UpandIn

I saw 6M as his starting salary. As one of those who've made the inference that Fickell is the heir apparent at OSU, that's purely based on him having gone to OSU and then coaching there(where he was let go during a 7-6 season, so really kinda the same situation Leonhard is in). Maybe he wouldn't go back there. Day seems like he's got a long time left at OSU. I was more just thinking Fickell is such a respected up and coming coach, I could see a lot of the blue bloods coming after him...even more so if he gets gets UW back to a top 10-15 program in the near future. Maybe Fickell at 49 just settles into UW, loves it here and spends 15 years here. Probably the best case scenario. Now it's going to be fun to see what Cincy players come with him.

I'd probably hold out and ask for another lower rated arm or two. Bruns, Kopp, Knack...a couple lower rated prospects with big velocity but other issues...usually command that's kinda holding them back.

Why does "everyone" on this board act like "everyone" makes these statements that aren't remotely true? The overwhelming majority of the Burnes/Woodruff discussion has been centered around IF either would sign for comparable deals. Woodruff->Luis Castillo and Burnes in the deGrom 5/135 range. Who has said that it's just up to the Brewers if players sign extensions? In fact I'd guess the majority of people have said it's unlikely either would sign an extension at this point. Same with Abreu. We know three things now about Abreu with regard to free agency. His preference was to stay in Chicago. He is "a top priority for the Padres." And he wants to continue to play 1B. I don't know how the numbers work out to 1% chance that he signs with the Brewers or what that's based off, but it's kinda silly. Maybe "everyone" should just stop speaking for "everyone?"

Why does "everyone" on this board act like "everyone" makes these statements that aren't remotely true? The overwhelming majority of the Burnes/Woodruff discussion has been centered around IF either would sign for comparable deals. Woodruff->Luis Castillo and Burnes in the deGrom 5/135 range. Who has said that it's just up to the Brewers if players sign extensions? In fact I'd guess the majority of people have said it's unlikely either would sign an extension at this point. Same with Abreu. We know three things now about Abreu with regard to free agency. His preference was to stay in Chicago. He is "a top priority for the Padres." And he wants to continue to play 1B. I don't know how the numbers work out to 1% chance that he signs with the Brewers or what that's based off, but it's kinda silly. Maybe "everyone" should just stop speaking for "everyone?"

And USC has a rematch with Utah...who handed them their only loss 43-42 in a game in which I THINK they went for 2 at the end of it. I'm kinda conflicted here. Two B1G teams would be good...and this looks like a year in which the games would be pretty competitive. Assuming one of those two teams loses, you'd probably have GA vs OSU and then Mich vs the other. Then again, it'd kinda be like 3 B1G teams if TCU losses and USC, Mich and OSU get in.

Right...and I've never said it was. I've said they just made the biggest weakness on this team an even bigger issue, and I'll wait to see how they address this in the off-season. But just pointing to Frelick and Mitchell as OFers who will likely produce a WAR similar to that of Renfroe ignores the whole team building aspect.

I think that's a bit much. I think they'd have been fine if they would have gone with Leonhard. But Fickell does seem like he's maybe raised the bar on the Badgers ceiling. Now the admissions department has to work with him just a LITTLE bit more and grant him at least a couple more appeals. 8 is not enough given the admissions standards at UW.

It was just an example, but I never heard that Fickell turned down the ND job and I can't find anything on it other than articles about if ND would wait for Cincy to finish their playoff run and that Marcus Freeman was the likely successor and was the one talking to recruits. AS for leaving OSU, he was a position coach. I'd imagine that'd be his dream job...because he's said that would be his dream. And yes, OBVIOUSLY it's speculation. I don't have a crystal ball, but if he has a lot of success at UW, there's going to be even more Blue Bloods who come after him offering the 10/100M type deals that the Badgers likely wouldn't. IF that happens, it'd almost certainly be after a couple of VERY successful seasons at UW and a nice run. So whatever...I wouldn't really care at that point. I'm SURE the Badgers weighed the certainty and stability of Leonhard vs hiring one of the biggest names in coaching at the moment and factored that in. And maybe Fickell never leaves. I don't know. We'll see.

Sure, but even if you make this hire KNOWING Braelon Allen is gone if you do...and I don't think that's the case, but hypothetically he leaves the Million a year in NIL money...that's 1 year you're really losing. Seems obvious to me that Allen is going to leave school after next season so he can get to the NFL by the time he's 19(can't believe that kid is STILL just 18 right now). I think it'll be more interesting to see how many kids come with him from Cincy as he's really loved by his players. It's also going to be SOOO interesting to me to see is there's any shot Leonhard stays. I can't see it. He's gotta feel like this is a stab in the back and I understand that, but I also give the Badgers credit for being so...ballsy.

YES! My first thought as well. Leonhard's scheme is perfect for the Packers personnel. He hasn't had the CBs at UW and still made it work. Yeah...and in 5 years when Luke Fickell has had a couple of HUGE seasons in Wisconsin and....I don't know, ND comes calling, or Day gets caught up in a controversy with hookers that OSU can't cover up quickly enough, Fickell will move on and people will talk about how we should have kept Leonhard, but this really does give the University a real shot in the rear. Fickell has been a GREAT coach and is a legit tough guy. Now give him the coordinators to coach around him(if not GB, I'd hope Leonhard would stay at Wisconsin, though I know this is WILDLY unrealistic). I think Leonhard deserved this job, but...they went for a big swing and it's hard to blame them for that.

Wow...Fickell. I like this because...I think Fickell is about as good of a coach as the Badgers could hire. A proven winner, a stud. Also a little crazy it sounds like, but in a good way. He was one of the best Wrestlers EVER from Ohio...which not that anyone cares, but Pennsylvania and Ohio are like Texas and Florida of Wrestling. He recruits, he motivates his team. Downside...he's gonna be the next Ohio State Head Coach after Day Moves on...which, whatever. I'm find with that. With Leonhard, we're a destination, not a stepping stone, but...what the hell, I guess we're taking a big swing. ANOTHER positive...I really think Leonhard is the best DC the Packers could hire and he fits our scheme nearly perfectly, so that's a big benefit. Also....just remembered, Braelon Allen was talking about Michigan and said he'd be at UW "as long as Jim Leonhard is here, I'll be here." Wonder if that had anything to do with him not playing? Doubt it, but maybe he's already planning on leaving for Michigan? Damn...this is a HUGE shakeup and I couldn't think of another coach they could hire that'd be a better fit, but Fickell just might be that dude.

I've stopped guessing. I watched Burkett a little bit at Franklin and wasn't overly impressed...which can only mean he's going to be a standout QB at the next level. It could certainly be a BIG help to get QBs who can gain some yards with their feet. Maybe just the threat of a QB who can pull it down and run with it on an RPO would do...something. Mertz has an NFL body and arm, but too much of the rest is missing.

Amazing how poorly this OL has played given how highly touted it was coming in. They don't seem to have much of an edge. And it's not like they had dominant OL's the whole time Gordon or Taylor were there, but they could take it to the house when they did get a seem. That's really not in Allen's game. But if they get the OL play back to it's typical level, this team should be back in the B1G Championship game next year(mostly due to their pretty weak schedule). If not, this team is going to remain an average team.

Kinda tough to scheme open holes in the running game when you don't have much of a passing threat and you're OL just isn't that good. I guess if you've got Melvin Gordon as your #3 running back and you can use him on Jet Sweeps with Monte Ball and James White pounding the ball, you can spread the defense out a bit, but we don't have the personnel for that. I didn't think Engram had really been bad this year, but it's so difficult to tell with the OL struggles...which were almost funny at the end of the game. It was like the...keystone cops of OL play. Without dominant OL play, most CFB teams struggle. That's obviously particularly true of the Badgers. Dike is a nice WRer. I doubt he'd get many snaps at Mich, OSU, or most top 10 programs. I would like to see Burkett get at least some snaps at the...Mayo Bowl or the Pinstripes Bowl, wherever they end up.

Well...that's a pretty giant leap. A franchise cornerstone who's prompting your push vs Hunter Renefroe. By this logic, every year you DON'T win the WS, you made a mistake by not trading every player who's a FA. Or taken a step further, if we don't win the WS this year, then we made a mistake in not trading Burnes, Woodruff, Adames and Lauer. I'd say going to the NLCS was a pretty successful season. But I don't care about losing Renfroe because he's this incredibly valuable player. The issue is he was a good fit for a team that's already short on hitters who can hit righties. They've got a whole off-season to replace him. So if they can upgrade elsewhere, great. If they just traded him to salvage a couple prospects for a FA to be and they replace him with young OFers who make what's already a weakness and even larger one...then they might as well trade Burnes and Woody now as they're probably going to struggle. Particularly late in games vs anyone who's got left handed relievers.

I don't know if you're ignoring the obvious or simply failing to see it. First, I was talking about the rationale behind the logic that that Brewers had to cut ~20M from last years payroll. But sure, lets just stick with the idea that you can replace your best hitter who's also a RHed bat with all those 1st round picks...just help me out here; Is Frelick a RHed hitter or a left handed hitter? Mitchell? Turang? ALL LHed hitters. That's fine though, the Brewers did SO well vs lefties last year, they could afford to get rid of their best hitter; Brewers vs RHPers .240 .318 .425 .743 Brewers vs LHPers .222 .309 .365 .674 Now...lets see, what did Renfroe do vs lefties last year. .258 .350 .492 .842 Sure...as long as we don't have to see one of those lefties, we should be fine. It's not like any of the good teams have left handed pitchers...right?

Right...but is anyone assuming he makes the ML roster?

He apparently can't pick up stunts or twists or things like that. Strength wasn't his issue. Hopefully he'll be better next year...because he did nothing this year. I doubt they cut Bakh to save ~6M and eat 23M in dead cap hits...and I'd really be shocked if they did it if Rodgers comes back. Unless they think his knee is going to get worse next year, he's easily been worth 6M this year.

Just...heartbreaking???

All I know about Wilson is he is VERY polite and respectful of his elders...particularly his mothers friends and then he said he didn't let his D down. Oh, and his family is rich and his GF is...?

Who was it that said last year you're not going to get the charge if you don't end up on your back/on the floor? It might have been Udoka or...Van Gundy. I'm pretty sure it was from the Boston series and had to do with Giannis. It's such a subjectively called sport...I think some refs do this...but there was a reason a ref was able to manipulate the point spread without anyone noticing for years.

I also think it's a little bit silly how much of the flopping rule was attributed to one player. People HAVE watched that team from Durham, NC play the last 30 years, right?

That's not really fair. Perkins crushes righties. He could be an ideal platoon mate for Frelick/Mitchell. A soft platoon as I think it'd be a bad idea to platoon either regularly, but...he could step in vs lefties and do very well 2021 vs Lefties .298 .412 .474 .886 2022 vs Lefties .310 .406 .483 .889 That's in 170+ games at AA and AAA playing all over the OF. So maybe he's just a guy who...l.ike most prospects who develop, the power came later and for the Brewers, he'll be a platoon player who fits in perfectly with all our LHed prospects and our bats. He COULD and more likely will start in AAA, but this has the feel of a sneaky signing. A player who could play a nice role on the team this year. He's young, 6 years of team control, options and he plays all over. And most importantly, those numbers vs lefties as we're going to be in a LOT of trouble if we can't find someone who can do something vs RHed bats. I loathe this trade at the moment. I think we'd have been better off simply keeping Renfroe. CERTAINLY at least until we knew if we could sign Abreu or someone else who can replace that RHed bat in the lineup. But I think you're selling these pitchers a little short. Or maybe it's the Brewers ability to develop pitchers vs that of the Angels. One team is one of the worst, the other has been among the best(at least for the last 5-6 years). This is still a trade that's only defensible once the Brewers re-allocate those resources and find a way to add another bat who can hit right handed pitching. Maybe they're going to try and go big and sign Contreras? That'd make plenty of sense. He's a great athlete, solid defender, middle of the order hitter for us and it allows the Brewers to make us of all their MLB ready OF prospects.

Again, the "5th team in 5 years," comes up as though it's a good reason for trading him. What is the point here? To try and paint him as some malcontent? To tell you to ignore his production and how it fit...almost perfectly with the Brewers needs(right handed power hitter who hits lefties)? 4 years in SD Acquired by TB for Jake Crowenworth+Tommy Pham(pretty damn valuable players). Had a terrible year in TB hitting .156, so he was non-tendered by the team with the lowest payroll on average in baseball. Signed by Boston. 4th in OPS on one of the best offensive teams in baseball behind Devers, JD Martinez and Boegarts. Brewers send two prospects, including a 3B prospect And then we traded him. Never once has there been a suggestion he was a poor clubhouse guy. Just the opposite. This argument means absolutely nothing. There is a LOONG list of good players who for whatever quirky reason move around. #2-The Brewers had lower attendance. They're also getting a pretty significant increase this year in revenue sharing. An estimated bump of 20M+ dollars per year(VERY conservative estimate). In 2018, that was 118M per team and then the share of TV money was 91M. We know TV money and revenue in total are both up. So in 2018, each team got 209M dollars. We know that number is taking a pretty significant jump this year with new TV deals. We know the BREWERS TV deal in increasing. So on balance I'd say what we lost in attendance is relatively insignificant compared to what we lost in attendance. This is the reason the MLBPA wanted each team to receive 100M dollars less from revenue sharing. Because the teams like the Pirates, Orioles, Marlins, Rays, As...etc...etc...they weren't spending. What they should have insisted upon was a salary floor, but that's neither here nor there. VERY conservatively speaking, we should be looking at ~230M before we account for the 52% of our revenue that doesn't go into MLB's revenue sharing. So I get the MASSIVE 9 figure differences in local TV money the Brewers get and the LAA/LAD/NYY/NYM/ATL/CHC and the like get...there are also a lot of other costs associated with running a team. The player scouting, development, international FAs, the amateur draft, all those costs. #3 Lets circle back now to the trade deadline. What did Attanasio say in that dugout? #3-Attanasio was emphatic that the Brewers could not only add ANY salary in the game last year, there wasn't a single trade they COULD not make for payroll reasons. Not Soto at 17M last year, not his projected ~22M this year, not whatever he was due to make next year. He did then stop and hesitate and say MAYBE a package of 3 players before then again confirming, "no, there was no trade we couldn't make because of payroll." Was he lying when he said they could have added 17M to last years payroll, they could have added 22M to this years payroll? I really doubt that's the case. So I'M going to assume that they've got some larger picture and when Attanasio said there COULD be a lot of opportunity this year due to the potential for a lot of moves, that he said so because we might look to shuffle the deck. Cut salary for a couple spots and then look to re-invest elsewhere. Because that's consistent with what he's been saying and THAT makes sense. If this Brewers team is actually just slashing payroll, then they may as well trade Burnes and Woodruff now(hell, Adames as too) because you can't just get rid of the two best hitters from a team that wasn't good enough and expect to "compete for a world series," as is the stated goal. He's since doubled down and talked about building AROUND that core. If that's the plan...GREAT. Losing a RHed hitter on a team already struggled hitting lefties and with a lot of left handed hitters already in the lineup and the most immediate impact players in the farm system coming up through the lineup next year in Mitchell, Frelick and Turang, that doesn't make sense. Bottom line, it's just...BAD business to tear down this roster even more because you had the 14th attendance in MLB as opposed to the 10th highest. It really should be. Again, anything we LOST in attendance, we're more than making up for with the increased revenue sharing. That coupled with the fact that THIS is the year the front office's believe this year is their chance to win a World Series, I'd be shocked if they cut payroll just for the sake of cutting payroll. There's no justification for the payroll being below 130M this year...unless they simply manage to acquire young, controllable players via trade, the only other reasons I can come up with would be Attanasio's investment in Norwich(a theory I've never bought) or the idea that this team is servicing debt or they need to spend money on the stadium(also seems rather unlikely that they'd be slashing payroll and pissing off fans to pay for stadium renovations that are still years away when they have Burnes/Woodruff atop their rotation). So AGAIN, I'll trust that this team has a plan to get BETTER. Not to just try and simply slash their payroll to the 110M range. If that's the end goal, then Attanasio and the organization is going to have some explaining to do. NO fan base spends more per capita to support their team(it's not really even that close). If you want that and you want the sagging attendance numbers to stay the same or simply stagnate in the mid 2's, cutting payroll would definitely be the way to go. I don't believe that's the type of owner Attanasio is and I really hope I'm proven right.

Yup.