SeaBass

I decided to randomly pick Miami and see how they compared to Green Bay for the NFLPA Grades. Miami rank listed first w/ GB rank in [brackets]: Defensive Coordinator: T9 (A) [GB: T13 (A-)] Food/Dining: T3 (A) [GB: T11 (B+)] General Manager: T8 (A-) [GB: T19 (B+)] Head Coach: T23 (B) [GB: T27 (B-)] Home Game Field: T4 (A-) [GB: T14 (C+)] Locker Room: T5 (A-) [GB: T1st (A)] Nutritionist/Dietician: T7 (A-) [GB: T24 (B)] Offensive Coordinator: T5 (A-) [GB: T26 (C)] Position Coaches: T3 (A-) [GB: T9 (B+)] Special Teams Coordinator: T26 (B) [GB: T15 (B+)] Strength Coaches: T1st (A+) [GB: T28 (B)] Team Ownership: T5 (A) [GB: T13 (A-)] Team Travel: 1st (A) [GB: T13 (B-)] Training Room: T1st (A) [GB: T24 (C)] Training Staff: T1st (A) [GB: T29 (C)] Treatment of Families: T3 (B+) [GB: T22 (C+)] Weight Room: T1st (A+) [GB: T13 (A-)] I bolded 1st ranked finishes in categories and also bolded any grade of C or worse. The Packers didn't earn any grades lower than a C but there were several teams that earned D's and even F's in many categories. They were all letter grades so most of the time there were one or more teams tied at their grade level in a category, at least between Miami and Green Bay who I focused on for this. Have to say I was really surprised how high Miami ended up being ranked in a lot of these categories, I didn't cherry pick them by looking ahead at all their grades. It turned out that they ended with the best overall grade of any NFL team (they received three B grades that prevented them from getting straight As across the board). They tied for 1st in 5 categories, once being the lone first ranked team (for Team Travel). So honestly it's kind of interesting to compare Miami against Green Bay. I think four of the five C grades the Packers received for Offensive Coordinator, Training Room, Training Staff and Treatment of Families clearly stand out. They also received a C grade for Home Game Field which I assume is due to the turf? When you're talking about a winter based team in an outdoor stadium I'm not sure how much weight you can put into this one. Could it be better? Possibly but how much better? A lot is being made of MLF being tied for 27th at Head Coach but he received a B- grade. Is that actually bad? A flat B would push him up to 23rd and a B+ to 21st. I'm not sure I'm buying this is that terrible of a thing. It's not nothing but with simple letter grades there's not a lot of context there. 20 teams received A grades for HC. Would fan's opinions of MLF have changed if he'd gotten a flat A which would push him to a tie for 3rd? I doubt it. The other main thought I had as I was going down this list was that Miami is really highly ranked for a team that's been in the playoff 3 times in the last decade plus. Do the players just like it because it's Miami and warm and they have a country club atmosphere but aren't expected to win? Who can say.

It's a good movie, basically Top Gun in a racecar. I'm not sure how it pulled off a nomination for best picture but the racing action is legitimately fantastic and excellently filmed. You don't need to be a fan of racing to feel it. The one thing I didn't love was the announcing aspect. I get that the filmmakers needed a way to explain the action to those that don't have any knowledge of racing but to put an echo effect on the announcers voices like it was coming over the PA system at the track was corny and brought me out of being fully immersed into the movie. I got used to it but it was a poor choice IMO. I'd rather have seen one or two quick cuts to a broadcast booth to get the point across that it was a broadcast for TV or something so they could avoid the echo effect. I can see the pros and cons of doing that too but it really annoyed me. Overall a small annoyance though.

If the option year is picked up that would take him through age 70 in 2029. I remember folks being concerned with his age when he was hired but if he retired after 2029 that would be 6 solid seasons and there's nothing that says he couldn't continue for a few more seasons if he (and the team) wanted to.

Google AI search seems to suggest 2 simultaneous streams. It also says up to 5 devices can be signed in at once. Only caveat here is the source for this info seems to be tied into the "MLB TV on ESPN" service. But I would assume whether you're watching via ESPN or directly from MLB.tv it would be the same.

Right that's why I wrote the second sentence in my post. It seems odd, they didn't simply fire him but I'm guessing there were some discussions about (pure speculation here) maybe stepping back from being ST coordinator and just being assistant HC and/or maybe a salary decrease was suggested, who knows. Like a we'll keep you around but here's how we see that happening kinda thing. Essentially inviting him to resign. I'm sure in the end it came down to negotiations how much of his remaining contract they would pay him to go away.

I'm not against something like this. I think a lot of folks think I'm anti-salary cap when my feelings are more on the side of them all simply not being able to come to a compromise that everyone agrees with and makes meaningful progress towards parity or balance. It's just how I feel, it doesn't mean I know what will happen. Every prior CBA negotiation has been fraught with tensions, pot shots, strong arming, standoffishness and just plain greed. I'm a pessimist plain and simple when it comes to labor negotiations being in good faith and seeking a true good system. Not everyone has to agree with that. I'd love to be proven wrong. I mean, when you're starting out with a lockout, as is universally expected to happen, that's not a great sign, right?

I did not have Rich Bisaccia firing himself on my bingo card. Makes me really wonder what's been going on behind closed doors there.

No, we don't, not 100% of it. We don't have to pay anything. People do because they choose to. Advertising and media contracts are a large part of MLB's income. I haven't attended a MLB game in probably close to 10 years. I watch on TV. I'm happy to pay the price for streaming for as long as I continue to think it's a fair price. That's what I pay, that and whatever percent of my attention is given to the commercials during breaks between innings, which isn't much. I notice the annoying things about commercials like repetitive commercials that play too often and that is more likely to cause a negative emotion towards the company that is advertising.

If the risk were so very high we'd be seeing sales of professional teams more often than we do. And for lower valuations.

I just think the owners are much more interested in making the players bend to their will than making sacrifices of their own. I don't see the players agreeing to a bad deal. Could any of that happen? Sure. I don't know the future. Maybe everyone comes together and actually figures out what works best for everyone and baseball becomes a utopia of awesome. I sure hope that happens. I just don't think it will.

They don't need to be happy but is it realistically going to happen? If you think so I fear you have pie in the sky dreams.

The owners are going to be happy (with revenue sharing)? I can think of several that wouldn't be. Why would the Dodgers chop off their right arm just so their competition has a better chance to beat them? Again, I use the words "realistic". Owners agreeing to lower profits doesn't fit my vision of reality.

Jeff Passan wrote an interesting article last week. I think he tries very hard to bring the perspectives of both the owners as a collective and the players into the overall issue. It left me feeling like there wasn't any way that a cap system would be proposed and agreed to in any realistic sense. This is an excerpt: "Let's use a potentially realistic example that would maintain the $5.5 billion or so teams paid for players in 2025. With a $280 million hard cap and $150 million hard floor, the money teams spend would be within $50,000 of last season. What players lose on the top end -- $236 million from the Dodgers, $150 million from the Mets, $85 million from the Yankees and $69 million from the Philadelphia Phillies -- would be made up on the bottom. To reach $150 million, the Marlins would need to spend an additional $82 million, the A's and Rays $71 million, and so on -- 11 teams and $540 million total. The problems are manifold. The union would sneer at the ceiling on teams that have proved themselves willing to spend twice that amount. The lower-revenue organizations would cringe at the tens of millions extra more than a third of the league would be forced to pay. And in no universe does a $130 million gap between top and bottom constitute competitive balance. Levering both in the opposite directions -- a $320 million cap and $130 million floor -- would placate teams' self-serving desires but would be lipstick on the parity pig. Moving everyone toward a middle, though more equitable, would exacerbate the disillusionment from restricting teams that want to spend and forcing teams that don't." It just doesn't feel like a cap can exist that is actually effective and makes everyone happy, owners included. The players particularly would be justified in simply not being interested whatsoever.

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.