HarveysWBs

Saw a good point brought up at Acme Packing Company earlier today. The Packers have the youngest team in the NFL not just this year, but in the last five years, with an average age of their roster right around 25 years old. The Chiefs, who are also one of the youngest teams in the league, average 25.5 years old. Assuming that for just about every team in the league, most of the back two thirds of the roster (the players that don't start) are probably always young guys there to be warm bodies, that would mean that your primary difference in average age from team to team is seen in the starting units. To put that into perspective, if the Packers were to have the same average age as the Chiefs, they would be swapping out four or five of the starters who are rookies or second year players for experienced, second-contract veteran starters. And in the case of the Packers, with our defense a much more veteran unit than the offense, all of those players would likely be on the offensive side of the ball. My analysis: Yeah, Love needs to fix his accuracy and his footwork. Yeah, MLF could be a little better at calling plays for the guys he has and not the guys he wants to have. But MLF is losing his mind on the sideline every game as our young team leads the league in penalties (60 total, tied with Dallas through 8 games, and Chicago and KC who have both played 9 games) and we have a bunch of receivers who can't remember their assignments. A play caller can't get into his bag during drives littered with 2nd and 15 or 3rd and 22, and Love can never develop a rhythm and sees ghosts from defensive fronts that are constantly in pass rush mode. The fact that MLF and Love aren't physically assaulting these young players several times a game speaks volumes to their self-control. I don't entirely absolve either one of them, but I'm prone to be a bit more forgiving of their in-game performances in light of this. As I see it, this is the result of two factors, both initiated by Gutekunst, and only one of them is really a fault. First and most defensibly, you have to accept a version of this when we play the cap stretch game with guys like Rodgers and Bakhtiari, both of whom no longer contribute to our team's success on the field. The bill comes due, and we're paying it plus interest. But second and most critically, this problem is exacerbated by several recent drafts that have not restocked the pantry, and we desperately needed them to, especially at pass catcher and O-line. Gute thought he could build those rooms on the cheap, and when Bakh's knee disintegrated and Adams told him to pound sand, we've been in a world of hurt. That's on the GM. You put a Deebo Samuel and a Tee Higgins (just to throw out a couple guys we could have drafted) plus one more dependable tackle on this team, and I'm not saying all our scoring problems go away, but we're at least 75% of the way there. And we'd have a much clearer picture of what Jordan Love actually is by this point, to boot. That's an alternate timeline I wish I was living in.

Festivus has begun with the airing of grievances, a truly special time of the year!

1) Fan, as in “fanatic,” would seem to preclude divided loyalty, as fanaticism is a jealous mistress. 2) Loyalty to objectivity will ever be in competition with the jealousy of fanaticism, see point one above.

As others have said, I can’t imagine this means anything other than an internal hire. I can’t imagine they’d do this without knowing the guy they install will accept everyone coming back. In fact, Pat Murphy has to be the absolute odds-on favorite. Even someone from the lower levels would probably want one or two of their own guys with them, I’d think.

That explanation is helpful. I think I would simply use the term market differently. I am quite curious if anyone would have gotten even close to what the Cubs offered. Sounded like the Brewers had a better offer on Counsell’s desk than the Mets, and I’d be surprised if the Guardians or the analytical Astros would have exceeded 5.5 mil/year. At any rate, we’re about to find out if Counsell really is a unicorn—after all, Kerr, Pop, and Spoels have rings as managers. Should be interesting.

These are fair points. I should have clarified that I meant he doesn’t seem to care about his legacy with the Brewers, certainly not over his individual legacy. I grant that he made this move out of pursuit of his personal goals, but as you seem to acknowledge, he can’t entirely escape the fact that his individual legacy is inextricably linked with his time in Milwaukee (and by his own admission in the old hype video), and now his ignominious exit is part of that legacy forever, too.

So you can have a market of one? If no other manager contract gets within, say, 40% of Counsell’s yearly salary, his deal is still within the “market rate” in your estimation. How is that a “market”? When I hear market, that implies multiple deals, otherwise we’re talking about just a transaction.

No, sorry, this doesn't fly in this case. Counsell can't have it both ways. He can't say "I know you, I am you, we're cut from the same cloth...Brewers baseball is a torch I'll carry always, it is part of my identity" and then make a business decision to go manage the Cubs when the organization wanted him back and offered him the richest manager contract in baseball. But what this actually is is a reminder that nobody really cares about their legacy anymore (if they ever did, maybe I'm not old enough to have seen a different sporting world). Love this fact, hate it, or simply accept it, it is a fact, because if Craig Counsell of all people won't care about his Brewers legacy, nobody is going to (maybe Bud Selig, but nobody younger, I'd wager). I'll admit it, I didn't believe that fact to be true, and I was wrong. I won't be fooled again. I'll still love this team, and I'll root harder than ever for a World Series, as it would be the crowning moment and the missing jewel in my life as a sports fan--and I imagine that in a few years I may even be ready to fully reassess and recognize what Counsell meant for this team in its proper context again. But I'll never trust an individual player, coach, or organization member to really care what the fanbase thinks about them ever again. Counsell had the last inroads through my cynicism, but I've seen more than enough now to know better, and I should have learned this lesson earlier.

Indeed. If @TPlush is correct, it would be impossible to ever overpay for anything, since you could always say, "well, that price is what the market would bear." One party does not a market make.

I at least give Hoyer credit for being man enough to go tell Ross to his face that he was going back on his word. I fully expected that to have happened by phone call.

There was no warning for CC to the Cubs. I remember thinking Favre to the Vikings was a terrible, but utterly predictable outcome once the NY Jets stop fell apart. But this crap today? It feels like we’ve reached a completely different level of betrayal. As I think about it further and extend the analogy, if Craig had made a stop with the Mets, left after a few years (for whatever reason), and then ended up with the Cubs, it would still suck but it would hurt way less than this.

Sadly, I imagine it will be a far more mixed response than it should be. So, basically, like any other Brewers vs. Cubs game.

Strongly disagree with this. It’s a highly unusual circumstance that would be (and was) different every other time the Brewers have made a managerial change. This was Craig Counsell deciding to shiv the organization in a stretch run, turn down a historic contract with his supposedly beloved franchise, and join the Cubs. The Cubs. The feelings of the people in the clubhouse matter, too. And the fan base opinion sure as heck matters on this, because gate sales move the needle—Attansio mentions it all the time. He needed to take a forceful position and he chose the right side.

1) Yeah, sure. Makes sense 2) Hard pass. Unless we’re canning him immediately, because teams almost as a rule enter their golden age once he’s out the door. It’s uncanny.

It’s not a good look at all, and I imagine everyone will see their priors confirmed in it. - Think CC was a bad manager down the stretch? You’ve got causation for your theory. - Think the organization is in a tailspin and the rats are abandoning ship? Here’s some more ammo. - Think the message just got stale after almost a decade and CC needed a new environment? You could read these tea leaves that way, too. We need a quick pivot and some good news, cause I hate the narrative building game that will inevitably result from this.

And flatly refused to leverage its resources for years, ceding the division to hated rivals, including the smallest market and 20th ranked payroll. Pretty embarrassing, really

The fact that this wasn’t just standard operating procedure PR speak is quite eyebrow-raising, to say the least. Makes it seem Attanasio was as surprised as anyone else.

The emotions are a bit raw but, speaking only for myself, I can’t envision being in any mood to read any “Thanks, Milwaukee” ads or social media posts from him any time soon. And if he wins a World Series in Chicago…I say forget a statue at AmFam. Give him a plaque above a urinal somewhere, or under the foot of Uecker’s statue. George Costanza couldn’t have liquidated as much goodwill as Craig just did in one fell swoop. It is almost impressive, if one could be dispassionate about such things. But that ain’t me right now.

The angle is, CC had job security here not just because he was good at his job (and I don’t think any serious person denies this) but that he was the hometown kid making good here. Things would have to go very sideways for a long time to run Craig out of town with his highest win total and win percentage of any manager in team history bona fides. But now he’s a mercenary. The Cubs got him because they blew all the other offers away (apparently). That means this becomes a bottom line only proposition. The Cubs are not the total clown show they used to be, but nor are they a top-tier organization, either. If he does not deliver, let’s say the Cubs don’t win a division in the first three years, and never win a playoff series. Year four starts to look like a pretty hot seat from my vantage point.

Oh, that is a fait accompli at this point. If the Cubs make the playoffs, he’s a shoe-in: big market, all that attention, the “Craig is finally getting the recognition he deserves” narrative. The story writes itself, which matters of course, because the journalists decide Manager of the Year. I’d be a fairly large amount of money on this happening, if I had any confidence in Chicago’s roster construction, that is. For now, I don’t.

When the notification popped up on my phone I actually became nauseous. But I’m Illinois raised, so was born in the Cubs hate, was molded by it. This can’t touch me for long. What I am interested in is where the heck they go from here for a manager? This could be an interesting test case in just how instrumental Craig has been to organizational success. But that is all academic. The story is this rivalry now… Chicago delenda est.

Eh, three possession lead, and hard to argue the offense couldn’t use the reps. Little risk, and a bit of gain.

In half a season, here are the positives I’m sure about with this team: Aaron Jones is good, and we can still beat LA and Chicago. That’s it, that’s the list. Everything else is a ???