BrewerFan

.... yeah, we're talking about RUNS scored and OUR offense. Pointing out that Skenes had a sub 2 ERA and only went 10-10 only speaks to their offense, not ours. Ok... well... cool as that picture may be, the question... again, was if our offense was really that good. Acting like we just feasted on the NL Central is just simply not true. AGAIN, Cincy, STL and the Cubs all held us below our season averages(the ones that had us 3rd in the league in R) and the only one we were BETTER than was the Pirates. So... the point remains. MLB has a balanced schedule now and we were not beating up on teams in our division to score our runs.

I'd take Contreras out of that group. He came through big in a few spots and was hitting the ball hard. But... the other three were 3 of our top 5 hitters this year. Snell just wasn't as sharp last night. It's not like he just dominated the Brewers, he threw 6IP, 1H 0ER and 9K vs the Phills and he gave up 2ERs vs the Reds, and even that game, he had given up 1H through 6 vs the Reds(with 9Ks) and they finally got him for 3hits and 2 ERs. We were bad vs Snell... but he was also... about as sharp as I've seen any pitcher in the playoffs.

Teams play a balanced schedule now. The division isn't nearly as impactful as it once was and the only team we faced that we had a higher OPS against as compared to our teams season long average was the Pirates(the team with Skenes who we hit a couple times). We didn't beat up on a bad division. And being held to a .118 AVG tells me... nothing about our season long offense. It tells me in 4 games vs... 4 ace caliber pitchers, we didn't hit. I said the exact same thing going into the series. I didn't think the regular season numbers or BA/OPS(which were both solid at .274 and a 736 OPS) was going to mean ANYTHING in the post-season.

I'm not buying this whole, "the team wore down." And using the Dodgers pitchers... the Brewers were able to do the same things. They were able to bring Woodruff along slowly and patiently to build him up for the playoffs...and we just got bad luck. But Patrick, Misiorowski, we sent one down, put another on the DL and limited his innings. Peralta is really the only guy who didn't any breaks, but... we didn't ride the starters too hard and we didn't ride the bullpen any harder than the other top teams. The Dodgers didn't just rest pitchers for the hell of it, they had pitchers who have had injuries. They also have SO many young, extremely talented pitchers, it's easier for them to get by, but they were battling for the division. They weren't just sitting Snell because they felt like it. As for Brewers players, Contreras played well in the playoffs and he was the guy who should have worn down. He had ALL the excuses. But he gave you good at bats and hit the ball hard in the playoffs. Turang went up there with just defensive swings. It also felt like Turang, Yelich and Frelick faced a LOT of lefties. I don't buy that as the issue. Durbin played well, he was playing a position few thought he'd be able to handle 3B and he was grinding every day. Maybe it's a youth thing(though Chourio wasn't too bothered), but I think we're looking for excuses that aren't there save for maybe Yelich. Ohtani was their #4 starter. Snell looked human vs Toronto, but he was untouchable in the first two rounds. Yamamoto and Glasnow were great and then... again, Ohtani. The part of the team you'd expect to tire, the pitching, they were all you could have asked for vs the Dodgers. Uribe and Ashby gave up runs, but they were used a LOT vs the Cubs and I think not using Tobias Myers may have been a mistake, but we held up. The Dodgers were just better and we looked like a team that was pressing. We weren't able to get guys on atop the order, get them moving, put pressure on the Dodgers who... don't have a great IF defense and we didn't really make them work. Turang, Frelick, Yelich. We got very little out of them. And we weren't able to get to the Dodgers Pen enough. MAYBE had we pulled out Gm1 we relax at the plate a bit, but we didn't. All I would do differently next year is cut Yelich and Contreras down to about 120 starts and 110 starts respectively at DH/C and I'd still give Contreras another 20 starts at DH unless a young guy forces his way in.

Well... I guess 17 years is 7+ years, but it's kinda like saying we have team control of Chourio the next 2+ season. While technically accurate, the next 8 seasons is more exact. Again, from 1982(early that year, I think starting in May) and then did not miss a game until he took himself out late in the 1998 season when he decided shortly before the game that he would not play in the game). He had over 2600. I think it was over 2660 with playoff games... though it may have been short of that. But just go with the 2600. That's FAR more than 7 seasons.

17 seasons. 1982 to 1998.

Well, they didn't let him walk last time as a FA and he hasn't walked yet... so maybe we wait until he's actually gone. Also... he'd be 33 at the end of this deal. That's pretty much EXACTLY the sweet spot for a players final FA years. I don't think we have to worry about him being in his decline by then due to age. On the other hand... hitting FA at 29... he'd also be set up pretty well. If you're a 5-6 WAR player... it's really not that rough of a market for a MIF at 29/30.

Oh... I saw him 1-1 in a whole bunch... And then Texas started playing games. He DOES have better physical tools than Eli and Peyton, so easy to see why he had the hype.

Brinson looked... REAL good for a rookie DL. Nevermind a... 6th(?) rd pick who didn't start at UGA. He's definitely not a going to just be a run clogging DL. Wooden was a little disappointing. I watched this one back to see... exactly what the hell is not working and... it's pretty obvious to me. We come with Quay or Cooper on so many blitzes. We're playing a cover 1 zone with McKinney playing more Robber, but it's like every time Walker or Cooper comes, McKinney has to play more like 20-25 yards deep, Williams is helping out over the top and the middle is just wide open. But Brinson was up there with Walker for #2 defender this weekend.

I get that it's hardly a given that Burke, Adams, Wilken... Boeve, Black, Fischer, they're not all going to hit. But it's a pretty good bet that one or two hit and it could be as soon as next year AND we've got Vaughn and Bauers for the immediate future. Bauers is no... star, but he's a nice LHed platoon and I think the defense is underrated. Is Naylor going to be worth it? I'd think he'd get 4 years 50M at least. Hardly prohibitive, but... just not sure it's worth it.

LOL... oh, no...no, no I am NOT. This has been an idea for a VERY long time and I simply agreed with someone else who mentioned it. This has also LONG been discussed and the MLB and MLBPA decided to "table it" Until 2026. Yeah... I mean, how does an MLB team draft players when that player as an alternative option to signing with them? I'm sorry, how does the Major League Draft currently in place work with MiLB players? Oh... that's right. They have to communicate with players they're interested in and decide! You're right. It's... impossible. There's no way they could do that. Yeah... ya really kinda did though. By saying if it wasn't the team THEY picked, they'd... well, I'll just use your quote; And I said.... Yes. I "honestly believe" as much. That's... why we're having this argument that's going nowhere and you're treating the notion of an international draft as this CRAZY idea, but ALSO claiming this is my brainchild... which at the very least, it should be common knowledge this has been a pretty significant point of discussion. Cool. Don't agree. .... are you serious? There are players making MILLIONS playing over there. So they're "Millionaire" professionals who enter a draft and come to the US. And second, are you saying there is comparable pay in the Japanese professional league vs MLB? LOL... no, pennies on the dollar there as well. ....right. So you ARE saying you don't get paid substantially more in MLB than Japan? I'm pretty sure you're just dug in and arguing at this point without.... any real point. So... I don't really care that much, this wasn't my dog, I just agreed with it and you can scream to the heavens how there's no way to put players in a draft because... they might not sign(JUST like every high player in the current draft has the choice to do).

You quite literally answered your own question. BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T CUT IT IN MLB. I'm not arguing this anymore. I think it's an asinine premise that Ohtani would have just stayed home if he would have been subjected to the draft, or Sasaki, again, a guy who cost himself 300M+ by not waiting ONE MORE YEAR. I suspect to most involved in the Euro leagues, European Basketball, the system is not broke so why fix it... Though, to be fair, I have yet to hear anything suggest that we fix the Japanese Baseball leagues. I HAVE seen it suggested that IFA's should be subject to a draft... and you think the best players in the world WOULDN'T come over, make exponentially more money to play in the top league(as they have in Basketball)... if they didn't get to play in LA. Well... except for the ones who have.

They're obviously picking up Peralta's and... I would be shocked if they don't pick up Woodruff's option... and I don't think it'll matter.

No, but it may have required Blake Snell to sign with another team... or made the Dodgers more leery about paying Tyler Glasnow a ~30M a year, the first of which so he could rehab... to come and play for them. I suspect they'd also have to add about 60M to the payroll this year as Ohtani and Yamamoto wouldn't be able to defer such a large chunk of their payroll, so you're looking at another 50-60M. Even in your 2010 example in the NFL, it was uncapped... but it really wasn't uncapped. Dallas and... someone else got big fines and lost future salary cap space. The owners, even when they want the salary cap to keep prices down, they still want to go over that cap.

I don't know if I said this here, but Forbes estimates... which are just that, estimtes(though, I'd lend them more credibility) had the Brewers taking in a net revenue of 21M in 2024 and the Dodgers 25M. So... they can spend like that and still put more money away than the Brewers.

Yup. I wouldn't have made the argument otherwise. The best players in the world... want to play in the best LEAGUE in the world; So... that's absolutely what I think would happen. They would go to whoever drafted them and then play out their contract. As for not "having to post a player," they still seem to get posted.

The previous 3 seasons, Matthew Boyd had started 23 games, 141 innings and he got 2 years and 36M GTD. The Dodgers are paying Koepech 5M. They gave Knebel 5M coming off an injury and a terrible couple years. The Phillies then gave him 10M for pitching 25 innings and that was 4 years ago. I think you're drastically underestimating the market for a SPer like Woodruff, even with the injuries. deGrom got nearly 40M over 5 years plus an option at 37M after coming off two injury riddled seasons. Then threw 40 innings the next two years... and I don't think that's deterring anyone. I could keep going, there's Ben Sheets. He was a much riskier choice than Woody and he got paid 8 figures before he'd came back and proved he could throw the ball again. I think if he signs a one year deal, it'll be for more than the QO. I think WE offer the QO because it seems like a really good bet he'd decline it. The very cheapest I could see him playing for this year would be... 10M and that'd be opting in and that's because... I have an irrational belief that he loves Milwaukee and because Attanasio has said he's not only(among) his favorite players, but favorite people. But I know that's... not really going to drive his decision unless the difference in salary isn't that big. We will see though. You may prove to be prophetic. And if you are and he gets 5M a year... I REALLY hope we're the team that gives it to him.

The problem with this theory is... that's not really what happened. Guys who were dominant or even just good in AAA... they were better in the big leagues. Patrick, Henderson, Miz... not Gasser, but he was kinda in a tough spot(which is why he was the one guy we all pointed to and said he shouldn't be on the roster, but he was also like Snell, pitching his "June," for us in the postseason). I would feel better if it was just the Brewers got tired and they couldn't recover... but the fact is, their pitching was great. There isn't a bigger Turang fan on this board(I mean, unless his family is on here, but I like him a lot, that's the point)... but he was a huge catalyst for us all year and he did next to nothing. Frelick wasn't getting on base. Yelich was lost up there. And the Dodgers pitching was just incredible.

I just don't believe that's where MLB teams would look to cut. The most efficient form of developing cheap young talent. Yes, the majority fail. But you don't know which will fail until... they fail. Eric Brown Jr would likely have been taking up a roster spot while Adamczewski would likely be playing in independent ball? That wouldn't be a cheaper or more efficient system and we're still ultimately talking about a relatively small amount of money compared to one large FA. Well, the Dodgers aren't losing money, just the Mets. And no, they don't have an ultimate money glitch, they just have a ton of money. But my point stands, if the goal was only to make money... those teams could make a lot more money and spend a lot less. The Mets losing money wasn't really the point, it was more Cohen doesn't care about making money. I'm sure he'll adjust after he sees you can't just buy a championship, but I suspect they'll move more in the Dodgers direction of working to develop the best farm system AND paying the most. But maybe there will be a cut at some point. Or maybe the TV money will just keep going up as it's the one area where TV is actually growing, live sports. I guess we'll see what happens. That just seems like the least efficient place to cut. In fact, if there was a cap, I would guess the large market teams would spend even more on scouting and player development.... and the teams that do it now would continue to.

No, something very practical can be done, you're just making an assumption that Japanese players would refuse to play here. We WERE one of Sasaki's choices... but it was pretty obvious we weren't going to get him over the Dodgers. We've also had Japanese players here. A player like Sasaki who wanted to play in the Major Leagues SO badly that he couldn't wait another year when he would have signed a record setting deal(provided he stayed healthy this year in Japan).... you think he would have just not come over vs coming to Milwaukee for whatever time frame he was looking at? A draft... is very much a practical solution. Why would the NBA be bringing players from France and all over Europe to San Antonio or wherever, but that wouldn't be the same in MLB? I believe you'd be able to make the same argument about the Dominican Republic. Though... most kids in Japan grow up learning English... so you could argue that it's an even bigger culture shock for kids from the DR. They leave at 16, they're playing Stateside by 18, 19... if they have success.

I haven't done that. YOU said that the NFLPA has gone from a 65% of revenue share to a 48% of revenue share. I used your quotes so there wasn't any confusion. If you made that statement knowing it was wildly misleading and that 65% wasn't 65% of the whole pie like the 48% is then you were just being intellectually dishonest. Most appreciated. I just think we should try and stay on topic. I'm sorry, you started this thread by saying; And yet... where exactly did I say "the players should agree to whatever the owners want?" Just say what you mean. Discussions are much easier when you do that instead of create strawman arguments. See, now THIS part is closer... if you don't make up the whole, "the players should give the owners whatever they want," and play the big bad billionaires card. I said that more revenue sharing, a cap where you can spend to retain your own players similar to how the NBA has it and then a FLOOR... would be good. But to put a finer point on it, I said that the NFL's Collective Bargaining Agreement has helped the sport as a WHOLE grow their revenue and that's good for everyone. Not exactly "the players should give the owners whatever they want." I'm sorry, WHAT point are we even attempting to make or argue at this point? And it's not an arbitrary cap. It's based on the league's revenue. AT least as it pertains to Baseball. But then we went to Football when you cited what WAS an arbitrary cap where they just made up random exceptions and limits and used that to argue that the cap was the reason that their revenue sharing had dropped from 65% to 48%. LOL... sure! I'll... get right on top of that! To recap, you made the argument that the NFLPA's percentage of revenue had gone down drastically since they implemented a cap(you specifically used that time frame and the 65% number) and said it had dropped down to 48%. When I pointed out you're not at all comparing the same things as that 65% was not close to the entire revenue pie, you accused me of "mis-representing things you said," while claiming that I "inferred" the owners had not made more money...upon pointing out that Micah Parsons just signed for 47M a year where as Reggie signed his contract(which was actually VERY close to the richest in LEAGUE history, not just for a defensive player... hell, Parsons isn't even the top paid Packer. It was at THIS point you felt the need to change the discussion from the two principle points in a CBA, REVENUE and what SHARE of that revenue the players get and instead.... start talking about franchise valuations. If you want to waive the white flat... waive it bud. If you want to keep digging the shovel, playing the 'that's not what I meant,' even though it's exactly what you said card and then create strawman arguments to respond to me... I'll keep doing so. I will have to wait to get back to you as... I probably should get some work done, but I look forward to seeing how I have said that... MLB players should volunteer to play for the league minimum or some other equally foolish statement that I never actually made while you complain about being misrepresented!

I don't actually think you do. I think you had to with Hader, Gomez, Lucroy...Burnes. I don't really view Williams trade as the same. But we've got a good enough farm system that we can listen to deals, but we do not have to make one just to keep recycling talent. We have so much talent coming up and you'll get a high draft pick and what, ~2.5M in bonus money when we offer Peralta a QO after 2026? So you need to beat that offer by enough that it's worth taking a guy who I think is actually a really good #2 pitcher(not a true ace) from a 97 win team. If you get that from... again, the Padres keep coming to mind given how desperate they are and the SPers that'll be FAs. Plus, they like the flashy new trade every-single-time. Yeah, again yesterday one of those guys who "covers" the Dodgers by writing for Bleacher Report or whatever... after saying the Brewers could have signed Ohtani, Freeman, Snell, Yamamoto, people like that, he THEN listed the "cheap" options. Teoscar Hernández was one of his examples. The guy who signed with the Dodgers after he was surprisingly not given a QO by the Mariners in 2023 and signed a 1-year 23.5M deal. That's their... cheap option. Or one of them, Max Muncy and then... Sasaki were the other two examples. One of whom was likely going to get more than any Japanese players ever had he waited a year and come over as a FA instead of as a prospect. I'm not so interested in the "go for it" mentality with Peralta though. I think he puts up really good numbers that helps out more in the regular season than the post-season. I think we have good young pitchers, but he's not going to decide a series like Blake Snell(or even like I think Burnes/Woodruff WERE capable of doing). I just don't have a strong opinion on Peralta. We have a lot of guys who can starter, even more who can start and give you 4-5 innings regularly. If you get a deal with a really good prospect a year away and the value is really in your favor, do it. Don't do it just so you can check off, "got 2 top 75 prospects for pitcher with one year left." If we had the 20th ranked system, I'd do it. WE don't, it's top 5. Be open, but a draft pick isn't the worst case scenario.

I don't think you're getting a guy like McClean in any trade for Peralta. I think the only thing you can do is look for a guy who is a year behind McClean, try and figure out who the next version of McClean will be, try and pick him up. That's why I liked Mendez from the Padres. He's a guy with elite stuff, little rough around the edges, but big upside. I don't think Peralta gets you Williams+Tong... and as you'll see below, I'm not particularly interested in Baty as a center piece. That's for Skubal. For Skubal next year, I'd keep Peralta and trade Pratt, Pena, Henderson and that's more than they're proposing. Now this is a comically low ball offer for Skubal, but... I don't think Stearns is going to trade away those two young arms. Ok... Durbin had a BABIP about 40 points lower than Baty last year and we've got... 5-6 guys on their way up in the next year or two. I wouldn't be making a trade like this for Baty. And then moving pass Durbin-Baty which is REALLY much closer to a push(especially when you adjust for Durbin's .261 BABIP and Baty with a BABIP over .300 and their near identical value. You also have the fact that Durbin was new to 3B. But you have Wilken, Adams, Fischer, Made/Pratt can't both play 3B. I think looking at 3B/1B acquisitions is looking backward. You have guys who will be in AAA and you have guys in AA and you imperfect fits in Boeve, Black, Ortiz(who we're all writing off prematurely) if he's kicked off 3B...all while having 1B/3B lined up with Vaughn and Durbin. https://stathead.com/baseball/versus-finder.cgi?player_id2=durbin000cal&year_min=2025&player_id1=baty--000bre&request=1&utm_id=batybr01&utm_medium=sr_xsite&utm_campaign=2023_01_wdgt_player_comparison&utm_source=br So give me a couple of guys who throw in the upper 90s with an elite 2nd pitch and a 3rd pitch that needs work, a change up... the exact type of pitchers the Brewers seem to do their best work with. Otherwise, roll with Peralta and run it back.

Well... two things. 1-I think there's a very real chance people are going to be talking about how they gave up on Ortiz far too early a year from now. He's played two seasons. One at SS. He was a solid hitter one year, a very poor hitter the other year. DL Hall is also a very solid pitcher, BUT... of course you'd rather have Peralta over him. The Goal is to trade for a pitcher like Abel and then hope you can develop him. I'm thinking of... the Padres. A team with a need RIGHT NOW and a team that's always willing to trade their young prospects, but I'd trade Peralta for Kruz Schoolcraft, Humberto Cruz, and then the guy I really like Miguel Mendez. Mendez is a guy I think the Brewers could do a lot with. But if you're going to trade Peralta... and I'm more split on this than I was a month ago, if you do, you should be looking for pitchers who are on the same trajectory as Made, Fischer and that group. The Padres don't have much in their system, but they're desperate to win and they have 3 REALLY good young arms, that'd make the most sense. Then we could still have Edit-Priester-Someone I forgot about him Misi Patrick Myers Henderson Ashby Gasser And I would anticipate adding a pitcher. I think Dylan Cease would be perfect. Pony up, give him 3/60. I think he'd be better in Milwaukee. I don't think we're going to do anything and that probably makes the most sense. We've got a very good farm system, we DO have some pitchers who are on that timeline... I'm just saying, a couple of really high ceiling type arms who will be in HiA or AA next year... I love the position group of players we've got, I wouldn't mind seeing us add to the SPing.

And then here's the part where I tell you... this isn't a very good job of covering up that you didn't know what you were talking about when you claimed NFL players revenue had DROPPED from 64% to 48%. If you knew that was not an accurate statement, why make it? So they're "down" to 48% from 64%, but you were never talking about making an apples to apples comparison? Yeah, seems like I was reading EXACTLY what was right there. That doesn't make much sense though. If your point was that you were never said that it was from the same pool(and to be clear, the 65% was capped up until a certain number and didn't include most local revenue and was primarily driven by TV contracts and Gate reciepts)... then again, why even make the statement? What purpose does it serve So... that's really make this part of the statement irrelevant than; Meanwhile the players have never been more "wealthy." Everyone makes more! So... you're really not saying anything. I think the problem is that you did a quick search, saw the NFLPA originally agreed to 65% during the '87 strike, but you didn't realize just how much of the total revenue that DIDN'T apply to. None of that even a point of contention in the previous posts.... but it's also not true. Players have had years they've earned as much as 57%(of ALL revenue without a cap at a certain amount like your 1994 64% figure). But, again... when was this EVER the point of this thread/discussion? I'm also curious in what line of work do the employees or have the employees outpaced the revenue of the companies during this time period? This is a red herring and really not related to the MLB CBA discussions. Yeah... that's literally the point. It's a negotiated percentage. That's how you arrive at a salary cap, floor. You take a percentage of revenue. In the NFL, it's a MINIMIUM of 48%. The actual number is generally higher, but... that is the minimum percentage of revenue. And we're back to comparing Apples to Oranges. Why did we just randomly shift from yearly revenue and the percentage of that that players receive to estimated valuations of franchises? Is this even a serious discussion any longer? I suspect if you looked the average salary for an employee at MSFT or NVDA vs the valuation of the company... well, I really wouldn't care what you'd find, but I suspect you'd find the employees "revenue share" significantly lag behind the 4.7T dollar valuation. So...I don't know what we're talking about. We're comparing what percent of revenue they get PER YEAR. Not the valuations of the franchises. That's... totally irrelevant. You can't pay people with projected prices when and if you sell and what that price is PROJECTED to be... 1-How's that? Where did I say "non-football" revenue? I don't know what you're talking about. I mean, I was originally talking about BASEBALL and a wildly different financial structure than the NFL, but you choose to make some statements about the NFL that really doesn't hold much water. I pointed out that the 64% YOU were talking about didn't include most LOCAL revenue. They also literally capped how much of the revenue they could share(150M in 1994). So it really... couldn't be less relevant. It'd be like saying..."once they reach 8B, you don't get anymore revenue" in the modern NFL. You'll also have to show me where I said the revenue sharing didn't include "non-football revenue," or what point you're making here. And no, it's more the cost certainty of the NFL TV deals BLOWING up that the NFL players are VERY clearly sharing in, now at ~111B dollars and the NFL is almost certainly going to opt OUT of that in 2029 because it's not a big enough deal. But AGAIN, I don't know why we've randomly shifted the conversation from Revenue generated per year by a league to franchise valuations are. The cost of a franchise is elevated NOT just because of the money, but the scarcity. This really couldn't have less to do with the conversation. What's next, are we going to start talking about 12 month forward PE's for NFL franchises vs players salaries? An NFL teams percieved valuation from Forbes? Again, why are we occilating back between NFL valuations and how EVERY league determines players revenue... Revenue each year gets divided up every year. THAT is how the salary cap is decided. Not how much an NFL franchise is worth. Don't think I asked you to. You've made this an ENTIRELY different conversation about millionaires and billionaires in another sport with... partial truths and inferences that weren't made. You're saying nothing here. I haven't seen anyone say, "hey, I'm for Billionaires being able to get away with financial manipulation!" Are we still talking about Football(which for whatever reason has been the extent of this discussion) given the NFL DOES open it's books and have done so since 1993.... so I don't know what "financial manipulation," you're referring to here, but it seems like a larger and more disconnected political point vs a discussion on the economic inequalities in MLB. It's NOTHING more? So... a cap(And floor) and revenue sharing in the NFL(which is what the discussion was actually about)... that doesn't do ANYTHING but enrich owners? Has it dawned on you that MAYBE one of the reasons the NFL is so WILDLY successful is that pretty much EVERY NFL team can sign afford ANY player? Maybe that's part of the reason their revenue has just blown past that of MLB? That the very first day of the league year, EACH team is given a check, this year for ~400M dollars that covers the entire 280M salary cap? That every single team is on equal footing? A Cap wouldn't make it so a publicly owned team from a city of 100K people could be on equal financial footing with the New York teams, the LA, Dallas, Chicago teams? I was unaware that a cap ONLY served one singular agenda. I guess I won't read things that aren't there. A salary cap does literally NOTHING but increase franchise valuations. Absolutely nothing else at all. Would a floor then serve "no purpose" but to lower a franchises valuation then? I mean, that's the logical conclusion from such a broad statement lacking all nuance, but... I'm just curious.