PeaveyFury
-
Posts
12,809 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Milwaukee Brewers News, Rumors & Analysis
2026 Milwaukee Brewers Top Prospect Rankings
Milwaukee Brewers Videos
2022 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
Milwaukee Brewers Trade & Free Agent Rumors
Milwaukee Brewers Fan Guides & Resources
2023 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
2024 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
The Milwaukee Brewers Players Project
2025 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
2026 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by PeaveyFury
-
Bears did what many teams should do when drafting that high. Smart trade to recover some of the capital they’ve lost by being stupid the past five years.
-
Hah.
-
He should probably take another darkness retreat or two to think on it. I'm in on this deal as well. If they settle for just the 2nd this year I'd like a player back. I like Jermaine Johnson as previously noted, but it does seem like they're souring/impatient on Moore and he'd be a nice get back in return.
-
I guess I’d in turn note that they were still considered Super Bowl contenders immediately heading into the season, which was six months after the Adams trade.
-
Clearly correct as it played out, but I think they did what they had to do based on the situation as it stood last year. We forget quickly that the team was a super bowl favorite to start the year last year, so 'running it back' was the logical choice for the FO to make. If we'd have known they'd shockingly miss the playoffs, they absolutely should have torn the bandaid off last year instead.
-
Also not a bad idea if coupled with the 2nd. This feels like a draft where a lot of random stuff could happen in the early/mid first round and New England seems to be a wildcard at 14. Moving up a couple spots could be the difference in having one of the top WRs available or not.
-
This feels on-point to me. I'd love (pun intended) the 2nd and a young first-contract player (ala Jermaine Johnson) but we'll see. The Wilson deal at least set some precedent for that possibility.
-
I'd think the Packers would probably start the conversation asking for both, but I could absolutely see it ending up as a 2nd & 3rd this year and a conditional first next year based on the Jets' success or Rodgers returning.
-
Yes, the cap is not an imminent concern for Green Bay before the start of the league year. What they intend do after that is what they'd need to clear cap for.
-
Frankly, I'm not ENTIRELY sure that's the plan. They may take 2023 as a reboot year to clear cap and reload for 2024 and beyond. There's validity to that mindset, though I do think the team is more talent-laden than we seem to give them credit for.
-
Eh, maybe an acquiring front office might not as they don't have first-hand knowledge. But I'd think that it's at least part of the factor in the Packers' decision even if it's a small one. If he's as standoff-ish and holds grudges in public, I'd imagine that it's far worse behind closed doors.
-
I can't disagree with any of this, including the Van Ness comments, as he's quickly becoming an interesting (and very possible) option at 15. To finish the though on the safeties, though, I do think that there's a jumble of those 2-3 round guys and none of them really distinguished themselves to make themselves the clear guy to go in that range or move up, which is opposed to the TE class where most of them showed exceptionally well at the combine.
-
Though your overall point is fair, the difference between 4.36 and 4.39 isn't overly significant, IMO. But the difference between 4.36 and Branch's 4.58 is pretty stark. To also answer Nate's question, I think 40 time is relevant as part of the overall concept of RAS, which the Packers seem to value quite high. You have a guy like Branch that has been linked to Green Bay in mocks, but some note that he may be best to rotate to slot in nickel coverage. At 4.58, you worry about him getting torched by speedier slot guys in that role. Also, the overall point is that there are a lot of bodies at safety, but mostly jumbled in the 2/3/4th round range. No one seemed to elevate themselves above the rest of that grouping at the combine. Essentially, these guys already had something pushing them down a bit, and then compounded it by not really running that fast.
-
Safety class as a whole were kind of underwhelming at the combine for 40 times. Interested to see how that alters projections for the class.
-
I appreciate the TE thoughts as well. Deep draft which should play into Green Bay's needs, but as noted, the combine could result in overdrafts. The only one I could be convinced to like at 15 right now is Meyer because he seems to be complete. I'm hoping one of the tier behind him make it to 45, as I think any of them in the 2nd are good value. Really, if you think that edge, TE, WR, and safety are where the Packers should look to, it's a pretty good draft class for those positions. Obviously pending measurables, scheme fit etc.
-
I don't see how any of this is contrary to what I posted earlier. Though again I'd note that whether the Stadium District can be compelled to do anything is likely already in the prior agreement, which neither you nor I have likely seen. In the end though Jopal, you're arguing a position that simply won't happen. The District won't be allowed not to meet its contractual obligations.
-
I don't believe this is correct. The lease itself may have a separate remedy built in, which would require knowledge of the lease to verify. Also, if a court renders a judgement against the District, which it almost certainly would in the event of a lawsuit, as you acknowledge is likely, a judgement likely wouldn't consider the financial situation of the defendant, but rather the obligation owed. Upon judgement, the District would be compelled to meet its obligations or declare its insolvency. In short, it's a scenario that is almost certain to not be a feasible one in real life, as there's virtually no way the District will be allowed to be declared insolvent. It would take further knowledge of the lease itself to speak in any more absolutes as to what specific recourse the team would have if the District does indicate it won't fulfil its obligations. Stating anything without specific knowledge it speculation and personal opinion, not fact.
-
Most contracts or contract law statutes specify exactly what recourse there is in the event of a breach of contract. Breach of contract almost always leads to litigation, which would almost certainly be lost by the Stadium District. In addition, the Five County tax was ended by the Stadium District Board, not the legislature. Whether they have the authority to restart it unilaterally is beyond my knowledge.
-
…. But that clause and the resulting costs remain relevant for 8 more seasons simply in its current form.
-
I think we all appreciate that thoughtful and data-based response. Can I request that the sales tax from the bridge sale be applied to offset the inevitable restarting of the Five County tax?
-
You're equating loss of payroll to the ONLY item that would be lost by the Brewers leaving, which is factually incorrect. As noted, a study independently calculated the revenue associated with the stadium over it's first 19 years at 2.5 billion, which is a pretty hefty return on investment. Extrapolated over another 13-year extended lease period, they'll get back more than $290 million. I know, you'll cite this as a benefits-only analysis, but that it is benefits-only doesn't mean the resulting data is incorrect. Nowhere was the study intending to show the results relative to another investment- just, literally, the resulting benefits of the actual investment made. Sure, the state could have had a better return if they had taken the stadium costs, put it all on 7 on the roulette wheel at Potawatomi and had it hit, but the actual resulting 'benefit' return on the stadium is relevant to the discussion, and highlights that simplifying the necessary return to breakeven down to state income tax on the teams' payroll isn't fair at all.
-
Which do you think is actually more likely in reality- the Brewers and the state play a game of chicken in 2029 that results in the BREWERS blinking, or the state making a more desperate contract/funding deal that make us wish we had accepted the $290m? Also, the district isn't just obligated to do repairs, they're obligated, again contractually, to keep the stadium in line as a top 25% stadium in the league.
-
Again, the distinction here is that they're not 'giving money' to the franchise- they're allocating funds to meet the Stadium District's preexisting contractual obligations.
-
.... much of which is based on the question of whether to fund large, new stadium projects, which is not what is being debated here. A large portion of this funding is necessary to meet the contract obligations from 20+ years ago. If you want to retroactively discuss whether that was a bad deal or not feel free to do so separately, but that's not up for debate in this funding package, as the obligations are already contractual necessity. Those funds are coming from someplace, and it seems logical to allocate them from an already-present surplus than to assess a new tax. Further, the deal extends the life of the stadium by extending the lease at a far lesser cost than building new facilities, etc. The recovery or benefit of the state's investment is greater the longer the 'recovery period' is, which is why the state would strongly prefer to have the recovery period be 42 years instead of 29.
-
A lot to unpack in the previous posts, but just noting that implying that the only revenue that recoups state tax comes from payroll is obviously wrong, as you also get state income tax from what you pay grounds crew, beer vendors, etc., and sales tax on ticket sales, concessions, etc.
