Point Beer Is Best

Especially hurtful for the Cards since he'll essentially burn 1.5 years of controllable service time while he's out of action.

Apparently the mystery bidder is Joshua Kushner, brother of White House adviser/POTUS son-in-law Jared Kushner, and son of convicted felon Charles Kushner. The offer is reportedly debt heavy, and the closeness of Charles Kushner to the deal may be factors that won't get the sale approved by the other owners. http://mlb.nbcsports.com/2017/02/10/joshua-kushner-brother-of-top-trump-adviser-is-the-bidder-for-the-miami-marlins/

To quote the late Denny Green, "We let 'em off the hook!" That was a pretty epic collapse, and lots of blame to go around. Two things that were stolen last night: 1) Tom Brady's game jersey was taken from the bags in his locker. 2) Tom Brady stole James White's MVP trophy.

If I had to predict the future based on history, I would say the Packers will be most aggressive in trying to sign Cook and Nick Perry first. Secondary to those two will be J.C. Tretter based on youth and versatility, although his injuries place a black mark on the much-emphasized "availability" category. They told T.J. Lang last year during training camp that they would focus on signing younger players first, so I see him as a guy they will let "test the market" and he will likely bring an offer back to GB asking them to come close. They'll bring him back if the amount isn't out of line with what they want to pay. The team seems to have an internal rule recently about only pursuing free agents who have been cut (rather than those who just had their contracts expire) since those "street" free agents do not negatively impact the draft pick compensation formula (Cook, Peppers, Guion were all cut prior to signing in GB). When they've bent that rule (Ryan Pickett & Charles Woodson in '06, and Brandon Chillar in '08)... well we all know the result in 2010 when those free agents enhanced the draft picks on defense. For the love of God, don't be afraid to dip your toes into all forms of free agency & player acquisition.

Chris Correa has issued a statement: If he's implicating the assistant GM of the Astros between 2012-2014, he's directly pointing a finger at David Stearns.

This is corporate espionage. It's extremely serious. It's much more egregious than any ball-deflating that may have been going on in New England. When an employee has unmitigated access to an email account for 2 and half years, plus all sorts of other data, I find it really hard to believe that others in the organization weren't at least "generally aware" that this was going on. It's deserving of a severe penalty to the franchise, although most Cards fans see that since Correa got 46 months in prison, then the correct party has already been punished. I obviously don't mean to compare the two crimes, but that would be like saying Penn State shouldn't have suffered any consequences for what one rogue employee did.

After reading some more tweets, it doesn't sound like McCarthy is committed to Capers as being the actual DC though. I wonder if he is leaving the door open to promote Winston Moss or Darren Perry to be the DC with Capers becoming an adviser.

Tom Clements is leaving to "pursue other interests" since his contract has expired. McCarthy said that will be the only staff change.

Unfortunate that you were disappointed however I liked both, Force Awakens more than Rogue One and the vast majority of critics and fans agree. Rey, Finn and Kylo Ren are great characters and they don't have to rely on just the old characters. No chance that Luke will pull a Yoda from Attack of the Clones. If Luke ends up in a lightsaber battle, it will look much more like Obi-Wan in Episode IV. Well, hopefully not that bad.

1 year, $7M plus a vesting option per @JeffPassan. If achieves non-closing incentives, deal could be worth $10M. Worth up to $14M if he is established as the closer.

Why is it a given? I think FA is a great place to find a RB. They are generally very cheap, unless a stud somehow ends up on the market. But yea, I would still draft one. And they will bring in a couple Undrafted FA. Also, yea I expect them to bring Lacy back for a cheap contract. In general, if a player is worth locking into an extension then the team that drafted him would already do it. This rule seems to apply to RB's more than any other position. The only exception in recent memory is DeMarco Murray, who the Cowboys just could not afford against their cap. Murray's atrocious season in Philly sort of proved that rule, although he has bounced back in a big way in Tennessee. Essentially, teams are faced with a decision like: Are we better off signing a retread with past success but a lot of miles like a 26 year old Alfred Morris, or spending a mid-round pick on a guy like Jordan Howard or Paul Perkins and hope to catch lightening in a bottle? Depending on how the draft plays out, I'd like to see them take at least 1 RB, if not 2 in the mid rounds that fit their scheme. I think they had the perfect plan in place when they drafted Lacy in the 2nd round, and Jonathan Franklin in the 4th the same year. They were the perfect compliment for each other, but Franklin's neck injury forced too much onto Lacy's plate (oh that pun was intended).

Yep, could be a Brian Westbrook-type and used more as a receiving RB given his work as a WR. Still think we need a more traditional RB to compliment him though. The 2017 draft, particularly with the declared underclassmen, is supposed to be pretty deep this year for RB. Starks will be cut, and as much as I wanted to see Christine Michael succeed, it's clear his mental ability/decision making is well behind his athletic ability and why he's been cut so often. That basically puts you with just Montgomery under contract for 2017. Given that the running back position is the one where it's almost universally agreed that you should avoid in free agency, I could see them bringing back Lacy on a one year deal and draft at least one RB. Heck, the Seahawks knew they had nobody behind Rawls going into this season and drafted 3 RB's. As important as it is to shore up the defense, we have to be more balanced on offense going forward.

I think it will likely be more Geronimo Allison, since Janis has proven to only be able to run one route.

OH MY GOD.

Door B. You take the WS win. With 30 teams in the league, you're gold if you can win one in a decade. I think most people would take the guaranteed WS, including Mark A. But that's not how the game works, because no one can guarantee a championship. And the best way to win a championship is getting into the dance as often as possible with the best team you can afford. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. I agree that the two scenarios are set up somewhat odd, in that does Door B mean that they were a borderline playoff team that sells the farm for one go-for-it year that ends up with WS title? Because if they only make the playoffs that one year, they obviously have failed to develop the talent required to be competitive on an annual basis. Maybe instead (all playoff outcomes uncertain, as they all are): Door A - 8 Brewer playoff appearances in the next 10 years, with 4 division titles, 4 Wild Cards. Team generally finishes 3rd to 5th in terms of record in the NL. Team does not significantly borrow from the future to acquire rental pieces, but may for longer-term players (think Chris Sale rather than Sabathia or even Zack Grienke). Door B - 3 playoff appearances in next 10 years, as Brewers bolster the MLB club when it first tastes the playoffs by acquiring multiple key pieces via prospects. Team wins 3 division titles, peaking with best record in NL. Team cycles into a rebuild window thereafter. Which would you prefer?

Then we found out from Ben Badler's Baseball America article on the International Bonus Pools that the Brewers are among the teams assigned to get $5.25 million in international bonus pool money this year. The 8 teams (including the Cardinals) that are assigned to receive $5.75 million in international bonus pool money should receive Round B picks this year. When the Brewers alternate to a Round B draft pick in 2018 and 2020 they will be allotted the higher international bonus pool. In regards to the International spending pools, this now makes sense considering I saw somewhere the pool amounts by teams, and I was shocked to see that St. Louis was in a grouping of teams receiving a larger pool amount that Milwaukee, but now I'm thinking that is just for 2017; Comp A/B and pool amounts should alternate each year I would have to assume.

Might not be in the parameters of "character" in the traditional sense (guys with criminal records) but I seem to recall him making a post on social media where he enjoyed someone wearing a T-shirt suggesting the lynching of journalists. And since the BWAA consists entirely of journalists/columnists, then you can easily see how he could quickly fall out of favor in the HOF voting. Of course he said everyone was overreacting to his "joke."

Former 1st round draft pick and former top 100 prospect, still just 24 years old.

FWIW, I looked at the Wisconsin School Performance Report website and looked at a few of GB/Fox Valley schools. They didn't break out the Appleton schools. From worst to first (accountability score): Green Bay Area Public (61) - Meets Few Expectations Little Chute Area (67.1) - Meets Expectations Appleton Area (70.9) - Meets Expectations Ashwaubenon (71.6) - Meets Expectations West De Pere (74.5) - Exceeds Expectations Hortonville Area (77.9) - Exceeds Expectations Kaukauna Area (78.6) - Exceeds Expectations De Pere (80) - Exceeds Expectations Kimberly Area (82) - Exceeds Expectations Wrightstown Community (91.2) - Exceeds Expectations A lot of those North end of Appleton communities show up (excluded Little Chute) as being on the better end of school choices. I can attest to the Kimberly athletics/competitive nature. My niece, like my brother, was a standout cross country runner, and parlayed her success at Kimberly to a scholarship at a DII school. My nephew played football (more accurately, he showed up somewhere on the team photo), but that's the nature of that program. It's highly successful and will play the best athletes to win their games. When he was on the 5th grade football team, they installed the high school football playbook. They told you right then and there what your position was going to be from then until you graduated high school. They bluntly told the parents - look, if your kid is slow and heavyset at this age, he's probably going to be the same when he's in high school so he's going to be a lineman. The fast kids are likely going to remain fast, so they were taught the skill positions. But the competitiveness is something you are going to run into at any school. When you have a school like Kimberly, or Green Bay Notre Dame or West De Pere that are having success athletically, it can become increasingly hard for your child to get playing time as other parents with gifted student-athletes utilize Open Enrollment to get their kids into top-notch competition. My boys are young (4 & 6), but I kind of freak out too when I think how different it will be for them than it was for me at a very small school (Iola-Scandinavia). I was the only senior on the varsity baseball team (and boy did I get WAY more playing time than I should have ). I never had to worry about tryouts or being cut from a team. We were lucky to have enough guys interested in fielding a team.

I cannot believe the Bears, who had nothing to play for, kicked a FG on their last possession rather than going for the likely win if they punched it in on 4th and goal from the 4. When they settled for the FG, I had a feeling we would win.

Are you meaning anything more by this than 'wish he would have?' I thought he went the pick before ours, but I was just curious as to whether there was more to the story. He means that offseason the Yankees signed the top 2 FAs, Sabathia and Texieria. They had to give up their top draft pick to the team they signed the "top free agent" from. Although CC Sabathia just came off a season in which he led both leagues in shutouts, and was the top LHP in baseball, Texiera was rated the #1 free agent so the Angels got that comp pick instead of us. So if either Sabathia was correctly rated the #1 FA or if any other team besides the Yankees signed Texieria we would have had the pick Trout was drafted with. However, it is a big assumption to assume we would have taken him there. Fans that were big on the amateur draft were very giddy heading into that offseason. We were likely to lose Sabathia and Ben Sheets (both Type A free agents, and Sabathia was the #2 rated FA by the Elias Sports Bureau behind only Tex), and we also lost Brian Shouse (Type B free agent). *Cue newscaster voiceover* Then, tragedy struck. Sabathia was signed by the Yankees, who had also signed Tex, meaning that the Angels were awarded NYY's 1st round pick, while the Brewers were awarded their 2nd round pick. The hapless Blue Jays also lost Type A free agent AJ Burnett to the Yankees, but were only awarded their 3rd round pick as compensation. Brian Shouse signed with the Rays (I think), awarding the Brewers a "sandwich" pick between the 1st and 2nd rounds. Sheets ended up having a significant arm injury, and didn't sign with the A's until after the draft pick compensation period had ended. We ended up with a higher compensation pick for losing Brian Shouse than we did for Sabathia. Let that sink in for a minute. And while it is correctly pointed out that it would be a huge assumption to say the Brewers would have drafted Trout, there was a lot of reports of the Brewers taking a particular liking to Trout prior to the draft.

It was definitely a different ballgame in that era as well, with franchise values, player salaries and TV contracts much lower than they are today (indexed for inflation). However, the real issue is that as the TV contracts have grown, there is an increasing disparity in who gets that revenue. Obviously the Brewers can no longer contend in spending dollars with the likes of the Angels and Yankees.

Whether you are in favor if letting PED era players into the HOF, against it, or agnostic, to me there is one thing that is clear: If you let Bud Selig, Tony LaRussa, and other non-players who completely turned a blind eye (and in some cases may have encouraged it) into the HOF, it is without a doubt hypocritical to continue to black list Bonds, Clemens, and the like. No longer should a voter for the Hall be looking through that prism. In my (strong) opinion, to think otherwise is highly illogical. Also I have no idea why these comments are in the Giancarlo Stanton contract thread and not the Bud Selig HOF thread. I think I made a similar point in that thread as well.

I know that Stearns hates to add "sweeteners" to the deal since his belief is you can get more quality if you trade away just a single player at a time, and has really only done it once with MLB players (adding Jeffress to the Lucroy deal), but if adding Villar to the deal gets us back an elite prospect or two that Braun could not on his own, then I'm OK with it. You still have Gennett for the short-term and could platoon with Perez to cover 2B. From the Dodgers perspective it's a one-stop-shop for them, and could help them avoid the luxury tax threshold, but they'd have to pony up for that to happen.

It all comes down to the draft (and International free agency, to a lesser degree). Then you rely on luck on how those picks turn out. You can improve your "luck" by allocating sufficient resources (talent & $$) to your scouting & development areas and giving them every resource they need to succeed (a relative term in those professions). It's very difficult to acquire a franchise hitter/pitcher in a trade, unless you have plenty of the other to offer in exchange. And how do you get to that point? Again, it goes back to the draft.