Jump to content
Brewer Fanatic

SeaBass

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    3,419

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

 Content Type 

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Milwaukee Brewers News, Rumors & Analysis

2026 Milwaukee Brewers Top Prospect Rankings

Milwaukee Brewers Videos

2022 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Milwaukee Brewers Trade & Free Agent Rumors

Milwaukee Brewers Fan Guides & Resources

2023 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

2024 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

The Milwaukee Brewers Players Project

2025 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

2026 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by SeaBass

  1. SeaBass
    The other lightning rod aspect to Bisaccia is that he's also the assistant head coach, fans not happy with MLF are also going to point to Bisaccia and say, "Is he helping at all??" I've generally been a Gute supporter but one of my biggest gripes with Gute is, what I interpret to be, the carryover of the TT philosophy of just letting the bottom of the roster guys fill out special teams and call it a day. Sometimes you find good special teams guys that way but it's rolling the dice and showing that they don't really care about special teams that much. But time and time again it costs them wins, and sometimes super bowls. I get it, filling out a roster is hard and special teams is on the field a handful of times a game but when it's that much of an Achilles heel you'd like to think there could be a little more emphasis there.
  2. SeaBass
    Honestly I'd feel a lot more concerned if it is Gute just doing it in a room by himself. I can't speculate how much input is asked specifically from the coaching staff if any but they're the ones you're trusting to do the actual coaching of the players they're being given. It feels like maybe they'd have some thoughts. Unless I'm misremembering I seem to recall Keisean Nixon being a Rich Bisaccia guy when he was hired as ST Coordinator.
  3. SeaBass
    Are we sure about that? Is Gute just sitting in a dimly lit room listing out free agent cornerbacks on a spreadsheet and running his own lottery on who to target or is it possible he had discussions with defensive coaches about Hobbs and/or potential draftees?
  4. SeaBass
    Discounting the 1 appearance teams, since 2 teams are guaranteed to go every season, that's 20% of the leagues teams that made it twice or more. It feels reasonable to say good teams have a better chance at having multiple shots in a short time span. So it is hard then? I'm not denying the Packers have underachieved here. I was in favor of revamping leadership as well. I don't know, I think we should be doing better and I still think it's a hard game. Can both be true?
  5. SeaBass
    That's exactly it, 3 to 4 appearances in a 20ish year span kind of feels reasonable for a well run organization. That leaves plenty of room for the other 75% of the league to have teams that get 1 or none in that same span. I just said I think it would be reasonable to think the Packers should have had 2 to 3 more appearances since 2011 and I think that tracks with this statement. They've just failed when those years came and that happens too.
  6. SeaBass
    So the reasonable takeaway is we and every fan of an NFL team should expect 10 super bowl appearances in a 25 year span? I'm not sure that's the argument to use to counter people that say Packers fans are spoiled. I understand the angle of the Patriots revamping their team post Brady/Belichick but one super bowl appearance out of a worst to first team doesn't exactly convince me that should be widely accepted as normal. I'm more inclined to believe it supports randomness. I'm open to hearing about a more average expectation and what that should look like. And I'm not one that's claiming we're spoiled either. We've had some pretty hard bounces since 2011. I would have expected at least one super bowl appearance since then and I think a case can be made for 2 to 3 more at minimum. Emphasis on appearance, winning a super bowl is a whole other thing. I just think it is and continues to be really hard to get there. That there are a tiny number of teams that have achieved a volume of appearances like the Patriots, Chiefs and Eagles over the past 20 years pretty firmly feels like the exception, not the rule. I'm not even sure the Eagles should be included on that list. It's pretty much just been Patriots and Chiefs.
  7. SeaBass
    Three words: Service time manipulation.
  8. SeaBass
    Sam Elliott approves.
  9. SeaBass
    Dang bro, nearly 6 months since we've seen you.
  10. SeaBass
    It hurts to lose Freddy but it would have hurt to lose him after next season too, it's just a year early. They had Freddy last year and still got swept in the NLCS. I'm happy with this trade. The big fear I had if they had kept him was imagining him getting injured and losing out on the big return in trade. This is a safe move that protects the team and ideally that makes them better going forward.
  11. SeaBass
    This company has plans that don't throttle. And it's the same networks as the big three.
  12. SeaBass
    The big three carriers are all overpriced even with their perks. Secondary carriers offer better prices using those same networks. Try looking at US Mobile.
  13. SeaBass
    That's still a massive overpay.
  14. SeaBass
    I hate Vikings fans more. Only thing I really disagree on here.
  15. SeaBass
    It would be hilarious to watch Sam Darnold win a Super Bowl in Seattle immediately after the Vikings chose not to keep him around. This is the result I want. Also I just don't want the Rams (McVay/Stafford), Patriots (because it's the Patriots) or Broncos (Peyton) to win.
  16. SeaBass
    https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/47589337/nfl-green-bay-packers-coach-matt-lafleur-contract-extension-jordan-love Well, at least there's one guy that did it. MLF needs to get to the Super Bowl next season to match.
  17. SeaBass
    Harbaugh to Giants imminent.
  18. SeaBass
    I'm not buying that the Yankees are out just because they traded for Ryan Weathers. Weathers and his 1.4 career bWAR and Peralta aren't comparable talents and Freddy is still only making $8 million.
  19. SeaBass
    If this is so cut and dried, and I understand what you're saying that they're not escaping the luxury tax, why is the rest of the sports world so convinced that this was a huge benefit for the Dodgers? You'd think by now it should be common knowledge but clearly people are still confused. Including reports of other MLB owners that are not happy about the Dodgers tactics. I come away still feeling like the Dodgers are scamming the system. Whether the Dodgers avoided luxury tax or not they found a way to negotiate in such a way that other owners could not compete with them. There's always a winner and loser in bidding wars but this feels extra.
  20. SeaBass
    Or maybe the solution is that if you give a player a contract with a $70M AAV you shouldn't be able to only pay him $2M per year for the length of the contract and just defer the remaining $68M. EDIT: Even if you want to adhere to the $460M current value and think $46M AAV, the $2M salary per season over 10 years is bonkers. If teams were capped at paying a minimum of 50% or even 25% of AAV per season in actual salary it would more effectively restrict their power to significantly minimize luxury tax payments. 2nd Edit: Disregard the above edit, I was getting myself confused since the $46M is already being taxed. I'm done lol. I think most people get what I'm saying, hopefully.
  21. SeaBass
    Ok, that's fine but without the deferrals he'd have otherwise counted $70M per season. It's still an enormous benefit. They shouldn't be able to dodge $34M per season by deferring money. I don't think it's unreasonable for teams to get some tax relief for deferrals but maybe it shouldn't be that much. It seems reasonable to me that they could cap the deferral benefit at a smaller tax discount. I get that they're being charged at the current day value, all I'm saying is when one superstar's free agent contract extends beyond a $300M or $400M overall value at signing (which is a number that would change as salaries escalate) the deferral discount shouldn't be as high regardless of current day value.
  22. SeaBass
    When do those luxury tax hits begin? What I'm seeing is that the immediate benefit was lowering their initial luxury tax penalty which allowed them to sign other high profile players. I also got the numbers wrong, it's a $700M total contract and the $680M was the amount deferred.
  23. SeaBass
    Who's to say that the overall guarantee on their contract isn't already higher than it would be if there were no deferrals? Agents aren't stupid. We're just seeing the final number when salaries are reported.
  24. SeaBass
    I'm not saying to stop deferrals, that would never happen either, I'm only saying that there should be a limit for tax dodging. Defer as much salary as teams want and a player agrees to but only get a luxury tax benefit up to a certain threshold. Deferring 97% of a $680M contract and not having to pay luxury tax is a crime in my opinion. The Dodgers already have the most spending power in the game and this loophole just makes them even more bulletproof.
  25. SeaBass
    A salary cap is never going to happen. I'd be satisfied if their fixed system started and ended with salary deferrals not giving such a huge benefit to avoiding luxury tax thresholds. Call it the Ohtani rule.
×
×
  • Create New...