adambr2

How many games do we realistically think Cain will be able to start in 2020? Is anyone else besides Gamel really going to man CF when that happens? I guess Yelich can play CF in a pinch, but I doubt they want Braun or Garcia out there.

I don't think that's a given that we could have beaten it. Cleveland reportedly asked the Angels for their #2 prospect behind Jo Adell, whose name I can't recall but he was ranked #74 overall by Baseball America, plus another piece. Our only top 100 caliber prospect is Brice Turang, and he may not fit Cleveland's needs because he is nowhere near the majors. If they wanted an MLB-ready OF and high upside RP, and they seemingly value Clase like a top 100 prospect, then I don't see us having a matching package. (I'm excluding obvious overpays like Hiura, Urias, etc.) Would anyone really have considered Urias to be an overpay 48 hours ago? I am certain that the narrative would have been that Stearns was an absolute genius for finding a way to flip Trent Grisham for two years of an ace starter. Most would have been absolutely stoked and assumed we were just moving forward with Arcia so nothing was lost there but we somehow added Kluber atop our rotation. I am not meaning that in a snide or negative way, just that context of how the league really viewed Kluber has changed our perception.

I’m starting to think this as well. Maybe he just doesn’t want to play for Milwaukee and is using us as leverage. I remember when we were linked to Cain though and it took about 5 days for us to sign him. This could be a similar situation. This might be one of those rare times where something the Brewers are doing actually does get leaked. I'm good with it either way. Garcia is a nice player but unless your scouting department feels that his 2017 is somehow repeatable, there's really no reason to prioritize him and stray from your initial intended price range. There are numerous options either as good or better than Garcia still available. I'm confident they're not going to be heading into 2020 with the OF depth chart they have currently.

Is there no market for Domingo Santana at all? I understand he's a butcher but he's a pretty good right handed bat and you'd be pretty set defensively with Yelich in LF where his defense is far better and Cain in CF. Plus you'd free up Braun for 1B most of the time. Wouldn't think he'd be very expensive, just can't believe there's seemingly no market for him at all. Seemed to be a fine clubhouse fit and someone everyone is familiar with. I am not saying I'd prefer Santana over Garcia but if you don't like where the bidding war is going with Garcia and can pivot to Santana on a 1 year/5M deal or so I'd be totally fine with that.

To me it doesn't even matter what the equivalent is. We certainly could have beaten it, as could have any MLB team and we chose not to. That's a clear indicator that we aren't comfortable with Kluber's medicals combined with his age and wouldn't sign him to his remaining deal if he was a free agent. Stearns is excellent about exercising proper due diligence, and I have no doubt that he did his homework on Kluber and determined that this wasn't a likely enough payoff to be worth the risk and investment.

I think the market this offseason is really going to make guys shy away from 1 year deals. This year's market is so good, why roll the dice on a 1 year higher AAV not knowing what next year's market will be like? Too risky, could get a bad market or worse end up injured or having a down year in '20. The only players it really makes sense for are the ones who underperformed in '19 due to either injury or a down season who are looking to rebuild their value quickly, guys like Didi. Ryu and Donaldson just don't fall into that category.

You are acting like pitchers and catchers are reporting. It is December 16th. Which NL Central team has made any noteworthy head turning move so far?

If every player on this list is uninspiring to you, you were going to be disappointed no matter what with offseason.

+100000000 this thread can be closed down now, along with any other thread. You know why so many feel that way?? Because they get those players on a "good deal". That's all that matters to them. Even if the #'s for that player(after they acquire them) are crap...it's "well at least it didn't cost them much". It's all about the $$ and the value to most. Production be damned! So much embellishing going on here. Read through the Anderson thread again. Does anyone really feel it's brilliant? Most of the reactions are shrugs, basically a decent depth move, basically everyone is in agreement that more moves are necessary. No one thinks Anderson is going to become our ace. "All that matters" is that we feel we got a "good deal" is just such a ridiculous line I don't even know where to begin. You think this board wouldn't be clamoring with excitement if we signed Donaldson and Ryu today? You think the the consensus would be disappointed if we didn't get a good deal? It's like it makes you mad for people to find the good in under-the-radar signings.

Would something like 3/84 with a 20M team option for a 4th year with a 6M buyout get it done for Donaldson? That's effectively 3/90, up to 4/104, but let's us pay him 27M a year for 3 years and then defer 6M to the 4th year. Does that have a chance or is it going to take a 9 figure guarantee and a 4th guaranteed season?

My biggest team issue right now is their offensive performance when they get on the edge of scoring range. They do very well protecting the football and reasonably well moving the football but cashing in on scoring opportunities has left a lot to be desired. When they get on the edge of FG range, they've got to start tailoring their plays to the situation a little better. They're pulling points off the board by not doing that. The situation where we took our one sack yesterday was an 8 point one possession low scoring game where points are at a premium, with 5 minutes left in the game. You are already in position for a 44 yard FG to give you an 11 point lead and essentially seal the game. Your choices there are to either run the ball in a manageable 3rd and 4 and at least be left with a reasonable FG attempt if you fail to convert or to call a quick designed, 3 step drop pass play. To even put yourself in a position to take an 11 yard loss and lose the FG attempt is unforgivable especially when it takes you potentially from a 2 possession game to a 1. I won't even get into the playcalling and clock management near the end of the first half at the same spot on the field. The area of the field between the red zone and the opposing 40 yard line has really been a problem area that needs to be improved. A lot of times it can just be chalked up to bad execution but in addition to that, the playcalling and time management in fringe FG territory were horrendous yesterday.

Couple thoughts: - I know I've been clear about not being impressed with us and feeling our 11-3 is pretty hollow, but the Bears are a pretty decent team. Trubisky is coming around and they have some decent skill players on offense. It's still an ugly win but it looks a lot better than the one against the Redskins. This is a Bears team that had come in playing good football and pulled off a solid road win in Dallas. - Our defense, for the most part, seems to be a pretty decent first half defense. They clearly do play a different looser clock killing type mode with late leads. It drives me insane, but they have always managed to come away with wins using it I guess so who am I to argue.

Fair enough, but then tell me what Seattle's signature win was so far this season. The 27-24 OT win at Frisco probably is, but that could have easily wound up a loss for them. The rest of their season, they've had a horseshoe up their rear moreso than GB with alot of close wins against meh teams, and they got pummeled in a couple of their losses, too. The Rams just pasted them and they wound up beating a rudderless Carolina team by 6 today. Let's see how next sunday goes against the vikes...it sure would be sweet to win that game no matter the score as the playoff picture shakes out. The point isn't really that Seattle could have lost to the 49ers, it's that they went up against a Super Bowl quality team and look like they belonged in that game, as they did against the Saints. When we had that opportunity, we got blown out. The game in Minnesota is the second biggest test so far this season being on the road. I agree that if they beat the Vikings next week I may feel a lot differently about their direction. It's an enormous game as it likely essentially also a wild card game win for us if we can take care of business in Detroit. I'm not all that confident about coming out of there with a W the way we have played recently and being in an extremely hostile environment. However, we may catch a break if Cook doesn't play and hopefully the Cousins in primetime stuff turns out to be real.

The NFL often isnt about style points. It's not like they have to impress the committee to make the top 4 for a CFP spot. There is something to be said about a team that finds ways to win on both sides of the ball and doesnt have to rely on one specific ability or side of the ball to advance come playoff time. The packers can pressure QBs without having to constantly blitz, and they dont turn the ball over. Those two factors plus having a healthy rodgers at qb makes them a tough postseason out even if they arent equipped to blow anyone away, either. As for the other nfc "elite", it wouldn't surprise me to see NO lose to the colts tomorrow night, seattle should probably have 2-3 more losses based on their season, and San Fran could easily go into the playoffs losers of their last 3 games. My point is there are no elite teams in the NFC, but there are a bunch of good ones. Green Bay is in that group based on their body of work and if you can't see that there's nothing I say that will convince you otherwise, too. I don't disagree that things could happen in the playoffs because it's the NFL and there's parity. But the Packers in that group with the best teams in the NFC, other than record alone, nah, I just don't see it. I would love to be wrong. I think they're an 8-6 quality team who has seen enough bounces go their way to be 11-3. I don't think they'll win on Sunday, but Minnesota is not infallible. Maybe they can get luck to go their way for 2 more games and get a bye then get N.O. to knock of SF and host two Lambeau playoff games and take them both. I don't know. I think it's really unlikely but I won't say it's impossible. I am not sure what you mean by they "find ways to win on both sides of the ball and doesn't have to rely on one specific ability or side of the ball to advance come playoff time." That sounds like a really nice way to say they have no real strengths, which I would say is accurate. They don't have any specific strengths to rely on. They do certain things really well in short spurts like rush the QB or run the ball. They do a really good job protecting the ball which is good but that's always been a staple of Rodgers' led Packer teams because of his conservative nature. It does have its drawbacks and the numerous times the offense has either stalled out or gone backwards right on the edge of FG range is as bad as a turnover.

I mean, we're all going to do the same thing and hope for the best. We're all in the same boat. I don't think it's a zero percent chance, just a low chance. I don't think it's negativity as much as an honest unbiased evaluation of what is seen. It's not negative to be negative. No one is trashing the Bucks right now just to be negative. If we're having a different discussion in 6 weeks, I'll be very happy about it. It is a message board, we really all are just talking heads who don't get on TV.

Atlanta is a really odd team. They've mostly been junk this year but on the road, against the best competition they've been at their best and crazy enough have wins in New Orleans and San Francisco this year. Any team can end up with a junk game and I think most everyone agreed that San Diego was our burn the tape game. The difference between us and the 49ers is that they have been challenged with elite, Super Bowl level competition this year and every time have proven to be on that level, even in close losses against Seattle and Baltimore. They have very impressive road wins in New Orleans and LA Rams. Aside from that they have shown to be completely dominant at times as shown against us and Carolina. The one opportunity we had against an elite level competition this year we appeared to show that we are just not on that level. Aside from that we just don't have anything on our resume that really even comes close to what they have the last 5-6 weeks, even in losses. Probably our best win of the season was a close win against Minnesota at home and aside from that it's been a lot of football that is good in short stretches but almost never for a full game as we struggle on nearly a weekly basis to put teams away. It's great that we are 11-3 and if the 49ers losing to the Falcons makes you feel better about our chances then that's great but if you really cannot see the difference between the two teams than nothing I say will convince you otherwise.

If you're doing that, Rizzo was acquired right? not home grown I didn't say anything about being entirely homegrown. I posted what the Cubs lineup could be now if they hadn't traded away any of their homegrown talent away the last few years.

Do we have tiebreaker over Seahawks? 9ers still have to play vs Rams and @ Seahawks. If the Packers win out, there's a good chance they'll be a game ahead of the 9ers but tied with Seattle. No we would not.

Well I don't see Davies ever approaching 12 K/9. I wonder if he could be reinvented as a high leverage pen arm rather than a middle of the rotation starter.

Ok, well, Bumgarner isn't an established front line starter. He used to be, but he isn't anymore. Also, farm system strengths fluctuate over time, we have gone from one of the weakest farms in baseball to one of the strongest to one of the weakest again all in the last 5 years. So I doubt it's true that they will never have the prospects to trade for one and if they don't that's probably a good thing because it likely means they're continuing to draft in the back half of the MLB draft as they have recently. Everyone wants consistent, dominant pitching. If it were that easy, everyone would have it. It isn't like going to the store and asking the cashier for a pack of smokes.

MadBum has a ~.830 OPS against the last 2 years away from the best pitchers park in the majors. It would be stupid for Stearns to give away an $850M contract when you can get that level of production from 50% of the 1 year signees. It's not that they shouldn't spend the money ever, it's that they shouldn't spend it on a player who isn't worth it. Correct! We should be very grateful that we have a GM who is not impulsive and doesn't simply throw money at a name because he has money to throw at a name. Bumgarner hasn't been in the Cy Young conversation since 2016 and most likely won't be in one in the next 5. To question if a team will regret paying a guy if said player goes on to win a Cy Young and WS is a pretty silly hypothetical and could be applied to any pitcher who signs elsewhere.

Yep, they sure are. The way schedules and seeding play out, there's actually a decent chance the packers would only need to beat one of the three teams who are apparently unbeatable juggernauts (saints, 49ers, seahawks) to get to the super bowl. All 3 of them have had some key injuries in the last few weeks that knock them down a peg, too - particularly on defense. If they had to play and beat all 3? Sure I dont like their chances. Needing to beat only one of them makes life much easier. Getting that 2 or 1 seed is critical for this packers team. Realistically, the 1 seed ain't happening. 2 seed is theirs if they win their last two. But my personal opinion is that they will win the division but fall in Minnesota next week and end up as the 3 seed. That puts them likely up against Minnesota again in the Wild Card round so while they *could* get to the NFCCG if things break right, they could probably just as easily not be getting out of the WC round.

Absolutely. That's all we can do. I don't have much hope that we can go all the way but we do have more hope than 20 or so teams in the league. The last two seasons it felt like every close game went against us and this year has been the opposite. A bye would be fantastic mainly because that's one less game they can lose. It's hard for me to see them winning in Minnesota next week though. But fortunately they now only need 1 more win to win the division.

I don't think he was worth the money, frankly.

Yeah well we got a big win, sometimes ugly gets it done in the playoffs. I was pretty relieved they tried the short pass on the last play but it got closer than it should have. You saw how well ugly worked a few weeks ago against a playoff team. Ugly ain't gonna cut it against the 49ers or Saints. When we jumped ahead 21-3, I thought we might finally have that win to feel good about where we're headed. I know it's a division win and those are great and all that, but man. This offense is broken. There just isn't a nice way to say this. I know 11-3 is 11-3, but I can't think of a worse 11-3 Packer team or worse 11-3 team at all, for that matter. I hope that somehow everyone else matches their ugly in the playoffs and they can roll through to the Super Bowl. I just don't think it's going to happen.