SeaBass

The players are the attraction in an entertainment industry. They should be making very close to half of all profits. Period.

A) It's not going to be a strike, it's going to be a lockout. B) It's an owner issue, not a player issue. The players aren't making the game worse simply by existing. The players didn't create market disparity. They just work here.

I love me some Billy Contreras but organizationally I don't think the catcher position is the one where the team should choose to extend themselves payroll wise. It's come up before with guys like Lucroy and Grandal and they've generally been proven correct to let those players go as they've aged into their 30's. It's just such a physically brutal position.

Ah, warm and fuzzy thoughts of Contreras morphing into the next Cal Raleigh are dancing in my head.

What good is adding Urias in November when you have no idea what the roster will look like in February? Plus it's the Brewers, of course they would want to sign a player for less money. That's if they're even interested in Urias at all, folks can speculate and even think he's a match but that doesn't mean anything until something does or does not happen.

I think Fubo used to be a soccer focused service so it kind of makes sense because the Spanish word for soccer is fútbol so it's kind of like an abbreviated version of that.

I believe you'd get a 1 month free trial of ESPN Unlimited by signing up for a MLB.tv package but you are not required to subscribe to or use ESPN Unlimited to watch MLB.tv games. You would need to cancel the free trial for ESPN Unlimited before the next month to avoid those recurring subscription fees.

From what I understand the T-mobile perk is just for the traditional MLB.tv content. So no in market Brewers games. You'd need to buy the Brewers package yourself and the benefit is you wouldn't need to spend the extra $100 to get the rest of the MLB.tv content.

John Schneider also didn't make the decision to fire Pete Carroll (though I'm sure he probably had input on it) but it was the owner that made that call. Carroll was on even footing with Schneider in the organization similar to Green Bay's current power structure with Carroll even having final say on all player personnel moves, roster construction, and talent acquisition. So maybe the guy you're actually admiring is Pete Carroll (though I doubt that since Schneider is the one that remains).

They're not going to give up on Ortiz after one bad season. They're just not. That means he's going to get lots and lots of playing time. I'd bet money on it. If he's still struggling as bad as he was last season I'd be thinking June is around the time they'd be thinking of going in another direction. If I'm remembering right Ortiz was supposed to be a high floor OBP guy and last season was not good in that regard. It leaves definite room for improvement and I don't think it's unreasonable to think it's really possible. You'd hope with better pitch selection the walks and hits will increase. It really wouldn't take much to bring him back to league average even if he isn't slugging. The trick of course is in actually doing it.

Sure but was he ever going to realistically be named GM in Green Bay in 2010 before accepting that same job in Seattle? Ted Thompson won a Super Bowl that year. This post is basically saying, "John Schneider sure is a good GM, I like him." Which is fine I suppose but I don't really think there's any relevance in there whatsoever to the Green Bay Packers in 2026.

"but they’re trying to win as many games as possible in a tough division and need their 40 man roster for players who can help them sooner than later." So Boston is really trying to win and I guess the Brewers are not? (Also, isn't taking Yophery Rodriguez in exchange for Quinn Priester doing the opposite of getting players that can help them now sooner than later?) 2025 Brewers - 97-65 Red Sox - 89-73 2024 Brewers - 93-69 Red Sox - 81-81 2023 Brewers - 92-70 Red Sox - 78-84 2022 Brewers - 86-76 Red Sox - 78-84 2021 Brewers - 95-67 Red Sox - 92-70 I had to go back to 2018 to find the most recent season where Boston won more games than the Brewers and the Brewers still won 96 games that season. Throw in 2017 when Boston had 93 wins and the Brewers had 86 and we're getting awful close to the 10 year mark. Why are Boston's choices any more or less relevant than the Brewers' choices when it comes to success? I think it's pretty fair to say that Boston would really like to have Quinn Priester back on their team after his performance last season. They just didn't have the patience or know-how to get that type of production out of him. It's not because they're trying harder to win than the Brewers are.

Q1) Correct, this is only for in market Brewers fans. Q2) Correct, the $200 option is also only for in market Brewers fans. Out of market fans would pay the $150 subscription and be subject to local blackouts when the Brewers play a team in your market. If you're in a market where another team's in market plan is available (like the Twins for example) I'd assume you'd also be able to get that team's version of the $200 plan so that you could watch (nearly) every Brewers game regardless of which team they're playing. There are still going to be National Exclusives (like the Apple TV games) that won't be shown on MLB.tv. Unfortunately it looks like you're out of luck since the Pirates aren't one of the teams being offered for an in market subscription.

I imagine if something happened and the Brewers found themselves in need of more options to start at 1B at the big league level they'd do what they did last season and make a trade. Their depth is league wide.

A lot of this can just be chalked up to "pay attention to what I do, not what I say." They retained Bisaccia, he's not going to say, "We decided not to fire him, I don't really understand why because I think he's terrible." "Do we need wholesale changes (at the CB position)? No." There's an ocean's worth of semantics in that statement that leaves a lot of room for changes to be made.

Right, in no way was I suggesting that coaches are or should be the driving factor in player acquisition but in my mind it would make sense there might be meetings about guys they're looking at in free agency. It's not out of the ordinary for coaches to become GM down the line, it doesn't feel like their input would be of zero use. Coaches watch film, they're (hopefully) not stupid.

Two NLCS appearances with one of those being a 7 game closely contested series doesn't feel like enough data to claim a plateau to me. Two other playoff appearances fizzled out with cream of the crop All Star closers on the mound that blew late game, potential series clinching leads. So that's 4 playoff appearances, the other 3 included a sub .500 team in the shortened 2020 season that probably wouldn't have been a playoff team in a normal season and two sound first round defeats to teams that went on to appear in the World Series. I don't necessarily disagree with those that have an opinion that they should spend some money to get over the hump but I'm not actually sure this would be the year to do that. Also they've never really behaved that way. They've expanded their typical spending limits before and it didn't really pay off quite how they hoped, I think they're just committed to sticking to a plan at this point. There are just so many variables, your MVP candidate might hit a foul ball off his knee late in the season and be lost for the playoffs. Maybe one or two of your best guys goes cold at the plate for 4 or 5 games and you get swept. It's difficult to predict and account for the small sample even when you throw a bit more money at the wall and hope. The Dodgers aren't just spending on one or two guys, they're buying 10+ of them. They had 13 players on their roster last season making 8 figure salaries, 7 of which were making $20M or more. The Brewers had 3 players with 8 figure salaries, Hoskins didn't make the playoff roster and Chourio made less money than all 13 of the Dodgers guys making 8 figures.

Trading Giannis and blowing things up is the only way I get interested in this team again. I've been checked out since late last season. Moving on is the only way I see things getting better. Love Giannis and enjoyed like hell his rise to superstardom and the championship season but it's been all downhill since they traded Holiday and fired Bud. I feel like I've said this before but the NBA changing its rules on how teams are allowed to manage their roster came at the exact moment that was worst for the Bucks franchise. The teams like Miami, Cleveland and Golden State had an advantage building their mini-dynasties that the Bucks didn't. It kinda sucks even though I do think it's for the greater good.

I'm curious if there is more or less risk of injury playing in CF as compared to a corner spot? Perhaps Chourio does have the stuff to be an exceptional CF but if someone else can play above average out there and Chourio is in a corner and there's less risk of injury I'd be ok with that. Injuries can happen anytime anywhere but to me, without really knowing, CF seems a little riskier. Maybe it's negligible so that it wouldn't matter.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.