adambr2

I don't get the logic or reason in this at all. He's not overthinking -- your strategy, IMO, just isn't mathematically logical. If you're down 18 midway through the 4th, and you score a TD, to make it 12, you need to attempt a 2 at some point. If you wait til later, and you get a FG later, and then score the potential tying drive at the last minute, now if you don't get the 2, you lose. You have no opportunity to make up for missing it. If you try it right away and miss, yes you're down 12 which is obviously worse than 11, but you needed to try one at some point. At least you have the information ahead of time that you need TDs and can strategize accordingly, instead of even attempting a FG, which under your scenario ends up being a totally useless kick and had you known that on that drive you would have gone for a TD instead. What you potentially need under either strategy is the same. There is absolutely no disadvantage to giving yourself all the information you need sooner rather than later.

Here's some of the Brewers top pitching prospects. Wanted to discuss on some of them whether people see them as future starters or relievers. I'll leave Hader out of this because A) He's not technically a prospect anymore, and B) It's a polarizing discussion typically capable of its own thread. Burnes - Starter, certainly. The only question with Burnes is how high of a ceiling he has as a starter. Ortiz - More conditioning and durability concerns than Burnes but still, starter. Peralta - Freddy is a really interesting prospect to me. His K numbers scream late inning reliever if he doesn't make it in the rotation, but I'd still try to develop him as a starter for at least another year after a successful 2017. T. Williams - Reliever. Medeiros - Reliever. I think they've got to give up on the starting route for Kodi and see what they can get out of him as a late inning guy. Ponce - Starter. Diplan - Now on the 40, so he may get a shot sooner rather than later. After his struggles in 2017, they may want to see what he can bring to the pen with his fastball. Lemons - Starter, but realistically, way too early to tell. Bickford - Kind of a do or die year for him. If his velocity returns, I think his best shot at an MLB future is out of the pen. Yamamoto - Really tough to tell yet with some of these guys at the lower levels, but at this point no reason not to continue to see if he can't turn out to be a solid #4/#5 starter. Pennington -.Still think he's a future reliever Lopez - May be his last big shot this year. Looks more likely to make it out of the pen. Kirby - Rotation, but obviously we have no idea what we have here yet. Houser - Bullpen, perhaps right away. Wilkerson - Starter -- could have an outside shot to compete for a job this year. Derby - Starter, made tremendous strides in the higher levels in the rotation this year. If he's got an MLB future, it's probably as a #5/swingman, but he's still got a shot. When you look at how many potential pen options we have internally, both now and upcoming, it may help explain why we haven't been particularly active addressing that in free agency so far this off-season.

Henson isn't the problem. He's actually been much better since Moose got traded than I expected. Giannis IS a frontcourt player in his own right. Teams don't run through a center anymore. It was the same story when Moose was here. Issues go beyond this. It's Kidd.

Incredible that a team with a bonafide superstar and solid supporting cast is not only not near the team of their conference, but a possibility to miss the playoffs.

Maybe, but with it being likely 1 year and only having to pay the minimum MLB salary, I would say it's more of a no risk insurance policy. Smith has been pretty bad at the MLB level but so has Brinson but we still see him as an elite prospect. Too soon to tell on either.

Lowball offers aren't necessarily a negative thing. For various reasons sometimes just making sure your rivals have to make competitive offers, it's important to at least maintain perception of being involved. And an aggressive offer isn't necessarily a positive thing, especially if it's a 4 or 5 year offer to someone like Arrieta who is a virtual guarantee to be an albatross contract at the end.

It is awesome the way this worked out. Can you imagine losing out on Hader, Santana, and Phillips (Not to even mention whatever happens with Houser this year), for Wheeler and Flores, who are next to worthless?

In terms of value for value, something like Woodruff, Barnes, Isan Diaz, and Larry Ernesto would have been a package at least in the ballpark of similar. Doesn't mean they would have taken it as stout pointed out.

Honestly would not have been a bad strategy at all, assuming they got a huge return for Knebel.

As mentioned though even if the money was the same or even more, he knows he's not closing ahead of Knebel here. He could be a great setup man here for 2 years or could be a great closer in Minnesota. One is worth far more in future revenue.

$1.975M for Perez.

If he has another bad year he's not getting 3-3.75, he's getting non-tendered and then just hoping to get a major league deal wherever he can get it. He wasn't guaranteed 6-10M when he turned down 23 and isn't guaranteed it now. Had he not somewhat rebounded in the 2nd half and played like he did in April and May all year he could have been non-tendered already. No way does he put up another season similar to '17 and still get tendered at 3M+.

I honestly believe at this point that the Brewers are anticipating a possible transition/down season. Not saying they don't believe that they can win, but I think Stearns privately sees a regression to a high 70s win team as a possibility. Most of their high end young talent is still anywhere between 1-3 years away, so on some level it's still a waiting and development game despite winning 86 last year. Maybe if they were certain of having Nelson in the mix, they'd be a little more aggressive, but with him being a big question mark this season I'm sure they're realistic about it being an uphill climb for the division this year. Of course, there's still lots of time and players available. If they were to pull a shocker like signing Darvish or trading for Archer, I would guess they'd start to get a little more serious about Neil Walker. But for now there's no reason not to stick with Villar for one more season and find out which of '16 or '17 was the abberation.

This is what we need to remember every time we hear someone say "I can't believe that player signed an extension for that little." The teams take on a lot of risk, and the player "pays for" that risk by taking less than he'd get on the open market. Exactly. I'll never question a player taking security up front. I know it's easy for me to say because I'll never be in that position, but unless I'm being insanely lowballed, give me the lifetime security. 23M is an insane amount, to me at least. The minute I sign, it doesn't matter what happens. As long as I'm smart, my family and I have lifetime security. I never have to worry about where my next check is coming from, and my kids can go to any college they want. That's all I need. Life happens. You could turn down an extension one day and be in a car accident the next day and never play again, you could get injured playing the next year, you could flame out under the pressure to perform, or you could end up like Zach Braddock, with mental issues and ending up broke living out of your trunk. Life can happen no matter how talented you are. Is it really worth risking everything because you might end up making $60M over the same timeframe instead of $23M if everything breaks right? Are you really that much better off even if it does? Is it worth taking that kind of a chance on your Life? To me, it's not. But I respect the player's right to make their own choice on that and live with the consequences of that choice.

$2.55M for Villar. A far cry from the $23M extension he turned down, but at least be avoided playing himself into non-tender territory. If he can rebound in 2018 and is offered an extension again, I wonder if his thought process will be a little different this time.

Yeah, I thought he'd be higher, but at the same time I agree with it being a bit lower because I think 'closer' salaries have gotten a little out of whack in arbitration relative to other relievers. 3.65M is still a nice chunk of change for a first year eligible Super 2. Either way, I'm sure it's probably a thrilling day for him and probably more money than he's made in his lifetime to this point.

Really hard to blame anyone else for a loss when you have the game in your grasp, are on the edge of FG range for what would be a game winner, have the opportunity to run for a 1st down and make an inexplicably bad rookie throw across the width of the field.

Doubt they make it past this weekend but I can definitely get on board with the Jags.

Nope. I can't cheer for the Vikings. Its like cold fusion... just doesn't work. Agreed. Viking fans are insufferable enough as it is. I'd hate to see what they would be like with a championship. I'd like to keep the 'you've never won a Super Bowl' thing hanging over their heads as long as possible. While I'd hate to see Brady win another one, with 5 he's pretty much already considered the G.O.A.T. by everyone around. Everything else is just icing for him at this point. Mind blowing to me that Brady has played in a combined total of 18 conference championships and Super Bowls already. I'm not going to lie, I'm very envious. We've played in a total of 10 in my entire lifetime, and obviously we've been a highly successful NFL franchise.

Brady is great, but the system type player is kind of true. Belichick could have a golden retriever at QB and still pull off a 10-6 record.

I know we can't compare ourselves to the Pats, but it's frustrating to me to tout making it to our conference championship 2 out of the last 4 years as some illustrious accomplishment when the Pats basically get a bye to their conference championship every season.

I'm sure this was joking... right? Especially after Silverstein debunked this rumor yesterday. Not a great weekend for Bob McGinn, really. I really don't think it's out of the question. MM was pretty adamant in his press conference that the GM needed to be a fit for him. Kind of an odd thing to throw out there unless there was someone specifically in mind that he didn't see as a fit. McGinn is a pretty respected Packer writer, and when he reported on the sour relationship between MM and Ball, I doubt he's just making it up. So is it plausible that MM went privately to Murphy, and said 'Look, if Ball is your guy, that's fine, but I don't see that as being a fit for me?' Would that be enough to get Murphy to change course? Sure, that's totally possible. It could just be that Ball was his 1A and Gutekunst was his 1B, and if so he probably wouldn't want to lose his HC over it. Silverstein reporting that MM was fine with any GM candidate could be true, or it could simply be the Packers putting out that information when they changed course to preserve Ball's reputation and avoid any appearance of dissension. Do I know that this is how it went down? No, none of us do, of course. But it's certainly not a stretch.

I have a Keurig. It's fine. Being the only coffee drinker in the house it is easy and convenient, especially being able to throw a cappuccino or hot cocoa cup in there for the others in the family. I agree it doesn't taste quite the same but I'm not too particular about my coffee as long as it's black and contains caffeine. I also agree K-Cups are outrageously priced but I'm very cheap and get all mine from Aldis or Dollar Tree for about a quarter a cup.

I absolutely love Corbin Burnes, and if he is offered Archer for Burnes straight up he should try to remain calm as he accepts the offer and then dance and party in the streets of Milwaukee all night. If we didn't want to keep Archer we could probably turn around and flip him for triple that.

The Rooney rule is so stupid. I understand that it has a genuine purpose but in actual practice it's a joke. It's more insulting than helpful, nothing says "You're our token interview minority" like interviewing a person of color when it's already widely known that a candidate has already been selected. I won't pretend to know of a good way that the NFL can promote diversity in the front offices but the Rooney rule isn't it.