Point Beer Is Best

I'm not against your argument as it would certainly add competition in a market saturated with fans, but I'm pretty sure there exists some sort of territorial agreement between the Yankees/Mets and MLB. It's not unique to NYC, either. When the A's wanted to relocate to San Jose, the Giants objected saying that was part of their territory. I remember Peter Angelos objecting to the relocation of the Expos to Washington (not sure if he was compensated or just had sour grapes).

Dude, if the value of the Brewers has more than tripled since MA took ownership it means the *Brewers Organization*, not MA personally (although he still is to a certain extent) is still making cash year over year. The team writes checks for players - MA isn't writing them personal checks. The Brewers Organization has been, and still is, making millions upon millions on the bottom line that can be put toward higher payrolls or whatever else they want. And it was smart of them to take that 50M they got from BAMtech to renovate Maryvale, etc as that was essentially free money for them and they put it to great use. It meant they could keep the annual cash they've been saving (which they've said publicly now) and apply it to an increase payroll during this super competitive time frame they're in the middle of. Your mind set is still "since the team has tripled in value it means *all* of that value isn't liquid" when that's absolutely not the case. This org is making cash annually. You fail to understand this. I'm a CPA - my job is literally to understand this. Allow me to explain my thinking of why we shouldn't assume a payroll increase, instead of telling me that I don't understand: The valuation of the entity is not solely dependent on earnings. It's just not accurate from a valuation standpoint to say "if the value of the Brewers has more than tripled since MA took ownership it means the *Brewers Organization*, not MA personally (although he still is to a certain extent) is still making cash year over year." I've personally see company values significantly increase year-over-year while having poor or even negative earnings. Or put in another way, you cannot assume that because the franchise has tripled in value, that their payroll can likewise triple. We simply cannot know this without looking at their books. That's my point - let's not all just assume they can ramp up payroll based solely on the franchise value. The formula that valuation companies use when appraising an ESOP or a private entity is to use the entity's EBITDA and then use a market multiple based on similar publicly traded companies. My argument is that the majority of the increase in the values of MLB franchises (it's not just Milwaukee, or even just MLB - all sports leagues have seen this increase) is likely a result of the market multiple increasing to a degree that exceeds the rate that EBITDA is increasing. Yes, the franchise worth more. No, that does not necessarily mean they have the free cash available to sustain a larger payroll. That's all I'm saying.

that is correct. If we sign him for $1 million, the Jays would owe him $37million. Wait...is that true? I just assumed that any team was on the hook for a signed contract. That doesn't seem right because teams would be cutting guys all the time just in hopes that a new team would sign a new contract for even 15-20% of the deal to cut into their losses. Wouldn't the Blue Jays owe $38 million no matter what and anything a new team signs him for (say $1 mililon) is supplemental? I think DHonks is correct. I looked at a comparable situation (Pablo Sandoval), and the Giants simply signed him for the league minimum (https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/san-francisco-giants/pablo-sandoval-5355/cash-earnings/. For Sandoval, he's due to earn $23M in 2019 from the contract he signed with the Red Sox, but their obligation is $22,445,000 while the Giants are paying him the minimum of $555,000. The articles I've seen about Tulo's release don't get into this, but all seem to be under the assumption that Tulo could be had for the Vet minimum, so they authors are working under the belief that anything in addition to the minimum is just doing the Jay's a favor.

Actually selling off ownership shares puts money in MA's pocket, not the Brewers pocket to pay for payroll. But an increasing valuation also makes it easier to devise a debt structure to account for higher payrolls for a few years where the club runs a deficit. That's kind of my point. There's no cash realized in an asset appreciation unless the owner sells, which still doesn't improve cash flow for the business (the owner pockets it). And I agree that they have improved their borrowing position, but that again proves the point that they don't actually have the cash to dump into player payroll based solely on the argument of "well the franchise has tripled in value so they must have excess cash they can use on player payroll." Also, the proceeds they got from their share of MLB's sale of BAMtech (I think around $50M) was basically used towards the Maryvale improvements ($60M) including the state of the art player development technologies. Again, Mark A can certainly dip into his own pockets if he wishes to infuse more cash into the business to support a higher payroll, but we have to get away from the idea that just because the franchise has increased in value that we can support a larger payroll. It's not an open book situation like the Packers where we can study their financial statements to make that kind of determination.

Does anyone know if MLB contracts have offset language? Is Toronto on the hook for $38M, -OR- the difference between $38M and whatever Tulo signs for? If it's the latter, then it's pretty much a given that he'll sign for the minimum.

The value of this investment has more than tripled for MA. He can go to 150M overnight if he chooses to. I can absolutely see them spending plenty of money over the next 2-3yrs as they have a legitimate chance of winning the WS I don't want to derail this thread, and I don't mean this to come across as me singling you out because it's not just you, but I figuratively slam my head against the wall whenever I see the assumption that because the franchise has increased in value, that MA must have a ton of liquid cash available to inject into player payroll. It doesn't work that way. He would have to realize that asset appreciation by selling off ownership shares (which is what the Steinbrenners have to keep doing - all of their personal wealth is basically the Yankees franchise). Payroll is always going to be limited by the revenues generated, not the value of the net assets.

Well the Vikings just fired DeFelippo after another abysmal performance last night, so we can probably go ahead and cross him off the list.

Probably not what the Vikings were expecting when they gave Kirk Cousins $84M guaranteed over 3 years. I'm the biggest "QB wins are not a stat" guy, but for simplicity's sake, his W/L record is: Primetime games: 5-13 Vs winning teams: 4-24 (!!! WOW !!!) Vs winning teams in '18: 0-5 Road record: 12-23-2 MNF: 0-7 Not only that, but of an estimated $190M cap for 2019, the Vikings presently have about $8.3M available in cap space. They'll certainly do some maneuvering since it's obvious they believe their window to be '18-20, but it's been quite awhile since they've been in cap trouble. Of course, that directly relates to the fact they haven't had to pay significant dollars to a QB for many, many years.

Raiders have fired Reggie McKenzie. Pretty obvious this was going to be the end result after losing roster control to Gruden.

They why are they looking to trade him rather than extend him?

Agreed. This is pretty damning. Baines never garnerd more than 6.1% of the required 75% vote from the traditional BBWAA selection process and eventually fell off. This has moved the goal posts in a significant and irreversible way.

Does Bumgarner have any kind of no-trade protection? He seems to have some kind of personal vendetta with Braun (throwing intentionally at his upper body this last season) and has kind of struck me as being the West Coast version of Chris Carpenter. He would be a perfect fit with St. Louis.

The other connection there is that Murphy was the AD at Northwestern who hired Fitzgerald. If he's truly in charge of the coaching hire (and not Gutey), Fitzgerald is all but guaranteed to get an interview.

The problem with that is, most teams will block an assistant coach from pursuing a promotion to a coordinator role (Packers blocked Tom Clements and Ben MacAdoo for years). Which likely eliminates anyone from the Saints, Chiefs or Rams from contention for the OC position. I'm also not crazy about installing a third defensive scheme in 3 years, since hiring a defensive-minded HC likely means the end for Mike Pettine.

Lombardi would be nostalgic, but then I quickly remember how bad he was as the OC for the Lions. It's a copycat league, and definitely see them looking at assistants for the Rams, Saints and Chiefs. Of course when they hired McCarthy, he was the OC for the 32nd ranked offense in the NFL that year.

Who's your pick? Personally, I'd like to see the team retain Mike Pettine as DC and focus on an offensive specialist for HC. The names that have been thrown out there are: The Retreads Bruce Arians - He has said he would only come out of retirement to coach the Browns, but I think he may have said that due to the unwritten rule among coaches that you never openly campaign for a job that currently isn't available. Now that the GB job is open, he may have interest. Josh McDaniels - He will be a polarizing choice. Things went pretty poorly in Denver, and then what he did to the Colts last year probably takes him out of contention for a number of jobs. But his offensive scheme has remained fresh and kept Brady putting up big numbers into his 40's despite being strictly a pocket passer. The College Guys Lincoln Riley - This guy will get a ton of money to stay at OU. Another name is Kliff Kingsbury. But will a BIG-12 offense actually translate to success in the NFL? Current Assistant Coaches John DeFelippo (OC, Vikings) - The shine on this guy has really come off. Based on where the Eagles, Vikings, and Colts (yesterday notwithstanding) have looked offensively, I think Frank Reich may have been the offensive genius in the room. Zimmer hired him to run the offense, and has been increasingly critical of the playcalling of late. The criticism is that DeFelippo is trying to show too much creativity at times (to showcase himself for a HC gig) when they should be trying to run the ball more. While it might be fun to take a guy from a division rival, we might actually be doing them a favor. Zac Taylor (QB coach, LA Rams) - 35 years old. This would be the "I hope this guy turns out to be the next Sean McVay" hire. This is the guy I'm rooting for. Eric Bieniemy (OC, Chiefs) - This would be the "hiring Matt Nagy worked for the Bears, so let's try the same approach" hire. Any other contenders you can think of? The more I read about Taylor, the more I like him. But will a guy who's the same age as Aaron Rodgers be able to reign him in?

Also gives him an extra month to list his house. The housing market is a little soft this time of year. I live about a half mile away from the McCarthys in Ledgeview. It's the fastest growing area of Brown County (less than 15 minute commute to downtown GB for me, De Pere School district, etc). The housing market here is pretty strong. Having said that, over the past 2 or 3 years, McCarthy has purchased at least one additional home that was adjacent to his, tore it down, and spent considerable money building a berm to shield the road noise, etc. The buyers who can put up that kind of coin to purchase his house are scarce. His wife is also from De Pere so its entirely possible that they keep that house, rent it out, and return to living there when he's retired. The amount of investment he's put into it seems like they were intending that to be a pretty long-term residence, even with the lack of job security an NFL coach carries.

I get it, but the manner in which he was acquired is clouding your judgement and turning this into an emotional decision. The Brewers gave up prospect capital to acquire him, while he was the reigning AL player of the week, under the assumption he was more than just a rental. It's akin to feeling like you're pot committed in a poker game. Your best bet is to fold under any other circumstance, but feel like you have to stay in the game because so many of your chips are already on the table. If we hadn't given up anything to acquire Schoop, this thread would be like the Chris Carter one a couple of years ago where it was nearly unanimous that non-tendering him was a no-brainer.

Hulu is running a Black Friday deal. It’s $0.99 per month for 12 months before going to their regular price of $7.99.

Justus Sheffield is the Lewis Brinson of pitching prospects. Each headlining two block-buster trades, but it's entirely possible that neither are all that good. Sheffield was supposedly untouchable when the Machado sweepstakes were happening in July, but now that he's no longer going to wear pinstripes, the narrative has quickly shifted to he has a ceiling as a #3 starter who projects more as a bullpen arm.

^^^ This. How many other teams' uniforms' colors are truly about the city -- especially only one aspect of a very large & diverse city -- and not the nickname/logo/mascot/whatever? Pittsburgh comes to mind. Black & gold are based on the Pitt family crest. Unsure, but you could also assume the silver & blue used by the Detroit Lions are the same as what is used by the Ford Motor Company's logo.

The Mets actually finished out the year strong, and have a very strong pitching rotation. I'm not sure that I see them going the route of a rebuild by trading anyone with more than 2 years of team control.

So where is everyone planning to meet up tonight to riot if Yelich doesn't win the MVP?

Would Zunino have been an upgrade for us? He won the Wilson equivalent of the Gold Glove yesterday so I'm assuming his defense is stellar but had heard his bat was questionable.

I will have trouble reconciling reconciling a decision to tender Schoop with the decision to non-tender Gennett (both of whom were "2B only" guys), especially considering Schoop at $10M is much more expensive and on the wrong side of the platoon split. And I totally understood the decision to non-tender Gennett at the time. Nobody knew he was going to suddenly learn to hit LHP, and he lacked the positional versatility they were seeking at the time.