BrewerFan

I'm actually interested to see how much he gets. @TURBOmentioned it and... it is this feeling you get when he's your closer, you look, you see the 1.20 ERA... you see that he has thrown 2 changeup's that just dart like a whiffle ball, but youknow if they just don't swing at it and sit FB, they'll hit it... and they almost never do. I think intellectually, Turbo is wrong about it being a roller-coaster with him, but it FEELS like it. I wonder how much not having that overpowering FB to work off of will hurt his market value. He really should get 5/75 based on what he's done, but I think it's more like 2/28 or so. And I think... outside from trading for a guy like Duran or Mason Miller(who they'd probably pay 14M for a year or two) you're right. There's no realistic scenario in which we make our 2nd highest paid player a reliever. I don't really get the "BP is the last place I want to spend on," though. I'm looking at the position players who'd be a real upgrade? In theory; Bichette-Great hitter, .307 xBA, one of the best offensive MIFers. -13 OAA. Ok, make him a 2B, Turang to SS. ?That problem is solved. Now, just find a way to pay him 300M. Schwarber-Great. Totally worth it. Play Yelly fewer games, but have an OF of Yelich/Chourio/Frelick. You lose on defense, but you get a MASSIVE power hitter and OB machine. Probably 3/90 to get him to Milwaukee. Framber would be a great SPer. I'd love to see him in Milwaukee. Not paying a 32 year old 5-6 years and 30M a year(which is what it'd be for a "shorter" deal like 5-6 years. Dylan Cease? In theory, if you're willing to spend 20M, he may be the only guy I could understand(on a short term deal). Give him 3/45 and I don't think that'd get it done, maybe it's 3/60. The Brewers can do that and Cease has good enough stuff to justify that.. still don't think there's much of a chance he'd sign with the Brewers(and I think he'll get 9 figures even coming off a down year). Is there any other position where you can get an upgrade... on a relatively short term deal, 2, maybe 3 years where you're A-Not blocking a prospect(which would kinda be SS) or we have depth(OF)... but would make an appreciable difference?

I actually strongly disagree. I wanted Chapman last year(also a little bit Yoan Moncada, but mostly Chapman) and this year, I'd love Hensley or someone else. I don't think we're out of the woods with Megill and we didn't trust Mears in the NLCS. I think the shorter outings, the stint on the IL(which I don't think we do if we're 3 games behind happens) all contributed to that. That kid... MAN, he really has me set up for disappointment next year. I never lost faith.... that he'd be a great pitcher for us. I had very little faith he'd be a reliable arm out of the pen. Megill had that dreaded "flexor" strain that... should give you a little pause and Ashby may well be moved into the starting rotation. Now this isn't me advocating for Devin Williams, but it IS me advocating for a Ryan Helsley IF.. you could get him for ~8M or less. Kyle Finnegan may be an even better option with his GB heavy approach and likely cheaper price tag... though I'd bet each are out of our price range. The Dodgers seem like an obvious choice for Hesley at 3/45 or so and I'd guess Finnegan could get a 3/27 type deal.

Oh I thought I was missing something. That you'd have to be paying Minor League Players at a higher rate, but... I don't think this makes any sense. Cap or no cap, more revenue going to MLB players or less, we KNOW the more cost efficient way to find and develop talent in throught he farm system. You're not going to eliminate everything from the DSL to AAA. Now you draft a HS kid(which teams would VERY likely shy away from) and... what, they jump straight to AAA after a year going to the DSL? Also, professional sports don't operate under the same constructs that normal industry does...obviously(I know you know this). That's the whole point. If they did, the Dodgers would be spending 200M dollars and walking away each year with 300M+ in net revenue. MOST of the large market teams could spend substantially less and make substantially more. The Mets are losing a couple hundred million a year. I don't see a scenario in which MiLB players are impacted BEYOND the prospect of them reaching free agency faster. I mean, that's the ONE area poor teams don't skimp even now. They all spend and invest heavily on prospects. That's how they get their next stars. But... what's more, you'd also have to conclude that... you just largely be eliminating the farm systems. Where would you get prospects from? This would create an even bigger issue. Do players now go and play for an independent league and get to pick who they sign with? Because... Jackson Chourio and Jesus Made as 20-year-olds probably aren't picking the Brewers. They'll probably pick the same 6-8 big market teams... maybe the Marlins in Miami or the As in LV. You've got a really good outline... I just just vehemently disagree with the conclusion you're coming to as it pertains to the minor league systems.

Yeah, I think this is PRETTY close to how it's written right now, it's just written like the US tax code(that's apolitical). There's something in there where if you take the "risk" and invest in your own TV deal, you don't have to pay as much. So that's applicable for the Yankees and the YES network, but he Dodgers, they got that 8.8B TV deal and... someone more informed please correct me if I'm wrong, but they invested in the Fox News Regional network, so then they had to pay at a lower rate. I'm not exactly sure, but I know it's TECHNICALLY 48% of NET local revenue IS shared with different exclusions. The Dodgers have saved nearly 1B dollars by some cap that either happened by circumventing MLB rules or was a compromise with MLB, but they only pay out 130M(only)... whereas the Yankees contribute 200M, but keep 300M on top of that. But small market teams DO make a lot of money from the big market teams. It'd be FAR more preferable to just have MLB negotiate all the TV rights and then divide those up, have them split the gate revenue 60/40 like the NFL does(they exclude luxury boxes which is one reason Jerry Jones pissed off all the other owners when he showed a proposal of "Jerry World," then came back with ~20K fewer seats and 100 more luxury suites). How do you sell the LAD and NYY on that though? "Hey, people are exponentially more interested in watching you play because you're from markets 30X bigger than the smallest markets, so you have to split your money with them?" Then you'd come up with a Cap(not a hard cap, again, use a "Bird Rule," because the Yankees never should have lost Derek Jeter because they were up against the cap) and a floor and if the Nutting family doesn't like it... there's a list of big egos with bigger wallets who I believe would step in.

Or you're just really bad about reading things that aren't there. I thought it was a pretty simple statement that the sport and revenue had grown for BOTH the owners and players. Jesus... my posts are generally pretty verbose so people don't have to guess what the "implications," were, but YOU'RE telling ME that you really thought I didn't understand that the value of franchises had gone up when the 3rd richest contract at that time was 4.25M a year, but NOW the Packers are able to give their SECOND highest paid player... at the same position... 47M a year? Ya...ya really thought I believed that to be true, but that the valuation of franchises hadn't gone up since their 1992 values? LOL... that makes MUCH more sense than pointing out players AND owners had benefitted from the revenue sharing and CBA in the NFL as example by the smallest market in Professional Sports being able to spend as much as any team in the sport. You seem to have chose to re-direct this conversation from the fantastical notion that owners were giving players 64% of all revenue and now it's "dropped" to ~50% and instead... well, again, so there's no confusion about what I'm implying, claiming I suggested owners weren't making more money).

You gotta explain this to me as I don't understand. Why would it gut the minor league systems? Just make it the 40 man roster. Even the Dodgers don't have a ton of money in the minors. They get paid very little. Otherwise, I generally agreed with your post. I think you should put a cap in, you're just going to have to start at... like 290 and give teams a few years to get there(hell, I don't know what it'd start at, but it really wouldn't be fair for it to start at like 210 given the Dodgers, Mets, Yankees, Phillies... frankly, the large markets who really drive the sport(minus Chicago which inexplicably doesn't spend much money). Much smarter people than I will argue about this, but...I like the idea of incorporating some of the themes the NBA uses. Hard capping teams, etc... But you have to do more than that. You have to make the bottom teams spend more or there's just no reason for the MLBPA to go along with it... and while I'm ready to say right now "screw it, lets have a long labor battle," I'm already looking forward to next Spring Training and I'm pretty sure I'm going to feel MUCH differently the year Jesus Made is signed after 2 games so that we get team control as well as a draft pick for his ROY season. So while your proposal doesn't quite feel like it balances the field out, I don't think any will and yours at least helps makes things a bit more even.

Can you point to the part of the post where I inferred the owners WEREN'T wealthier now? I pointed out that the players were ALSO making a helluva lot more money now. You made some point that the players USED to get a bigger piece of the pie(then ignored how they got a bigger piece, but only of some of the pie) and then made an argument AGAINST something I NEVER said. By all means, I have no problems arguing, just... make it something I've ACTUALLY said. Don't hear what I didn't say.

But hey, good stuff. I wrote on here that I saw a WS run generated between 50 and 100M in revenue. I was skeptical, but... it makes a bit more sense now based on those numbers. Sorry to sidetrack from my rant

Yeah... I just don't know where that money goes to be honest. Brandon Woodruff now that he's proven his SHOULDER is healthy? One thing I love about the Packers is... nobody is buying a Yacht after a playoff run(I mean, maybe Jordan Love did, but generally speaking). That money goes into a "rainy day fund." How nice would it be... and probably a disaster, but in theory, if the Brewers were bought by Milwaukee County... with the guarantee that they could not take money from the fund and they appointed a board of directors? Or just... get interested in Baseball Paul Menard! C'mon... it's much more interesting now! Jimmy Haslem? I know I'm getting REAL tired of Dodgers fans on X saying "the Brewers could have signed Blake Snell, Ohtani, Freeman and Glasnow if they wanted." And then, one guy even had the nerve to say the Dodgers are able to get by with "cheap" players like Teo. For those who are curious, he'd have been our highest paid player when they picked him up on the scrap heap for a meager 23.5M dollars. This was a bit of an opportunity lost... to make some money, but the Brewers couldn't beat this Dodgers team. EVERYTHING went right in Gm1. A 410 Foot Double Play, they load the bases and throw the ball so far inside it's almost impossible to not get hit by it(not blaming Turang, it's called a reaction for a reason... but...damn it Turang, get hit). Mostly I'm just resigned to the fact that EVERYTHING has to go right for the Brewers and the Dodgers just need a moderate amount of good luck. If Snell or Glasnow or Ohtani wouldn't have been able to pitch or even two of them, they'd still be turning to electric young arms with stuff slotting in somewhere between Miz and Patrick, they just don't need to. Ohtani can go 1 for 20 and the Dodgers can weather that storm until he decides to have the greatest game in playoff history. Turang struggles along with Yelich and... we couldn't be able to buy a run with Tim Dongahy calling the game and a bank account the size of Elon Musks.

We really should be able to make a spot for Fitzpatrick on the 40 man. A big lefty like him... I can't believe we can't find a player on the 40 man with more value than him... or Murray, Crow. Fitzpatrick would be one guy I'd keep working on though. *Edit-Well, Crow also. Two guys I'd keep. I like Murray, but... I haven't broken down the 40 man to see who'd have to go.

I don't think they should do anything. It's not just Burke and Adams, it's Wilken and Fischer.... and Boeve and Black. And... we still have Vaughn, Bauers and Yelich as our DH. We went from next to nothing, paying Hoskins 18M as a last ditch solution to find some power at one of the corners, now we've got them falling out of our...pockets. This is to say nothing of Pratt, Made, Pena, all of whom could factor into 3B in the future or... the kid who just had a helluva rookie series and had some pretty competitive ABs in the playoffs in Durbin. So... I wouldn't do anything. Not at 1B nor 3B... not even at SS... OF, I'd keep the depth we've got and I'd have loved Eric Haase to stick around a year at C so we could promote Quero when we felt like it. Incidentally, another DH/1B option(maybe). William Contreras. Hell, at least DH. I don't know if Yelich was hurt, wore down or just... happened to suck in the post-season, but I know he's older and we'd probably get more from him in Oct if he played closer to 120 games the rest of the year. By this time next year, we may also be looking for a spot for Dinges as well.

I think when you face a Blake Snell change or a Yamamoto splitter, you're out in front of the ball a lot and... that can make it look like you're trying to pull the ball. I think they were just flat out beat by better pitching. Blake Snell is about as good as there is when he's right. In so far as I saw a real change, I'd say it was Turang, but I don't even think he was trying to pull it so much as... he just seemed to be guessing and looked like he did a year ago the 2nd part of the season when it looked like he was guessing up there.

I don't think most of the wealthy teams would want that. Boston, NYY, the Mets(who are already losing a lot of money).. the Phillies. The Cubs damn sure wouldn't. They don't want to share revenue with their players, they're not going to want to share it with the Brewers(and everyone else). I think that'd be the best for the long-term health of MLB, but... I don't think it'd be the best for the next decade. I also think you'd have to phase something like this in slowly... you can't just ask the Dodgers to give up 200M in revenue sharing with the commitments on their books. They owe 100M a year for the 10 years after Ohtani and Yamamoto's contracts are up. As a Brewers fan... that'd be great. But hell, I don't even need an equal piece of the pie. Just make it slightly bigger! Make it so signing Turang to an extension doesn't have a cascading impact on the rest of the roster(or... god forbid, William Contreras).

NFL players aren't down from to 48% from the 64% they agreed to. They got like 64% of 70% of the revenue. They didn't include local revenue, team naming rights... there's a lot of other sources of revenue that they didn't get a piece of. Luxury Suites I believe(one thing that makes Dallas so profitable). As for the owners never having been "more wealthy," Reggie White signed a 4/17M deal. Micah Parsons got a 4/188M deal. The NFL should be what MLB is aiming for. Meanwhile MLB players revenue% has been dropping for the last decade. It was at about 57% in 2015 and t's down to ~42-45% this year. I'd also say the owners can weather a missed year FAR easier than the players can and the small market teams that rely on the National TV revenue sharing... which is still paid out. It'll hurt in the long run, but... things can't get much more out of whack than they are now. The Players meanwhile... they make... nothing. I haven't got a clue how they're going to address this seemingly inevitable labor stoppage, but the Phillies and Bryce Harper's warm reception of the MLB commissioner would lead one to believe it's going to be a pretty contentious stoppage. The "fairest" situation to me would be something where a bigger percent of revenue is shared. Maybe teams like the Yankees/Dodgers have to share 30% of their net revenue, they get a cap. The cap would have to start high(~280M) and keep that in place for ~8 years. Teams can go over that to re-sign their own players, again, the "Bird Rule," type deal. Cap Floor- that'd have to be something similar to the NFL. You don't have to hit it every year, but you do have to average it out. Service time... Service time gets cut to 5 years(wouldn't like that). But my guess is there will be some ancillary changes and nothing too dramatic.

Yeah... I agree. That's why I'm saying a cap wouldn't do anything for the Brewers. They'd still lose Woodruff(if they wanted to keep him) or anyone else. They wouldn't be able to suddenly spend more, other teams would just spend less. And you'd never sell that to MLBPA. But they do. So there's... really nothing the Brewers can do that can put them on equal footing. The Brewers had a top ~4-6 farm system, #1 per BA(I think that was with Mis). You sign Snell when you have Ohtani, Yamamoto, Glasnow... probably 5-6 pitchers who'd slot in behind Mis and ahead of Bishop in our prospect rankings... it's just kinda silly at that point. This isn't the Yankees going out and signing a FA here or there. This is them and the Mets battling for basically every FA. A team on occasion gives a home grown guy a big deal, but... it's just getting further and further out of control. We're spending LESS than we were in 2018 and the Dodgers are spending....twice as much. The Mets even more before the luxury tax, though they'll get hit with it. The Red Sox and Yankees are being outspent. I wouldn't expect a huge change though. I'll hold out hope, but... I don't think we'll suddenly be able to spend 200M while the Dodgers can "only" spend 300M. We'll probably lose what would be Jesus Made's rookie year as we try and figure all this out, but there's no solution I see that other teams are going to be happy with. Boston, NYY, some of the big market teams that want to cap the spending, they're not going to want to cap the spending, then turn around and take a smaller piece of the pie. The Dodgers, Mets, they don't want to cap anything. In fact... they don't like the luxury taxes as it is. Then ~20 of the teams that are not able to spend anywhere near those teams, the Brewers, Indians, Twins, Royals, even the M's and the Tigers, White Sox, Reds, Pirates, Marlins, they want what the NFL has... and I think the ship has sailed there. Even if you had "equity," players want to play in... LA, Miami, LV, Chicago, NYC, for some reason Philly... so I don't expect parity. I'd just like to see the Brewers have a better chance to keep some of their own homegrown players, the Dodgers not be able to put off 73M of a 75M contract into the future so they save 60M in luxury taxes. And even if none of that happens, I'm still going to root for the Brewers because... what the hell else am I gonna do? Become a Dodgers fan? I'd be like rooting for the Empire in Star Wars. Hoping Luke can't hit the inexplicable weakness in the "Death Star," which was only there for aesthetic choices(not sure if that's true or not, but Family Guy said so, so... I'm gonna go with that... because it's fictional and I'm already on my own tangent). Plus... when Jesus is on your side(even if it's only for just shy of 7 years... you've got a shot).

Yeah... but we kinda do. That's not so much the problem as when they come back, they're not Cy Young winners all peaking. You could give Peralta some rest, he's not Blake Snell(when Snell is one, he's also a bit hit or miss). Our rotation next year, assuming Ashby returns to it will be Peralta Priester Patrick Misiorowski Myers Montgomery(that's just my own personal theory, we were willing to take him back to sign him to a cheap deal as he rehabs from TJ. Gasser Ashby Logan Henderson And then starters who seem more likely to star their career in the pen, Wichrowski, Hardin, Hunt, Letson(not sure he'll be ready next year, but perhaps in a BP role). We just ran into a buzzsaw in the Dodgers and... again, this REALLY wasn't the year we were supposed to be... at our best. That'll come with Fischer, Burke, Wilken, Adams, MADE, PENA, Dinges, Quero, Lara, Pratt... Chourio is ready to break out and become an MVP caliber player ...IMO. Yes, every year we have finished the season losing or winning in a meaningless game. The Dodgers are going to be flooded with talent, particularly because they develop it as well as the Brewers, but I'm not discouraged by this season. Not when I know how much we have on the way, how much young talent is already up here. In the end, I watched multiple 9+ game win streaks, 97 wins, a 26-4 stretch, the Brewers eliminate the Cubs in a year they went all in to get Kyle Tucker(who'll likely end up in LA again next year) and I know Jesus walks and he hits and he can play a damn good SS, 2B or 3B, wherever we need him. So I'll go into this off-season pretty optimistic.

I don't agree. From what I've heard, even the Yankees, Red Sox...Phillies, they want a cap. Problem is, a cap doesn't do anything other than give the wealthiest teams more money in the owners pocket. You need more/better revenue sharing. A cap... doesn't do much for the Brewers. You give them a cap, they still can't keep Woodruff. The Dodgers could keep Kershaw for ~20M a year just because... he was a legendary pitcher for them. Didn't even use him on the post-season roster and he'd have probably been our #2/#3 starter. NONE of this is to take away from the LAD. I'd sign Ohtani, Freeman, Snell, I'd gladly embrace the 2nd best Japanese prospect to ever come over(if you care to make the distinction between prospect and a player posting, Sasaki was a "prospect," and Ohtani was an established player, but a prospect as well as opposed to Yamamoto, Suzaki...). You need a true 60/40 revenue split. Make it an NBA type. You can spend and go over the cap to keep your own players. The REAL issue is how to you implement a cap... but not diminish the % of revenue the players get(and actually increase it as it's lower than the NFL/NBA).

Talk about some revisionist history; Don't care. Doesn't really change the point... at all BUT he literally owned "Selig-Ford," during the years he was trying to bring baseball back to Milwaukee. And how pre-tell was this history revised? Selig had been fighting prior to MLB reaching it's "Nadir," and that makes him trying to invest and bring a team, first the White Sox, THEN the Pilots back to Milwaukee... that much more ballsy. If it was super lucrative, it's really not quite as big of a risk, is it? Buying something that's guaranteed to make you a lot of money...I'm not sure how that's BETTER than investing when it's at it's "nadir." He fought to get the expansion franchises that went to Montreal, Seattle and Texas and San Diego. He brought MiLB games to County Stadium to prove that Baseball was still a draw in Baseball. He had the White Sox, who were struggling playing games in County Stadium(which ended up helping them). He had a handshake agreement to buy the White Sox. That didn't work out either when the Bowie Kuhn blocked that deal as well. So a 30 year old guy risked his financial security and you're points so far are... "baseball was at it's nadir," while adding 4 expansion franchises and that... somehow diminishes what Selig did? He was a 30 year old kid running a car dealership(which... is revisionist history I guess). The fact that he got some of the wealthiest people to invest in MLB at it's "nadir" would seem to make this MORE impressive, not less. I don't know what this has to do with... anything. Absolutely nonsense. The Brewers were financially competitive year in and year out during Selig's tenure(ending in 1992). They were in the upper tier of spending through the late 70s and 80s. Again, speaking of revisionist history. You've done this with Attanasio, just... for some reason assuming he owns the whole team. Selig owned about 1/3rd of the team. All the same, I don't see what the point here is. He was the Commissioner. He was no longer running the Brewers. He made more money as the commissioner of Baseball than he did selling the Brewers. What's just objectively true is during that time as commissioner, he made significant strides in revenue sharing, helped small market teams and spearheaded building a NEW PARK IN MILWAUKEE to ensure the Brewers would stick around. He's ENTIRELY different. He started out with a 100K dollar investment in the Brewers. He was 25 years old when he started his pursuit to bring a team Back to Miwaukee. He worked tirelessly the entire time to make sure Milwaukee had professional Baseball. To say he's no different than an y "of the hedge fund folks," who "invested in professional sports as an elite alternative asset," AT THE VERY TIME you for... some reason made a point to point out MLB was at it's lowest and teams were dealing with bankruptcy... how do you not see that MASSIVE disconnect? Are most the people who buy Professional Sports teams 25 and organizing a group to invest in such a BAD investment(again, that was YOUR argument)... So now he's closer to 30, but this is several years into his attempt to bring Baseball back, including what HE believed was a deal with the White Sox. But you somehow equate this to just... basically a rich guy(he wasn't) just buy a sports team because it's SUCH a good investment... at a time when teams were either GOING or facing Bankruptcy? Do you not see where your arguments don't just fall apart, but they crumble upon the slightest inspection? Well, the Jays are owned by a massive media conglomerate. You want to "trot" out the board of directors? Be my guess. It sorta misses the point. The Phillies? You mean... the team that's been in Philadelphia since 1883? You may be open to the difference is you disabuse yourself of the Notion that Bud Selig and his 100K investment in the downtrodden MLB team and his relentless effort to bring baseball back to the city was NOT in fact the same as some hedge fund guy who... saw a can't miss investment(that very much could miss) or if you better acquaint yourself with the Brewers financial competitiveness during the 70s and 80s when they regularly spent like the large market teams. In fact...Yount was a record setting contract. But hey, go get someone from the Phillies thread and tell me how an owner saved Baseball and is the entire reason there's professional Baseball in Philadelphia... and see if you can't change my mind.

The city owes far more to Selig than they do Uecker. At least if you're a Baseball fan. Uecker was loved and he hung around the clubhouse, but the guy who brought Baseball to Milwaukee and who... frankly, helped the Brewers develop an elite farm system with the supplemental picks and the IFA bonus pools and the revenue sharing, etc... You can't diminish what either did for the City... but..; the fact of the matter is, the Braves left. There was no Baseball. County Stadium Sat Empty. Selig, a Used Car Salesmen went and got the Seattle Franchise. Brought them to Milwaukee. He then brought Uecker and Aaron to Milwaukee as well. 9 years we'd have made the playoffs from the time he bought the team until he removed himself from the day to day running of the team after 1992(only to be brought back in to try and salvage the Molitor situation after Bando intentionally sabotaged the negotiations because he wanted to get younger despite the fact that Molitor would be one of the best hitters the next 5 years with over 1000 hits a .319./.381/.471 line.... but this is a side tangent). But he's also the guy responsible for keeping the Brewers in Milwaukee after bringing them back there... helping get Miller Park built in 1996. So no, I don't suppose you'd hear Woodruff talking about Selig, but players come and go. The TEAM that Selig brought here lasts. FINALLY, he also deserves credit as he, like Kohl could have sold the team and not worried about it, but he wanted to ensure the Brewers would remain in Milwaukee with their new owners and took less money to ensure the Brewers stayed in Milwaukee. Bob Uecker was Mr. Baseball. Johnny Carson, he was loved by all. There's no Bob Uecker as we know him without Bud Selig No Milwaukee Baseball(maybe a AAA team to Nashville rather than the other way around or something along those lines, but not MLB team). My Earliest memories were of going to games with my Dad. Staying out late on a school night to watch Molitor, Young and Gantner. I don't remember much, but I remember when Molly came to the plate. I was at Yount's 3000 hit game, Nolan Ryan's 300th win, I got Robin Young's 500th double(it was a ground ruled double that my Dad paid some guy 20 bucks for...went all the way behind the bleachers). So with respect, I don't really care about Brandon Woodruff's say on the matter. The Brewers are bigger than any player and any one person.

Or... they need Sasaki to meltdown like Williams did last year

I said we should try a couple years ago... but NT, then 10/5... and now who wants him? It'd take a WC team... not LAA. AZ MAYBE?

It can clearly come and go... He was under pressure on some of the biggest throws down the stretch two years ago... or just on some of his best plays as a Packer. But being "under pressure" doesn't really tell you much. When the Tackles are running the DE's 10 yards deep and the pressure is coming up the middle, he's been good. When the pressure DE's are dipping under the OTs and making Love escape the pocket... I'd imagine he's not much different than most QBs. Something is missing from the entire offense. A couple weak spots on the OL. Banks has not been worth that FA contract(they MAY get out of that one just 1 year in. Jenkins is starting to play much better, but then right next to him, Rhyan is absolutely terrible. Last year it was Myers. Tom is... alright(at this point) but he's not playing healthy out there. Rodgers is the only QB I saw who could almost elevate his play with a poor OL. He got the ball out quickly, on time, let the WRs make plays with the ball. Same could be said when he was banged up. That strained calf or the knee injury(namely vs the Bears). ; Good news- There's no great team in the NFL. The Packers have jumped out to two score leads in every single game. Bad news-They've allowed the other team to make it a 1 score game in 4 of those 5 and then come back and win one and tie another. Also, good news, Belton is a solid rookie. Not great, but pretty good. He's also massive upgrade on Rhyan. Watson looks to be coming back. That should open up the field. Bad news-They just look like they're taking their foot off the gas and letting average teams back in the games when they should be putting them away. There are reasons. The Browns have the best DL. The Bengals have extraordinary WRs. The Cowboys... well, I got no reason for that one. Tom and Walker-Need to take the inside away and give Love time to move around in the pocket and the IOL needs to create lanes for Love to step up and throw. Still, 3-1-1 and 2nd in the NFC and this has been a REALLY average last month and they should have time to get healthy and get back the two main additions. -Also, the turnovers will come. Last year we were lucky and created the most or 2nd most turnovers. This year... we've got virtually none. I don't see much coming in the way of help though. Not where we need it. We're not trading a 3rd for McCreary and trading for an OL? maybe LInderbaum if the Ravens keep losing since they're not re-signing him. I'd give up a 2nd for him if we get a 48 hour window to extend him, but... I doubt that'll happen. And it'd just replace Banks or Jenkins cap hits in 2026 or if they find a way to extend Jenkins, in 2027+.

Well... that too! I hope I've got a little more time than Selig{though I'm sure a LOT of people have thought the same!)

He'd be making the MLB roster roughly 1.5 years earlier than Chourio. I don't know that you can make an argument he's got hype that he's "better" than Chourio. I'd say they're pretty similar at this point. I don't this one is better than the other, but again, you want him up before Chourio was called up without the 10-years of team control Chourio's contract afforded us. But... if you were to use the same trajectory, in Chourio's age 18 season, he finished the year getting into 6 AA games. Made at age 18, he got into 5 AA games. Chourio-19 spent the season at AA, then... end of the season got some AAA PA's. Chourio was the #2/3 prospect heading into this season. So we're expecting Made to go from 27 HiA games, just a couple AA games to give him some extra ABs and now he's going to spend part of the year in AA before moving to AAA and then jump over Pratt... who played a full season in AA this year and should start next year in AAA and he's going to contribute to next years team? This would be like expecting Chourio a year earlier to jump over Frelick at 19 and get the call up to the OF.... except at a MUCH more important position. And then again, I'll reiterate, Chourio ALMOST certainly doesn't start the season last year with the Brewers(in fact many debated that he should have) if he signed a contract where the Brewers get 10 YEARS of team control. With Made, if you force him up for the end of the '26 season, not only is there a pretty strong argument that's NOT the best for the team... but you're then heading into the 2027 season which... may not happen. That's a year of team control or... maybe half a year(pretty much a near certainty that it's going to be a significant chunk of the season that will NOT be played and players will almost certainly get credit for it). So upside- At 19 he's better than any MLB option. That's an exceptionally unlikely scenario, but you start burning up service time that starts next year, may continue into '27 and by the time we have a full season again in '28 and he's... 21/22, he's got 6+ years of team control. OR a marginal upgrade at best and burn through service time at 18 or just after he turns 19 and watch him leave at 24-25 when he's just getting into his prime years? I'll add this. If made wants to sign a contract this year for the MLB team whereupon he gets a 12 year deal that is for teh same as Chourio got, maybe a little more... and there are some incentives in there in the event that he's markedly better than Alex Rodriguez at 19 years old or 20 years old, both seasons, he was not reason to be in the MLB, then I would be more than happy to consider that scenario. I don't imagine the Brewers will be however.

PRINCE Fielder? Ok... that tracks!