FVBrewerFan

Trade next 3 1st round picks, Henson, and Monroe for Anthony Davis. "Big 3" WHOAA SOLVD.

Of course there's luck involved. But tmwiese said "Regardless, they were in the final four which means they're doing things right, it's just luck after that." That's what I'm challenging. I don't think ARod having a bad game is luck. If he does, and they lose, they deserve to lose because he played poorly. That's not luck, it's poor performance. I agree with you on Capers too, but who's fault is that? MM is the HC. Very similar to the Counsell/Sedar thing. TT is to blame for the defense as well though, countless first round picks on busts and mediocre players. Again, I still think TT is a good GM, and MM is a good football coach. Said that from the beginning. Sometimes it's just time for a change. Rarely is it ever clear-cut when to replace a coach in any sport, it's all gut. How do you know it's the same people? I had no problem with letting Sitton go, and I also have no problem with draft and develop. I DO have a problem with the Packers only making it to one SB in Aaron Rodgers career. That's all I care about- results. Doesn't matter to me if TT built the entire team with rookies, or all Free Agents. I don't care if defense dominates or they win games 48-45 every week. I never pick apart every move, every draft pick because we know far less that they do.

Winning the SB is not luck. It's beating the other team each round of the playoffs, and earning the SB. And I don't see anyone throwing fits. Packer fans are the most apathetic fans in the NFL, and will support MM forever. Sure, there will be a few who scream, but the vast majority are happy to make the playoffs. Finally, to Plush's comment, yes it is saying a lot that MM would never win another SB with Aaron Rodgers. Ask that question 3-4 years and virtually everyone would have expected at least one more SB.

How about Bryant getting a grand slam taken off the board in a George Brett-esque pine tar incident? That would be epic. I guess I wouldn't want it to be controversial like that though. Chapman WP to give the Tribe the WS would be pretty sweet.

This is pretty spot on. Liriano has no options left. If we kept him, we'd likely have to keep him in majors. After missing a full season, it's unlikely we'd want to do that. I'm not saying I wouldn't want the guy, but it's one of those things. You can keep everyone. Yea, I forgot he had no options. That actually makes it a pretty easy decision. As Plush said, this will happen more often in coming years with all the young talent they have now. Even this year yet there will be a few more guys cut loose.

It's called vision. Looking forward, not behind. Proven right so far, 4 years and counting.

I'll acknowledge the Middleton injury. I think it's similar to the Jordy Nelson injury last year, bigger effect than what you would think. But with what they have now, would not be surprised if they have the worst record in the NBA. Not predicting that, just wouldn't be surprised.

I've been calling to replace MM/TT for several years. It's not an angry "throw the bums out" attitude. I just think there's a time when you've run your course, and time to start fresh. I think it was four years ago I started saying the Packers will never win another SB with MM/TT. McCarthy is a good football coach. TT is a good personnel man. I just think for whatever reason they can't get back to the promised land in GB. After all these years, this is still a 4-12 team with Rodgers. TT has not put enough talent around him, and the defense has been middle of the pack, at best, forever. McCarthy is stubborn, convinced his stuff works, and they just need to execute. Poor in-game manager, and can't win playoff games- even at home. That is not all his fault by any means, but the buck needs to stop somewhere right? Yet TT will stay as long as he wants, and MM will be here for years. The Packers are making money, the local media doesn't challenge authority, and the fans are happy to be "a good team."

Dictating how a manager uses his bullpen is not my idea of a change for the better. Just a difference of opinion.

Baseball has never been a game "on the clock." Everything being equal would I like games to be 1/2 hour shorter? Sure. But not at the expense of changing rules. No offense, but I think 90% of the rule changes mentioned here are crazy. Bottom line, most of the reason games are longer in modern baseball is all the pitching changes. Nothing you can do about that. Limiting the number of changes would be changing the game in a way that is unacceptable to me. As far as the Chapman sequence is concerned, I was riveted to the TV. One run game. World Series. Cleveland with a chance to tie, and possibly win the WS. To me, situations like that are what baseball is all about. Baseball is not an "action" sport like football or basketball. It's a game that can be enjoyed without 100% focus at all times. I am almost reading something while the Brewers game is on TV, while a Packers game I will not miss a single play. My point being, I don't think time is the issue. I think many people just aren't huge baseball fans to begin with, and don't appreciate the strategy involved, anticipating big moments in a game, etc. Baseball games are as much a social event for most fans as the game itself when attended in person. Anyone who has played baseball at any level will know some guys need more time to settle in at the plate. Some pitchers take more time too. In both cases, there is some gamesmanship in throwing the other off their routine. That's baseball. I guess what I'm saying is so many people are trying to make MLB something it's not. I hope it will never turn into what many seem to want. Two hour games with scores of 14-12.

This roster is a collection of mediocre parts that don't make sense together. No playoff team here. Bad defense, mediocre at best on the boards, and still a really bad shooting team. They have let workable pieces go and replaced them with, well, crap.

PG is no longer the same position it once was, nor is center, or virtually any position in the NBA today. Grannis is pla u information point, and not in the strict sense of what pg used to be. He often won't guard the opposing teams pg on defense for example. I agree basketball iq is tough to learn. MCW will probably never run an offense on his own. But he can get better at it. I just think they had little to lose by giving him another year. Not a huge deal they traded himy though.

I'll be the lone wolf, and say they gave up on MCW too early. He's still very young, and yes, he may never be able to shoot. But he has shown the ability to get to the rack and finish, or get fouled. Stretches in games where your PG is blocking shots, bringing down a lot of rebounds, and playing tough defense when he wants to. Look, there's a reason the Bulls traded for him. MCW was arguably the best player for the Bucks in the playoff series vs the Bulls. I get it, he makes too many bone-headed players and is very frustrating to watch. But there's still a chance he can get better. Not sure if anyone mentioned this yet, but isn't this somewhat an indictment of Kidd? They obviously feel MCW isn't worth trying to coach anymore, when by all accounts Kidd wanted him.

Nothing says the entire 25 needs to come from their system. Erceg should be ready for 2019. If he flames out, sign a FA in a couple years. Doesn't matter who plays 3b next yr anyhow, so one yr at a time. Ditto for catcher.

Do you use Texas Crutch for the beef? I don't use this for any other meat, but I do use it for beef. I know you asked Nottso, but I'll give my two cents. Yea, you probably need to let the wood chunks burn off the moisture a little longer. Every cook is different, sometimes that seems to happen almost immediately, and sometimes it takes a while. I would also add that white smoke isn't always bad. Go by smell. If it smells off or bitter, that's how it will taste. I've had cooks before where there was white smoke that smelled good, so I put the meat on. Eventually turned that thin blue, but still tasted great. Let your nose be your guide!

This is a great point. Needle in a haystack to find a great SP that wants to sign with the Brewers. So when you find one, it may not quite by the right time yet. That's not all bad. It does send a signal to the team that it's time to start winning, for whatever that's worth I would think it's some motivation. My whole thing is I want to avoid a Sabathia/Greinke type trade in the future. I rather give up money than future talent. That doesn't mean Ortiz, Woodruff, or anyone else is blocked. If someone is better than the five in the rotation, they will get their chance- believe me. Plenty of Nelson/Anderson/Peralta types, that will all be sorted out. I would still be shocked if they signed a big time arm THIS off-season. Then again, I get the feeling Mark A is less patient with rebuilding than I am.

Maybe they do, maybe they don't. However when the time comes to compete and that guy isn't there what are you going to do? Nothing? Nope, you are either trading for one or buying one. You surely aren't sitting on your hands hoping he just pops up while you waste away good seasons. Yea, and it doesn't need to be an "either/or." Hopefully they can develop one, better yet two or three really good SP. That doesn't mean they still can't or shouldn't go out and try to get an ace, TOR, #1, whatever you want to call it. They will have a ton of money to spend, especially if they move Braun. At some point you have to go "all in" especially when you're just spending money to do it, instead of trading a bunch of top talent to get that pitcher.

I agree with the first part. Obviously have a true ace (or two) increases chances of winning the WS. But plenty of examples where that was not the case. With that said, I don't think you can say no true ace will EVER sign with the Brewers. All it takes is for one guy to really like the fit, and Mark A willing to step up and pay. Mark A has said he's willing to spend when it's time. Maybe that doesn't mean a Kershaw, could be step below that. Or even a position player. But I have no doubt Mark A wants to win, and actually can't wait to spend money on a big acquisition. Let's just hope he's learned, and doesn't throw money around just because he can. Needs to be the right piece.

I think they'll be VERY aggressive with him. Not in terms of pushing him with too many innings/ pitches, but in how he advances up the ladder. At his age, he needs to contribute at the MLB level ASAP. Would not even surprise me if he's in Milwaukee at some point in 2017, either as SP, or more likely out of the pen.

Yes, but the budget doesn't need to be a static number for 2017. Otherwise, it's like saying Braun and Garza can't be traded because that would put them well under the budgeted payroll. In other words, nothing wrong with coming in under the budgeted payroll.

Along those lines, some guys (Medeiros) living almost exclusively on potential seem to keep fetching high ranking, while others like Gatewood hasn't been ranked high at all by most. I'm no huge Gatewood fan, but the guy has shown power, and at least a decent hit tool. Just seems like he's still young and is showing some potential whereas a guy like Medeiros gets shelled in the ultimate pitcher's park. I guess all this tells us is none of our ratings are a perfect science.

That was my impression! Based on the body language in that picture, I would have guessed not only did they not get the PD contract done, but were told they were never welcome in NC ever again. Now finish your chicken and please leave Mr. Stearns.

It's because 162 games isn't a large enough sample to "even out" these numbers. If the season was 10,000 games the Brewers would have been 5,000-5,000. Probably a tad below that due to below avg defense. But since the season consists of only 162 unique "events" the W/L record can be skewed quite a bit. I did say in my post (in a part that you didn't quote) that by some measures 162 games is a small sample size. I hope you didn't selectively remove that from the quote for impact. Sorry, yes you did make that point. Homer made almost identical comments right after my post, so I think we were just emphasizing the point that the season is a very small sample when it comes to OPS/ERA = Wins.

Then you would REALLY love the Timber Rattlers menu.

Something I've advocated here before is a VP-Pitching. Or give it whatever title you would like. This person would report directly to Stearns. In my experience, you need to have a laser focus on something if you want to improve. You see this in the business world whether it be customer service, employee relations, quality control, etc. Rather than having these duties mixed in with scouting position players, coaching them, etc., I think they need to have one person directly responsible for all aspects of pitching from top to bottom. Let this person bring in some of the top scouts and coaches from pitching rich organizations. Think outside the box with training techniques, mechanics, etc. Sure, this can be done without this position I'm talking about. But again, having a single person in charge with a laser focus on just pitching is worth a try.