad decisions when he has got a great staff under him who are more than capable of doing a good job without interference.

I agree that "overpaying" a bit on a one-year deal won't kill this team. If I were in charge (and thank god I'm not) I'd be willing to offer a higher salary to get a one-year deal, and I think Stearns would too. In that regard I think it's within Stearns SOP to "overpay" to sign players like he already did with Grandal. I do think, though, Stearns still has a "will not exceed" price that he just won't match. I don't know what it is, how that lines up with how much salary they have left to add (both now and later this summer), etc., but I think as long as Kimbrel either wants multiple years or more than Stearn's "best offer" a deal isn't going to get done. Even if the team can technically afford it.

If there is anything we have learned since Stearns has been in charge is he rarely will pay more (in terms of salary, players, etc) than he believes a player is worth. All of his moves have been about getting value for assets expended, and while he is willing to pay a premium price for production now that the Brewers are competitive he doesn't appear to be willing to overpay. I think Stearns would like to add Kimbrel. I think the Brewers are in a good position to add expensive pieces like Kimbrel because competing for a championship is realistic. I don't think, however, Stearns is going to pay Kimbrel more than he thinks he's worth, regardless of factors such as cash on hand, current roster makeup, etc. If Kimbrel's price remains significantly outside of what Stearns thinks he's worth, I doubt we'll see Kimbrel sign with the Brewers. The only possible scenario I could see where Stearns overpays for Kimbrel would be on a one-year deal, and even then I doubt he significantly overpays. EDIT: I don't know Kimbrel's asking price or that it is "significantly" outside of what Stearns is willing to pay. I am assuming the gap must be somewhat large because if it were not the two sides would have agreed on a contract. I am perfectly willing to concede the gap may be closer than the situation would seem to indicate.

That is the rule: https://www.mlb.com/news/mlb-rules-changes Awesome... objection withdrawn!

My biggest gripe isn't LOOGY's, but rather usage over multiple games. Let's say Hader pitched one inning the previous game. His availability in this game is now limited because he has to face three hitters. Which means he can't come in with 2 outs in the 8th and get the last hitter because he then has to face 2 guys in the 9th, too. That sort of usage now goes away, which can be just as game-changing as elimination of the one hitter specialist. If this is about speeding up the game, the rule should have been "must face three batters or complete the inning". That way if the Brewers want to pitch Hader with 2 outs in the 8th the night after pitching one full inning they can. The consequence for Hader not getting the first guy is he may need to face two more and extend how long he is not available. Once the inning is over changing pitchers won't impact the pace of play, so it should be allowable.

The point is until he repeats 2017, no matter how he did it, no matter how good he looked doing it, no matter how convincingly he did it, it's a one-off season. Add onto that the unknowns of his injury (and even though it looks better than a lot of other shoulder injuries, there are still unknowns) and you have not only a classic outlier season, but additional worries about him being able to repeat it. Baseball is littered with players who, for a whole lot of different reasons including injury, had seasons which were not typical of the rest of their career. Some of the more memorable ones for me are: Roger Maris (1961) Mark Fidrych (1976) Pat Listach ( 1992) Brady Anderson (1996) Jeff Francoeur (2006) Daisuke Matsuzaka (2008) Some of those guys had nice careers, some not so nice, but none of them were the player they were in their peak year at any other time in their career. I am sure at the time they had their peak seasons the was plenty of talk about their future being bright, but they were outliers never to be seen again. Until Nelson repeats his 2017 season, or betters it, it is the dictionary definition of an outlier. That doesn't mean it will always be, and it doesn't mean Nelson can't be a top-of-the-rotation starter, it just means he has to prove it.

I haven't followed this too closely because I can't imagine the Packers use draft capital and cap space to acquire Brown with holes on the online, TE, LB, and safety. That said, this article talks about receiver production for receivers Brown's age. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.acmepackingcompany.com/platform/amp/2019/2/22/18236295/packers-antonio-brown-odell-beckham-jr-steelers-giants-trade-nfl-2019 Since 2000, only four wide receivers have earned first-team All-Pro honors in their age-31 season or later. Brown will likely remain an effective player over the next few years. However, any team acquiring him will have paid a high price for All-Pro production, not merely good play. Brown has a decent shot at being all pro this year, and maybe even next year, but will he is he going to worth his contract in three or four years? Maybe, but if he wants any sort of new deal or extension, I would be less inclined to think adding him would work out well longer term.

Per @wojespn, the Bucks have extended Bledsoe; 4 years/70 million. EDIT: Dang you Nate82!

The only launch monitor I have used was a GCQuad, but I did so without a coach. So I have lots raw data and know some swing tendencies (good and bad), but I need some expert help trying to make and implement changes. My hope is I can use the coaching to improve and get some nice baseline data that I can check against launch monitor data as time goes on and get lessons when I start to fall back into bad habits.

Thanks! Cedar Creek does have lessons, so I'll check them out. I also found Tom Gees, and he uses Flight Scope which will give me the data I am looking for.

I think the pool of people who are able to play baseball at a high level and the number of people who have the wealth AND interest necessary to own a Major League baseball team are both small. Both sides are trying to maximize their return on their investment, and given all of the circumstances unique to sports that will create a relationship which is somewhat more adversarial than a more typical employer/employee relationship. Add to that the fan aspect and you have "business" environment unlike most others. The players, for all their natural ability, still work incredibly hard to do what they do, and they rightly want to be paid for it. Players have a pretty short window to make money, and an even smaller window to earn their maximum salary. Once that window closes, it won't ever re-open, so it is hard to begrudge them from making as much as the possibly can. The owners, no matter how they made their money, are trying to both make lots of money and win on the field. Unlike a lot of other businesses, making lots of money does not necessarily mean winning or vice versa. As much as fans want owners to spend, profits be danged, they aren't playing with Monopoly money and they won't spend themselves out of a reasonable profit; these people didn't get wealthy (or stay wealthy) by spending beyond their means. So what you are left with is a group of incredibly driven, elite athletes trying to maximize their earnings during the smallest of windows from a group of wealthy business people, who while trying to win, are also trying to make as much money as they can. Players need the owners because they are the only ones who can give them pay commiserate with their talent, and the owners need the players to bring in the revenue that make them money. The players know the owners need them, and the owners know the players need them, but occasionally they forget they need each other. And when that happens we have labor strife, at which time the players and owners realize the other side isn't really so bad after all, they hug it out and get back to playing baseball. I suspect we are now in the "We don't need the other side" phase, which means we are really close to both sides figuring out they do, and a few years of peace in our lifetime is just a moment or two away.

That's what I was going for with CHAX20, but that works much better.

I had a couple more come to mind: NOJUAN NEUGEY COOOOP UNTUCK

Edit: 6 characters makes it harder The last Brewer game I attended with my dad was Yount's 3000 hit game in 1992. So some of my ideas for a plate would be: 19 3K 3K 19 KID 3K One of my favorite games was this game from 2003. Brewer Fanfest attendees remember it as the Eddie Perez walk off game. So my plate would be: CBISCT If you want one which is memorable but maybe in not such a good way, how about this? CHAX20 I will be curious to see your list... I think there are a lot of great ones waiting to be used.

I saw a Brewer plate last night somewhere around Tomah. BT STL I liked that one.

I live in the La Crosse area and would like to start working with a golf coach. My preference is to work with a coach who uses a launch monitor so I can get some feedback as to my progress, but I am not aware of any in the area. Does anyone have a coach or coaches they can recommend? Thanks!

It looks like La Crosse is going to get 2-4" today and then 8-10" tomorrow night and Tuesday. At least it is February and we only have a couple more months of potential snow.

This is why I like you. You think like me and save me loads of typing.

They dont need to cut Cobb. His contract expired and he is a FA. I wouldn't mind him coming back on a very cheap deal, but I think someone will give him a decent contract and he will be playing somewhere else next year.

I imagine the next TV deal is still going to be limited because the market being served is limited as well. I also think it is more likely to be based on viewership over the life of the last contract as opposed to last year, so I think the increases over normal growth due to inflation and the like may be less than we might think. Hopefully I am wrong. It sure would be nice to get a big spike in revenue over what was expected.

Look up where the 49ers offense ranked in the one year McCarthy was the OC before coming to the Packers ... And the Packers won't be running their offense with the same personnel those teams used last year. It won't take much improvement in Rodgers play for this to be a be a top 10 offense. And even tho LaFleur was hired in large part to fix the offense, he was still hired to run the team as a whole, something you can't measure looking at last years offensive rankings.

Does anyone know how many owners/investors have a stake in the Brewers? Mark A is the face of ownership but isn't the sole owner or the sole investment stakeholder, correct? Would it be fair to speculate those other stakeholders have some say in how much the team spends and what sort of profits are "acceptable"? Or does Mark A have complete autonomy to make budgetary decisions?