FVBrewerFan

Jabari is a tough call. If I knew he would stay healthy, I would give him a big deal and move Middleton. FWIW, they showed Jabari working out before the game the other day, he is trimmed down...looks great. So if I understand the cap right (thanks for running through it guys) the Bucks really don't have much room to maneuver next season? I get that they can trade contract for contract, but sounds like they won't be able to sign a big name FA?

Yelich will be moved before the season starts. Miami is simply doing what they should, trying to get the most they can for him. Brinson doesn't make as such sense as guys lower down the chain. Hiura and Harrison would be more like what they're looking for.

Except it wouldn't. You could tell the Pirates they will lose their first round draft pick if they lose 100 games, and they'll do the same thing. Forget a lottery, they wouldn't change a thing if they lost the pick entirely. 1st pick has absolutely nothing to do with a team's decision to rebuild.

No, I definitely think that's true. NBA is on the rise, soccer is on the rise too. Baseball definitely isn't big for the 20 somethings. I think the next TV deal will be less.

Why do these team and billionaires always get cities to pay for their stadiums? Because they have all the bargaining power because they are monopoly, either pay us or we leave. There is a reason the government isn't building Walmarts around your town. The prices for players and merchandise and events is not based on a free market, just go to MLB.com and see how much a sweatshirt costs, its not like they are somehow more difficult to manufacture than a Nike sweatshirt, but they have a monopoly so pay up is your only option. The cities should own the teams, similar to the Packers model. What we really need is a fan union, major sports is the only industry where the paying customer has no say or influence. It is ridiculous that the owners and players just negotiate over how they are going to split up the money they up-charged us to get. Fans don't need a union, we have wallets. If all of this was so bad, attendance would be way down. Nobody would be buying $100 sweatshirts. So, yes, the free market is alive and well. Oh, and having cities own the teams? You want to destroy professional sports, go ahead and do that. Sure, it works beautifully in Green Bay. That's a very unique situation. Let's have cities like Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit, Milwaukee, Cleveland, etc. own teams. I'm sure there wouldn't be much corruption or incompetence.

Makes perfect sense. Ratings for all the talking head shows for two weeks will be higher for a Pats/Vikes SB vs Eagles/Jags. Personally, I don't want any of the 4 teams left in the SB, but oh well. Vikes and Pats because, well, because they're the Vikes and Pats. Jags, their fans barely support the team so why should I.

Everyone knows what the solution is, but it won't happen. Hard salary cap with true revenue sharing.

I think generally speaking, Verizon has the best coverage, most 4G, etc. I had Verizon for years and rarely had an issue getting service even in very rural areas. And that was years ago when that was far from automatic. But I jumped on a Sprint promotion that has saved me $50/mo per line. I was nervous, but that's $100/mo for my two lines so I took the chance. I must say, I really haven't noticed a difference in service. (Obviously, Iowa City may/ may not be a different experience.)

Why? It's a strategy. If a team is rebuilding, why not maximize the effect? Does it really matter if that team wins 70 games or 60? Heck, it would have been fine with me if the Brewers did that last year.

1. I'd bet Attanasio has made a large amount of money of the Brewers already. Besides that, he only paid 225 million for the team. If he put the Brewers up for sale after the season, he'd easily get 600-700 million, maybe more given the skyrocketing value for sports franchises. 2. I don't begrudge owners making money, but i'd rather see the players who actually are the product fans go to see get a bigger cut compared to already billionaire owners. And I would rather see tickets, parking, and concessions be more reasonable for fans instead of millions more for players and owners. But hey, thats supply and demand. Speaking of which, that's why the Marlins situation doesn't upset me. They should draw 100 fans a game. Would send a message to Marlins and all of baseball. Or, fans still show up, meaning they have accepted the year down so what's the problem.

No expert here in NBA cap, but why would they need to sign and trade? Looks like they have $60MM in cap space for Bledsoe, Middleton, Henson, Delly and Snell next season. All of those guys have value, so you would think they could trade any of them, or more than one to create cap space?

Offensively off of the bench sure but Bledsoe has picked that up and then some. Rebounding a little bit but defensively the Bucks are about the same as they were when he was here. They should have tried to get Chandler in that deal. Maybe the Bucks are able to get Jordan from the Clippers but I doubt they will be able to get him. I think Bogut is still available? I'm hoping they have a legit shot at Jordan when he's a FA after this season. Doesn't seem like a guy who wants to come to Milwaukee, but you never know I guess.

Stumbled upon "Margin Call" over the weekend. If you liked The Big Short, this is better (in my opinion.) Outstanding cast, not sure how I missed it when it was originally released.

This season could just be a blip, but I fear this era of great UW basketball is done. Sure, they are young...more recruits on the way, but I really believe the strength of the program was sustaining success, gradually adding in another piece or two as guys graduated. Now they have to build it back up from the ground, and I'm not real optimistic Gard can do that. To be fair, tough to do for anyone. I think the time has come to move on, find a big name coach, and in addition to recruiting WI/MN, really hit Chicago hard. Finally time for style of play to change to. They already lost out on Ellington, Housers, Hero, countless others. While Bo had it humming, it worked so why mess with success. But now is the time to flip the switch and move on.

And the horn. Don't forget the horn.

If he had a year or two left, I would be mildly interested. Three years? No way. (Ditto for Walker.)

Also, keep in mind you could work on the food service side as a supervisor, manager, etc. While technically not working for the Brewers, you would be working at Miller Park. Plus, it would give you the opportunity to meet people within the Brewers and gain connections that way.

My son worked in the ticket office a few years ago. He considered it temporary while going through college, but many people there were trying to stick long term. In fact, just asked him about it the other day and two people he worked with are still there, moved up to group sales. My guess is if they hang around something could pop up in marketing, promotions, etc. But it's timing, luck, who you know. And maybe doing a job function you may not love while holding out hope for another position. Key is how long you're willing to hang around, because people do leave.

Yes. It just seems to me that there should be rules you follow to make it easy on yourself. Kinda like going for two - if you're down five you go for two, if you're down six you kick the extra point, etc. The Eagles had two timeouts and the ball with :46 left in the half the other day. They threw a short pass, the dude didn't get out of bounds so clock is running. They decide to have everyone line up so they can run another play. 23 seconds runs off the clock and one of their guys jumps offsides probably because they were rushing to get back to the line. THEN they call a timeout. So dumb... The other thing that I just can't fathom is wasting timeouts mid way through a half because you can't get the play in fast enough. The packers literally do this once a game without fail. I'd be curious if the patriots ever do this. Seems like they always have all three timeouts under two minutes left. The one that absolutely blows my mind is the coaches that need to use their timeouts on defense with 2-3 minutes left to get the ball back and they wait until AFTER the 2 minute warning to use them. I'm absolutely stunned that this is here in 2018 and these coaches who work 80 hours a week on nothing but football still haven't figured out that this accomplishes nothing but pissing away precious seconds. Case in point yesterday: Jaguars get the ball after the failed onside kick up 7 with 2:18 and the Steelers have 2 timeouts. So inexplicably, Tomlin lets the clock go down to 2:00 after 1st down and uses them after 2nd and 3rd, after which the clock reads 1:50. Had he called them immediately after 1st and 2nd, 2:00 would have come after 3rd down, and 1:55 after the FG instead of 1:45. And lo and behold, the Steelers score to make it 45-42 with 1 second left, at which point the game is over anyway. Sure, if they had scored with 11 seconds instead of 1, the odds of them recovering an onside and then either getting a hail Mary or pass play out of bounds in FG range were still remote, but at least there would have been a chance. I am absolutely flabbergasted that the best minds in the football world cannot wrap their respective heads around this simple logic. Yea, that was bad. To be fair, 90% of the time coaches understand this and will use the TOs before the 2 minute warning. No clue what Tomlin was thinking in that case. I've also always believed you take the delay of game penalty in the 3rd quarter, even into the 4th depending on how the game is going. Save those 3 TOs for the end of the game at almost all cost.

You are over-thinking it as well. Mathematically, it is easier to score a TD and a FG than two TDs. Why would you not (almost) automatically position yourself for a TD/FG by just kicking the extra point and making it an 11 point game? I really don't think it's even a close call. I've avoided this as part of my reasoning, because making it 11 point game should be reason enough. But a secondary reason is it gives you the option of kicking the FG first. If offense hits 4th down, you're not forced to go for it, yet another all-in move that could fail. Instead, kick the FG early, now all you need is that TD/2 pt. AND you've saved a ton of time on the clock.

I don't agree with that at all. You kick the extra point so you're down 11, needing TD/2pt and a FG rather than needing two TDs. That seems like a no-brainer actually. You always want to avoid dong "more than necessary" until you have to. Otherwise you're always making up for what you failed to do earlier. It's really the same thing as college coaches who start chasing the 2 point conversions way too early in games. The situation is different if it were midway through the second quarter...at that point I would agree to take the PAT, but usually this is a 3rd or early 4th quarter situation. Your odds already aren't good and your scoring opportunities will be very limited. The situation you avoid by going for 2 early is making the wrong decision later on in the game. Let's say you take the extra point...down 11...and on your next possession have 4th and 2 at the 30 early in the 4th quarter. What do you do? If it's 12 you obviously go for it. If it's 10 you probably kick the field goal, which you probably should do down 11 as well. But then let's say you score a touchdown in the final 2 minutes but miss the 2 point conversion. You can't go back in time and decide to go for it on that 4th and 2. And as I noted above, at that point in the game you pretty much have to shut down the other offense to have a chance. The other team kicking a field goal after your first touchdown, regardless of the decision, doesn't have an overly negative impact as it remains a 2 score game. A touchdown probably is a dagger. I'm not going to change your mind, but there is NO scenario where you wouldn't want to set yourself up for a TD/FG rather that two TDs. You may be over-thinking a bit with all the scenarios that COULD happen later. None of that matters. You go with the right decision at that time, and all kinds of things could develop after that can't be anticipated. There's just no way you would ever turn down the chance to be down 11 rather than 12 late in a game. Ever.

It's almost like having too many cooks in the kitchen and too many different voices trying to vie for favor with ownership might cause problems. If only there were a recent 30 year long example of this type of organizational structure causing a team to struggle to succeed. Exactly, and now the Packers are doing it. Not as bad as the Bucks, but still a funky Org Chart.

I don't agree with that at all. You kick the extra point so you're down 11, needing TD/2pt and a FG rather than needing two TDs. That seems like a no-brainer actually. You always want to avoid dong "more than necessary" until you have to. Otherwise you're always making up for what you failed to do earlier. It's really the same thing as college coaches who start chasing the 2 point conversions way too early in games.

John Perrin? He has four pitches so I see him as a starter.

Problem is, who fires Kidd? The org chart for this team bothered me from the beginning. It's how they ended up with Horst, consensus. You have at least three main Owners, the President, GM, who knows who else is involved. I find it impossible to believe Horst can make this decision on his own. So who does? Do 2 of the 3 main Owners have to sign off? Do all three of them need to agree? Who knows.