BrewerFan

I think Musgrave can definitely make an impact, but I think Wicks and Lloyd can as well. Wicks had his drop rate increase by 5X last year. His rookie year he was very good on 3rd down. Both years 39 receptions...rookie year 58 targets, last year 76. He's had an every other year thing going back to UVA, but if he's good this year, I think that keeps the chains moving and he's a good #2 WR. And Lloyd, I think he brings a new dimension to the offense. LaFleur was pretty excited about him. I think the plan was for him to be the #2 back, run that outside zone that they went away from last year and he's good in pass protection. He just had a miserable rookie season last year. Injury and then he was expected back and he had Appendicitis and they petitioned the league for an exemption for him. I don't think we need any of them to be big game changers though, just each of them contributing and staying on the field. Musgrave is going to that same Madison training...thing that Watson and Stokes did where they determined Stokes right leg was 18% stronger which left his left leg more susceptible to injury or whatever it was exactly. Makes me think maybe we should be proactive and send guys there before they get hurt(or maybe hire them and bring them up to GB and put them on staff). Outside an impact WR I don't think any one player is going to push us over the top. It'll have to be Love playing a little sharper. Hopefully Morgan being healthy. A big shift in the OL with a competent Center. We led the league in drops last year, just middle of the pack would be huge. Lloyd just getting 5-7 touches would give a different look. It would have been great to get DK and fill out the WR core, but this offense was on fire in '23.

This is the last time I've seen Contreras actually comment on it. https://reviewingthebrew.com/posts/brewers-william-contreras-reportedly-open-to-extension-talks Yes, he'd be expensive. That doesn't mean he's not open to one. 3 years remaining, he has a long way to make it to Free Agency. You could easily put together a 5 year deal that buys out arby, 2 years of FA for ~23-25 and lock him up long term(and increase his trade value). It's got a whole lot to do with it. Without wanting to, without actually offering, there is zero chance. We said Yelich was gone(and in hindsight...)...I'm sure there were people who were skeptical of Chourio taking a deal. when he could have hit FA by ~26-27 years old. Wanting to do it means you...could do it. Not wanting to and not offering means there's 0 chance it will get done. I don't know what his offers were, so I can't say he took the most money. I can say he said he was willing to take less money to stay in Milwaukee. Both Will Sammon and Katie Woo reported Adames came right out and said he'd take less to stay here and we didn't make a serious offer. And that's fine. I'm not even complaining about it. I'm saying just resigning outselves to the fact that we can't sign anyone who has had MLB success...especially when these guys play a demanding position and are 3-4 years away from FA(unlike Adames who was on the precipice of FA...as was Burnes in Baltimore). As for Burnes, doesn't seem to matter who his agent was. He took less to play near his home. He also said he was open but nobody had approached him in Milwaukee(this after his Cy Young season and was with 4 years left). Signing an extension months away from being a FA vs being 3-4 years away and in your final year are, again two VERY different things. You've bet on yourself for 6 years, it's easier to do so for one more year. Had we approached Burnes a year before arbitration, maybe he's 2 years of team control. And maybe we still trade him. Tampa does this a bit. Extending doesn't mean you can't still move him, it means when you do, you're not trading a rental...and of course you're assuming far more risk. That's our downside. We also could have approached Woodruff and signed him. We always beat around the bush on this and pretend these players don't want to sign or are unwilling. Hard to know when you don't offer them. We made no offer to Woodruff until he was injured(at least none since 2020). None to Burnes, we reportedly made an offer to Adames of 5/100 on top of his last year(so 6/112.5). He got 7/185. This "not interested," in signing an extension was also applied to Burnes, but Burnes basically said Milwaukee couldn't or wouldn't pay him what he was worth...and then he may have said after his last year here he wasn't interested in an extension(but not when people were saying as much). But we've been acting like we just can't sign Contreras since he got here. Sean Murphy was the best catcher in that deal. He signed at the same point Contreras is now. 6/73M. 4/9/15/15/15/15 and a TO for 15. JT Realmuto signed a 5/115 deal as a FA and he'd been a better catcher(high paid catcher in baseball)...and he'd been a better catcher than Contreras. You could go to Contreras with a deal offering deal for 5 years, 80M 6/10/14/20/20+2 TO at 25/25 with an 8M SB. That'd likely improve his value in a trade...presuming you could get him to agree to a NTC and if Quero does come back, you can deal Contreras and the team is getting team control of a catcher still in his prime years. He could set himself up for life, be one of the higher paid catchers and a center piece when all of our young prospects who are making the league minimum are coming up. Just say it's not a good move for the Brewers with a top 50 prospect in the system. Or that you think they want to maintain financial flexibility...or whatever. But to say he reportedly won't sign when we haven't offered and we have him on record at least one time talking about how this is home? It's like people don't believe in what the Brewers are doing. Yes, we're financially constrained. We do get a good chunk of money in revenue sharing and we should be able to spend over 105M, but...not the point. As long as they're run well and keep cycling in talent, I don't care. It's just these talking points over and over that seems like others feel like there's something more to defend.

It just means he's guaranteed 100K next year. The Brewers signed the same thing with Devin Williams and then opted out of that before trading him.

I don't really think it matters because....they're not going to spend the money he'll get and he's still got 3 years left, but this feels more like the rationale used for not extending him. The only time I've seen that he's talked about an extension or a possible extension, he was reportedly open to one and said Milwaukee "felt like home." Doesn't mean he's going to sign one or that we should offer him one, but there always seems to be there "rumors," where...'well, we didn't want to sign him anyway.

It felt like when Favre went to the Vikings, he went there JUST to spite the Packers. Rodgers, if he did it...I'd understand. He wants to go out a winner, they have Jones, a back he's familiar with, the same general offensive scheme, a good OL and of course the best WR, one o f the better #2 WRs and TJ Hockenson along with a good Def.

He cited a few players sacks, but if you can get Hendrickson for a 2nd...I think you have to do that. 15 sacks is DPOY caliber. We don't need that. The biggest off-season acquisition in Packers history...arguably is Reggie(certainly the best defensive player) and he was 32. If you knew Hendrickson would get 10 sacks, ~70 pressures and 20-30 QB hits a season for the next 2-3 years...of course you'd do that. You'd take TJ Watt right now for a 2nd... I think Gute does that in a heartbeat. I just can't imagine Cincy giving him up for "just" a 2nd...even as valuable as a 2nd is. I think he'll age like Calais Campbell did through ~33-34. That's worth a 2nd and a 4/100M deal. I just don't believe either of those, the compensation to the Bengals or Hendrickson is close to what he'd cost. If it was, I'd be with @HarryDoyleon this. You'd also have to consider how much better Rashan Gary could produce in this scenario. It's just like the OL that has to slide to the left to help Walker because Tom is so good. If you have Hendrickson, they're sliding to his side and now a 4 man pass rush can get home and if you're sending Cooper or a slot, you could have that overwhelming type defense. Speaking of Calais Campbell...he's still playing and at a high level. I'd definitely sign him for one year. 1/6.5M?

I don't think there's any chance you're getting Hendrickson for a "one year and lets talk" type deal. He's 30 and looking to cash in. I think you'd be paying closer to 4/130 with 85M GTD. Something in that range. Otherwise the Bengals would have just paid him. I also think it'll cost more than one 1st as it's been reported the Bengals asking price is "insane." I don't know what he'll end up going for and I'd be excited to get a guy like that...it just feels like a more desperate move than we need right now. A team like Buffalo make more sense to me. If you end up being right and it's "just" a 1st and a 1 year deal, I'd completely agree with you.

I thought he'd get closer to Jon Runyan Jr money. Not as much, but 3/24. 3.5M...to be a backup? Or maybe they'll move him to OG.

I knew Kevin and his Father a little bit. I was there when he won a State Title in Wrestling as a Sr. His old man...who I didn't know well, I'd coached against after College, but I was down on the floor, I was just the first guy he saw. He's a big dude also. Just grabbed me and...man, cracked my back good. I was ~6'1 210 and felt like a child when he did that! Pops was so proud. I can only imagine what the last...~15 years have been like! He's had an outstanding career though...

I think the WR group will step up, but I also don't see Gutey going after a 30 year old pass rusher for the draft capital it'd take and then the money. I think he's serious about winning, he's just not going to go LA Rams mode to do it. He's not going to be that aggressive but he's far more aggressive than Thompson and on balance, he's pretty aggressive in free agency. We're just going to have to try and figure it out with another signing or the draft, but I doubt he'd make a move like THAT. Also...do you want to give up at least one 1st+ and pay him 35M+ per year...at 30 years old?

Yeah, Heath was a nice young WR who provided depth, but he was never a guy who you worried about their snaps. Melton...I did think for a minute he was going to be a nice player but he didn't build off it. He looked like just a speedster coming out of College, he had a few big games, made some big catches while taking hits or running nice routes and then did nothing last year. I also agree about the FA WRs. I don't think they add a different component...though to be fair, I haven't really watched Cooper. Maybe he's still a big play threat. This is a big year for Musgrave. He started out well, Kraft was hurt and then he got hurt and he hasn't really been healthy enough to get going, but he can create a lot of mismatches. I really think this team can do a lot of things with Musgrave and Lloyd if healthy both add different dimensiions to this team.

Sure, but they were historically bad, they only got worse(and younger). There are enough ways to play around with the DL to be able to roster him for the year if they see anything there. Their degree of competition is likely trying to win 70 games but primarily trying to develop young talent.

I've never seen literally EVERY single expert...even those who are implementing the tariffs themselves and TELLING us they're going to cause "some temporary pain...hopefully," and people are just like, "nah, that's not it!"

Sure...but that's not at all what happpened. "Every single economic lever," was NOT pulled to avoid them "at the expense of the rest of the economy." The market had a few MASSIVE years while they were raising rates(which I've been told is a bigger deal than any tariffs) and what other levers were pulled? On top of that, the GDP was GROWING at roughly 3% the last two years, unemployment was extremely low and inflation was coming down near the 2% rate. Everything was moving in the right direction until...tariffs. Find a financial advisor, hedge fund manager, economist, anyone who thinks this ISN'T directly related to tariffs... You can't as tariffs are creating the uncertainty and they are causing the "corrections." So great GDP growth to a contracting economy. Higher interest rates Low unemployment The economy was humming along VERY smoothly...and then it took a hard right turn. Edit-It IS a blip...if this was the end. It doesn't appear that's the case. The Russell is down nearly 20% now(which is a "crash.") The other indexes are down...15-17%...approaching "crash" territory. And again, that this happened at a time when the economy was booming, it was GROWING(the BEST way to pay down the deficit if that's actually your aim). Finally, this is all happening while these companies are having EXCEPTIONAL earnings.

I don't think tariffs had anything to do with it🙃 No, I think until the 10 year comes down and Powell cuts interest rates, we're going to keep dealing with all of this nonsense. That's the primary goal(at least the short term one). But I figure we celebrate a green-ish day. Could be someone on the 3rd floor discarding their cat...but i think it's evidence how little good news it'd take to at least get the markets moving back in the right direction. Gonna be a REAL wild few years. At least 2.

Stokes has a really good rookie year for a rookie and when he was in press man coverage, but things just didn't fall right for him. I thought he had that big injuries that took away the middle two years(though he started his 2nd year poorly)...but once he and Watson went to Madison to work on their soft muscle issues. Both seemed to get over those. You can't prevent an ACL, so I thought that was a successful. I also thought he was a better just pure cover corner than anyone but Jaire...but he's just not physical and I think Hafley wants more physical CBs and it's just hard for CBs to cover when you're pass rush is poor and you need to send extra guys, you're putting guys on an Island and that's tough for the best CBs. I think Stokes could play really solid football with Crosby, Koonce. But, he's gone. 1/4 seems like a good bet, but we saw him losing snaps.

Man, CPI 2.8%...that's HUGE. 2.9 expected, 3 or more would have been VERY bad, but...2.8 Shelter accounting for 50% of the increase... Energy down .2% over the trailing 12 months. Nice little break and some actual...good news. Good-ish news. Market should have a green day...some blood pressure cooling off. Who knows what will be announced today or...what will be coming back at us, but should be good...especially in the "MAG 7," and then whatever nickname they gave to the 11 when they added AVGO, TSM, BRK and...whoever else.

I don't know that a cut would set off a panic. I do know the odds of a cut by June went from 14% to nearly 70% in about 2 weeks...so you may be right. That may cause more harm than good, but how did we have SUCH a strong economy recover while hitting ATHs repeatedly in '23 and '24 before they started the cuts. It's the uncertainty that is crushing the market...and i guess now to some degree, the certainty of the tariffs. It has a direct impact on prices. I've read it will and it won't impact Wisconsin or me, but electricity goes up, 25%, that's another 100+ a month. We're alienating ourselves and we're hurting ourselves and...another we think a cut of 25 basis points is going to fix this? I'm bracing for April 1st...ironically(or maybe it's not the first, it just feels like it should be) when we announce the prospect of more tariffs and or export controls. That'll be a BIG day for tech. Flashing Green or A River of Red....again. Side note...this really has me looking at BRK as a larger pct of my portfolio. They've managed to be green during some REALLY ugly days... At least I'd be able to understand the reason behind it... it really just seems like a way to tax without saying you're taxing or argue that you're "taxing" other countries. Obviously a lot of the goal has been to strong arm countries(or the EU) into giving in and exerting control...but they're not budging anymore and we're ramping it up. 50% as of tomorrow on steel and aluminum.

I've got a good friend who is a Sr VP at Morgan Stanley, manages just shy of 2B dollars. Take a guess what he thinks is causing a 2.8% contraction in the GDP when it was projected to GROW at over 3%...much less tanking the markets? To the later...yes. 50% tariffs steel and lumber and now paying 25% on energy from Canada...trade wars with your closest allies, that's not setting up a recession for the economy that was the "envy of the world," coming out of Covid. It's the fed. I guess they cut too much? Because that was the argument before. Only two cuts last year, 50 basis points. Even the POTUS and Musk have talked about what they hope will be "short term pain." Instead it's all on the Fed?

You may be right. The only reason Tom wasn't a LT was they thought Bakh was coming back and had Walker and Nijman working in at LT and Tom won the RT job. I don't think paying a RT 25M a year would be the problem though. Not only is it not as much money as it sounds like given the Cap is growing, RT is only marginally less important than LT at this point. You see teams like the Chargers drafting Joe Alt with an AP LT or the Giants did the same despite itt not working with Neal, but bookend OTs? I'd love to have two worth paying 25M a year. It'll seem like an even better deal in 4 years when the Cap passes 350M. Also, I just came up with a round number for Tom. He could easily get 30M AAV and be well worth it. I'd actually guess they keep the 4th year and total deal comes out to about 25M per but with the 1.5 or whatever he'll make this year. But RT is a premier position either way. Many of the top pass rushers are lining up on the left(so over the RT for the offense) to get better match-ups.

We just don't agree on the OL then. Sack numbers can be on the QB. Love threw a LOT of balls off his back foot and was getting hit a lot and Josh Myers was not good and he was leaving. It's also the 2nd most important position IMO...just ahead of DL. I like our pass catchers more than our OL and Josh Myers just NEEDED to be replaced. Now what's the question? If Walker can improve or if Morgan steps up and earns the LT job, you have an elite OL. I would have made that Tunsil trade if it were up to me. Tunsil, Jenkins/?/Morgan or Rhyan/Tom, that would have been worth it also. I don't think you can just go by total rushing yards and sacks and grade an OL like that. If it was just Banks...I'd agree, but it's the move for Jenkins and the larger picture that makes me like this signing.

I thought Banks got 63M GTD, no? Has that changed or was that just GTD against injury?

4/48 really isn't a big deal either. The GTD money is more significant. Banks isn't a star, but getting Jenkins to Center is a big upgrade...but who did you want them to get? Crosby was my first choice, then Garrett...both were long shots. Hendrickson would be a cool choice, but risky and very unlike the Packers. They want prime age players. He's not. Garrett wouldn't have been either, but at least closer and good enough to make an exception. This wasn't an elite FA class. I don't think we found a huge difference maker...but I do think moving Jenkins to Center will make a pretty significant impact.

It's...mind-blowing. Just MAGICALLY and for absolutely no reason at all...the economy that was growing is now contracting, the market is crashing and tariffs are...just...ya know, a footnote. Which is probably why we haven't learned our lessons about tariffs yet. Those who haven't.... doomed to repeat it and all of that.

Yeah...I guess especially when you're telling people we might feel some "pain" for a couple years...I just never really thought he was indifferent to the markets and I thought they'd work something out with Canada, France. I think the rest of the world is kinda done with us being the school yard bully. The Canadian tariffs are particularly stupid. It's NOT about the border. Everyone knows that, it's about the deficit surplus or deficits and our biggest are with Canada, Mexico and China...I believe. And if you take Energy out, we have a Surplus with Canada. So I don't understand going after them. I don't understand going after the EU. I don't understand the romanization of tariffs as a whole. Why you'd take an Economy that was growing and intentionally tank it. This would all make a MODICUM of sense to me if you were dedicated to paying off the debt, but...that's not going to happen. They might slightly lower the deficit, still adding to the debt and then you're going to have tax cuts that won't do anything for the debt. But I guess if you took everyone at their word...this was obvious. I didn't do much but sell SMCI after the 10K. Bought Googl, META and AMZN yesterday, but...didn't have enough for more than 300-400 shares total. So just gonna have to ride this out and hope history doesn't repeat itself.