UpandIn

Watson...obviously, but I've done this several times. Having a Watkins and Watson at the same position and both injured... Yeah, all the time he's missed is not helpful. This is one of the things that makes these ugly offensive performances more palatable though. There are so many reasons to expect things to improve. The OL should look night and day different from week 1 to week 18. The WRers hopefully will be better. You'd have to assume with more PT they will be. But that'll take Watson being available. It'll also take Rodgers being quicker to get over mistakes than he may have been in the past. I remember when James Jones had what seemed like a drop a game on passes like the 1st play vs the Vikings in the SB run, but he kept coming back to him. Jordy also had a problem with drops back then...but Rodgers just kept going back there. Jones and Nelson kept playing as well though.

Yeah, you could. I agree with Abreu. I brought him up a few months ago, I was just pointing out some of the other factors that the Brewers generally consider. They value versatility. I think IF they're going to run it back and just try to improve the roster a bit, then you can't always get a player who fits perfectly and can play 4 different positions. We've got that. Now, IF we trade one of our pitchers, another interesting target would be Kodai Senga, a FA coming over from Japan. He's a veteran, throws in the mid to upper 90s, has a pitch called the "Fork Ghost," but also a slider, change... Projected contract I've seen has been in the 4/60 range and he's projected to be a #2/3...but how often do they say a guy is projected to be an ace? I know we've been interested in Japanese players from time to time and we've never really come close. We offered Darvish over 100M after signing Cain, though he didn't seem interested at all in coming here. Could be a move we could make to mitigate the loss of a top of the rotation pitcher while still getting those prospects in return...AND it'd be nice if the Brewers could get a Japanese star. I'm sure Seattle or NYY/NYM, ChC, LAA/LAD, SFG, all more desirable places to play, BUT...could be an interesting option. Also, a lot of really proven pitchers on the market, a few who are likely going to make 40M a year(deGrom, Verlander) with plenty of second tier pitchers available, Rodon, Healey, Syndergaard and probably 20 other really established pitchers are FAs. So who knows, maybe we can slide in and get in on him early...if he fits the profile we're looking for with the spin rates and all that. End of the day though, I just think it's a short list compared to most years and I could see those FAs just not being interested in Milwaukee, particularly if we are trading a Burnes or Woodruff. So we'll see how it goes. If they're aggressive in trying to fortify this team(assuming they want to run in back and compete next year or do so with this same core) then I'm good. There's not a dollar amount I want them to spend.

These teams who draft these QBs early and then don't build OLs around him...it's baffling. Justin Fields has enormous talent, but he's got NO shot with the OL and lack of receivers on that team. Brady, Rodgers, they're all average QBs at best when they don't have protection. It's just too difficult to play that position. Zach Wilson, same thing. Though at least the Jets have invested in that OL with Becton, Vera-Tucker. The Bears have Teven Jenkins who had...some health issues that derailed last season, but he hasn't been very good this year and then what? Starting a 5th round pick? I honestly believe the Packers backup's on the OL would be better. Yosh/Tom/Hanson/Rhyan/Newman/Jones-Give me those 6 over Braxton Jones/Whiteahir/Patrick/Jenkins/Borom. Jones looks like a nice prospect...a guy you'd want to develop. Whitehair is a nice player and then...nothing.

I've been beating the drum for Abreu, but as others have pointed out, despite the White Sox having too many DH/1B types, he's a staple in that clubhouse(and still raking). So if you can pull him away from Chicago? He would seemingly be a perfect fit. A RHed 1B who can still hit .300 and while he's hit lefties really well during his career, he's hit righties almost as well(and this year almost an identical OPS vs both). I'd guess you'd be looking at 3/45 for him, maybe as much as 2/35 with an option for a 3rd year at ~20 with a 5M buyout if you want to lure him away from the CHW? Josh Bell is the kinda poor mans version, but younger. Also has a reputation for being a guy who kinda crashes in the 2nd half(certainly what's happened this year) but if you go year by year, doesn't really track. Maybe it was just the one year he was on an MVP pace and he fell off. Other years he's had better 2nd half's than 1st. He's 30 though and hasn't really gotten that big deal yet. Also...not really the Brewers way to spend big on a guy who you can't really play anywhere but 1st/DH more than a year or two, but either one would make sense. A move like this would also have a ripple effect. I'd assume you'd still want to keep Tellez, but then the roster starts to get pretty crowded and it's tough to find a place to fit Frelick/Mitchell/Yelich/Renfroe in on top of Tellez, but you worry about that later.

He's a good blocker for sure, but I don't really get the downfield blocker reference that's used with him quite a bit. On passing downs...he's just a regular route runner. Ran the 2nd most routes last year behind only Adams. He's also faster than people think. He ran a faster 40 than Adams coming out. Doesn't mean he's faster, there's different types of speed(MVS vs Tyreek Hill for example, MVS, he's not making guys miss in space while Hill could make 3 guys miss in a phone booth). BUT the point is, he's not as slow as I think people kinda believe. All that to say, I think Lazard is the #1 WRer still and is Rodgers primary option and I think other teams know that. Doubs sounds like he has the confidence of Rodgers...but Watson so clearly does not. The way he blew past PPat vs the Vikings, he did that a couple times vs the Bears when they were in clear man coverage in IIRC 3rd and short(normally when Rodgers would hit that big play) and he didn't throw it to him. So he's clearly got much longer to go in order to earn his trust, but it's a long season and...man he could be an incredible weapon. He's also got that Hill speed more than the MVS speed. He can cut in and out of breaks, he's elusive, he is a freak. It just comes down to him on the jugs machine, being where he's supposed and continuing to lay the wood in the run game as he is also a really good run blocking WRer. Yeah, that's what I've read repeatedly...but I'm not sure if that's true. https://www.bigcatcountry.com/2018/4/30/17301830/allen-lazard-jaguars-signing-contract-nfl-draft-undrafted Some interesting quotes in there. Whatever, not the point. It IS well known many teams were interested in Lazard as a TE first, especially before he ran a 4.55 at his pro-day. Even then, there were teams who wanted him to put on weight and become an Evan Engram type TE. One of the things that makes this offense so effective is how they can use these guys interchangeably. Lazard, Tonyan, even Watson. It's also what makes play action so effective. You have that bunch, Lazard inside, and just like the Packers do a dozen times a game, they run that outside zone and Lazard works his way up to the 2nd level and then he's got a couple step on his defender. Really gotta find a way to extend him, keep him around. I know that's not a priority at the moment, but he's the type of guy who is more valuable in this scheme than any other(which now about 1/3rd of the league is running thanks to Shanahan/McVay and now LaFleur's success.

Bakh looked AMAZING out there when put in context. He wasn't quite up to his own previous standards, but 20 months, 3 injuries, a looong layoff. He was our best OL(though to me, Josh Myers and the way he matched up with Vita Vea was maybe equally impressive). And now Bakh is back, he's practicing the next practice...that's big. It's also leading to speculation in some parts of Packer-land about how the Packers should work Yosh in at RT more as our best 5 are CLEARLY Yosh, Bakh, Myers, Jenkins and Runyan Jr at this point. Tom looks like the 6th best guy to me, but people who've seen more and know more say he's just not big enough. That his technique and understanding is elite, but he just needs to get bigger. Per Doubs, what a difference a week makes. He couldn't create any separation vs the Bears, he's drawing comps to Adams, Brooks and company! He did look just smooth and mature out there. He'll have plenty of mistakes, but if he can work those intermediate routes, that's huge. That's really the only question mark we have in the passing game. We know Cobb, Lazard, Tonyan, they're reliable 3rd down targets, they can find the soft part of the zone underneath. Watson can take the top off a defense(or at least poke a hole in the roof, he'll need to actually get another one thrown to him and then catch it to take the whole roof off).

Eh...they could reduce payroll and be better. If I thought Attanasio was reigning in the payroll rather than Stearns just trying to leave himself room to operate, I'd probably stop paying for season tickets and things like that. But I don't believe that. Honestly, Attanasio looked like a disappointed fan in that interview he gave in the dugout with regard to the Hader trade...and I thought he sounded genuine when he said they could have added ANY players contract for the next year, 2, 3 years and fit it into the budget(namely in response to Soto's 17M dollar deal that will be ballooning as he goes through 2 more years). My thing is...where are you spending it? If you signed an extension(which is strictly forbidden to root for and or want, but...hypothetically) it wouldn't constitute significant raises immediately. You're taking Cain, McCutchen and Wong off the payroll and replacing them(hopefully effectively) with Frelick, Mitchell, Turang...maybe Ruiz. https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/free-agents/ Who would you sign while still being realistic? I'd maybe look at Eovaldi or Syndergaard if the Brewers liked either for some particular reason like Andrew Heaney last year when it was rumored that teams thought he was a likely candidate to bounce back this year with a few small adjustments(and he did just that). Maybe there's some trade that makes sense...?

"With down revenue." I don't know what the revenue of the Brewers is exactly...and I know virtually nobody else does either. It's one of those very closely guarded secrets in Baseball...exactly how much do they pay out in revenue sharing. According to Forbes it was roughly 210M in 2018 in TV money and revenue sharing(with the team then keeping the 52% of the money that they don't put into the revenue sharing pot and divide up). Is that number accurate? Not rhetorical, someone tell me if that's accurate? I DO know the MLBPA wanted 100 Million a less paid out per EACH TEAM in revenue sharing because so many teams were not trying to remain competitive. So...I don't know what the revenue is. If Attanasio is to be believed, they had room to add literally ANYONE this past year and we know TV revenue is going up next year. So...yeah, I don't know revenue is down. With regard to Higuera...guys, that was the 1980s. Ya know, back when you had to manually change the dial on a TV or get a "clicker." Casual racism was cool, pitch counts and inning limits no big deal? Higuera in his first 4 years in Milwaukee threw 212, 248, 261, and 227 IP. Burnes has thrown 504IP in his MLB career and Woodruff 600. Now...I wouldn't dare suggest you don't trade an asset(you have absolutely no choice but to do so). I'd just say...just MAYBE the reason isn't because a pitcher in the 80s who was really good and may or may not have been the age he said he was got paid a lot(at the time) and it didn't work out... They babied Woodruff and Burnes(as one does with talented young arms, I've got no issue with how they've handled them). So...maybe we just let the Higuera thing die?

You're missing the LSU game. That game(which I thought led of the '17 season, but didn't) popped into my head. Did you go back over the Andersen, BB or Alvarez era? I just don't think this is rare. The Badgers have always had to run the ball first.

Well...who am I to argue with the voters. I WILL say of the clips you have up here, Jace Avina has a beautiful swing that doesn't look like it needs any work to it. It's just quiet and smooth. It actually looks a lot like Yelich's swing but from the right side. Just a slight difference with their where they end up, but Avina has a nice, quiet looking swing, quick to the ball. Areinamo put up great numbers, but that swing looks loud. I usually don't really care much about just some highlights, but...damn, that Avina does have a really smooth looking swing that you can just picture translating at every level.

Well...who am I to argue with the voters. I WILL say of the clips you have up here, Jace Avina has a beautiful swing that doesn't look like it needs any work to it. It's just quiet and smooth. It actually looks a lot like Yelich's swing but from the right side. Just a slight difference with their where they end up, but Avina has a nice, quiet looking swing, quick to the ball. Areinamo put up great numbers, but that swing looks loud. I usually don't really care much about just some highlights, but...damn, that Avina does have a really smooth looking swing that you can just picture translating at every level.

I think the last real memory I have is of Sean Taylor absolutely lighting a punter up...and I'm pretty sure I didn't watch that live. I believe Sean Taylor passed away when Favre was still a Packer(after a 3 pick game where he could have had 2-3 more picks). So...yeah, I won't be losing any sleep over this one. I do still watch the College Bowls.

I don't know...2017 seems like a pretty logical guess since there have been other years they've only played a couple and...if the answer was 2020, it hardly feels like you'd be asking this question. I don't know what Badger coach EVER consistently beat ANYONE if running the ball didn't work. Maybe the year we got a fluke transfer who went on to have a HOF NFL career? I'd suspect the overwhelming majority of the time the Badgers beat ranked opponents...their running game works because we are Wisconsin and we produce large humans but not very fast ones(generally) and definitely not enough fast ones with the physical aptitude to play CB or WRer as well as or in the numbers as Ohio. So that alone...not helping.

Would be inaccurate. He is a minority owner. He owns a larger share of the team than anyone else. He does not own more than half the team. I believe it was 34% about a decade ago, but who knows how much that's has changed. And LOL...yes, many of these owners absolutely buy these teams for the profits. Especially the ones who purchased when they still had tax exempt status. The profits are tens to hundreds of millions of dollars in MANY professional sports. Not..."change" to billionaires(which Attanasio is not).

I'm not certain some of these numbers are right...and that's one of the big problems. I've seen Forbes estimate(which Baseball Reference later used and then trickled out through other sources)...but there are also a dozen factors it doesn't seems Forbes accounted for and that's all the games played. Also, it's definitely gone down since then. MLB had to borrow an enormous amount of money in 2020 to pay out that revenue sharing with the promise that the large market teams would pay it back...this has not yet been settled(I guess, it's hard to find absolute answers on this). They SEEM to be back operating as normal now, though because it's net revenue and things like servicing debt is not included in that 48% figure. So that's a massive number the last couple years. Finally, the Dodgers are on a TV deal that increases every year. The deal they signed is worth an AVERAGE of over 300M...they signed a 8.35B dollar deal(25 years) yet it was only valued at 2B which screwed the rest out of the league out of a LOT of that revenue...they technically own a big chunk of SportsNet LA...which as I understand it was just a way to get around paying as much into revenue sharing as there are financial benefits to taking on risk when owning your own broadcasting rights...though that didn't really apply here as they just went with Fox...I believe. It was a whole very "Jerry Jones" like deal on the Dodgers behalf when the new ownership group was buying the team. But the Dodgers will end up making much more on a per year basis than 239M. The Yankees and the Yes Network. They're reportedly generating 400M in revenue for the organization...but here again, there's a lot of playing with the numbers because they re-acquired the YES network for 3.47B, so they that massive revenue they're getting, they can also exclude that from the revenue. There is some variation of this with over half the teams who have an ownership stake in the company that broadcasts their games. Kinda feels like this would be a good way to go for Brewers fans who are per capita, more invested in this team than any other in Baseball. So...these numbers seem to be disputed...in no small part due to the absolute f-ery of the owners who play games. So you're just kinda left guessing at what the value is based on what it should be while knowing their all trying to screw each other and they DEFINITELY don't want the average fan to see their accounting(or they'll revolt like they did ~15 years ago when the Pirates financials leaked). The MLPA wanted 100M cut from revenue sharing...which made no sense, but they're arguing(correctly) that teams who are getting money from revenue sharing are not using that money to actually try and compete. Some are using that money to re-invest in their scouting departments and while that certainly makes sense, it's still not making up for, or the intent behind revenue sharing. What they SHOULD have been fighting for, rather than reducing revenue sharing by 100M would be a FLOOR. Once again, all Football fans should thank Wellington Mara and Pete Rozelle for not allowing the NFL to become what MLB is...but it'd be even worse. Also, the Green Bay Packers who make their figures public, they received 309M...and that's with the NFL sharing ALL sources of revenue. All the TV money, the gate receipts are even split up with 40% going into the revenue sharing pool(though not luxury boxes which is how the aforementioned Jerry Jones screwed over his fellow owners when he showed them his plans for Jerry-world and then in reality added a ton of luxury boxes which is money they, again, keep and had to go back to the owners, hat in hand, asking for more money). End of the day, I don't buy that every MLB team starts out with 209M(Which based on those numbers would now be closer to 240-250M from revenue sharing before factoring in their 52% of the revenue. There's just too many unknowns and loopholes. If you can actually make sense of it...well, good luck. I can't. I do think the Brewers can afford to spend more money than they are...and I think they will(this is very upsetting to some people). I don't think they can afford to spend a whole lot more and I don't believe they're making a whole lot of money. In other words, they're not the Nutting family just putting out a team and pocketing tens of millions while making little effort to be competitive year over year. Maybe one day the City of Milwaukee will buy the Brewers and we'll get a better idea of what the actual numbers are. But they're likely not as dire as some would suggest and they're not as flush as I think others believe.

They'll almost definitely do that. And IF they bring their rotation back next year, they'll have Gasser or Ashby to help in the pen. Also, not impossible Uribe, Ecerg, Harris, or a number of others could step in and maybe surprise. Obviously not all of them, but by the end of next year, one could. EDIT-OR they'll trade a pitcher or two or both and Adames and in which case, they probably won't be as competitive next year and will also have some young, talented arms who can fill a myriad of roles(I don't want to infer in any way they won't trade anyone and or everyone and get into another circular argument).

I don't. I only know they didn't try to sign them last year. At which point in the Burnes thread the question was put to me when exactly SHOULD they have signed them and then rattled off why each prior year wouldn't have been a good time to sign them. I have no idea if they tried or did not try to sign Burnes his 1st or 2nd year of team control. I only know he was miffed they didn't approach him last year and in the thread I was referencing, there was NEVER a wise time to extend him. He was unproven, then terrible, then it was only a short season and that takes us to last year when he won a Cy Young and was already too expensive being the rationale. So no, I'm not suggesting they never tried to extend him and I'm certainly not saying it as though it's fact. Just two different comments from about 15 seconds...which is about all the more I'm going to spend on this.

Yeah, that's kinda inevitable though. It's like that across the league. Players know how it is. Especially in the wake of Hader. They'll likely make some type of offers. If they're serious...maybe they extend someone. If they're of the Prince Fielder variety, then I'd guess they'd put them on the market asking for the Grayson Rodriguez/Jackson Holliday type return someone(might have been you) suggested in the Burnes thread or until a team meets their respective prices, possibly at the deadline.

LOL...oh...got me there. I spelled Big Sexy's name wrong! I guess that means everything else is invalid! Jeeesus. I said you're right? What more do you want? I ALREADY have Sal Frelick's trade scheduled juuust a little bit after Mitchell's and a little before Turang's...you shouldn't ever attempt to re-sign anyone unless they sign their 1st year or service time(but in Burnes case you still wouldn't have done that) because they bring back more value in trades and that is WITHOUT exception and if I don't agree ABSOLUTELY with you, you're gonna keep hounding the hell outta me on every thread. So you're right. Nothing has changed. 30 years ago MLB was FILLED with players making 20M a year, the Brewers were a good competitive team and it makes all the sense in the world to compare those two IDENTICAL periods in Brewers baseball. Oh, and we should NOT aim to be Rays or Guardians-lite, we should do exactly as they have done. No questions. Follow their ideology to a T, absolutely never deviate no matter the circumstances. And anyone in this thread who wanted to sign any of these players doesn't understand that's just nonsense because...you're the only one that gets it. That revenue is objectively going up means nothing, that we have two players THIS YEAR making 40 million combined and there's a significant bump coming in revenue coming...does-not-matter, you NEVER deviate. That is the only way to win and run a baseball team. Doesn't matter if you have prime Mike Trout(unless he's willing to take 19.9M a year maybe? I don't know, get back to me on that one) you trade him! WE good now or will this spill over into 5 or 6 more threads? I really never thought answering the question of the thread would get this...yipping that won't stop. I'm also sorry for suggesting they maybe should have tried to sign Burnes earlier during team control. That was OBVIOUSLY outlandish and not something the Rays would do(other than the times they did it...like when they traded that pitcher for Meadows, Baz and Glasnow).

LOL...sure. Because this is the EXACT same situation as Greg Vaughn and Richie Sexton... But they don't. You know how I know this? Tell me what team Christian Yelich plays for? I get it. I understand your point. I thought I could disagree that they HAD to trade away every player they developed, but I forgot the legendary Marc Newfield trade when the Brewers...in a VERY similar situation to what they're in right now with a competitive team and a young nucleus of players coming up, they opted to trade away...Greg Vaughn. A very reasonable comp and so very relevant to this current discussion. That's definitely the key to keeping us competitive. I guess that Christian Yelich trade, the Lorenzo Cain signing, the 100M offer they made to Yu Darvish...those must have been nonsense as well. How about when the Brewers were leading the league in payroll in the 80s and signing Yount to the largest deal in MLB history? Is THAT also somehow relevant? Tell me what I need to do please? Obviously just MOSTLY agreeing with you is...not good enough. Absolute capitulation what ya need bud? Lets pencil Sal Frelick in for the 2026 trade deadline! I'm on board! Nobody stays in Milwaukee for more than 4 years!

Now we know why CMIII wasn't happy about Rashan Gary taking over his number! He wanted to come back; https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/34676863/clay-matthews-says-had-hoped-finish-career-green-bay-packers This is where I'd take a little shot at Garvin, but I thought he actually played a little bit better this past week.

Yeah, my parents had windows similar to this when they bought this older farm house when I was a kid. They ended up renovating, but I do remember he'd take the screen out and I think he put in a little insulation and that plastic people used to use. It wasn't the most aesthetically pleasing, but I guess it worked.

I'm incorrect, they're NOT good at identifying talent and developing it? How are they doing so well in trades if they can't identify talent and then develop it? ALL of those players were established big leaguers? Or are you just giving me the Rays trade tree again like the 9th time will somehow change my own personal preference to re-sign one of our own aces? I'm also not spending too much time on that list because...again, I really don't care, but...I do think it's a little funny how Wander Franco doesn't make it. Like...he just doesn't count because he got hurt this year...or their top prospects who were all acquired by the team OR traded for very-very early into their careers. But I cannot reiterate enough, I do not care. The Rays have about half the payroll we do. Beacuse they're forced to trade everyone doesn't mean we are. We just have to trade most people...and I'm sure you'll be very pleased when we do.

Yeah...I get that, but it's also not like we're talking about locking HIM in at 20M for those FA years. Also...I think Lauer's a little better than those numbers suggest. He's had a couple of blowup's that have skewed it. I guess you're right, I wouldn't really bother unless that was very team friendly. He has stretches where he looks so good, but you can also go year to year. I can still see him getting better, but he shouldn't be an alternative to signing Burnes/Woodruff/Adames.