FVBrewerFan

What's the downside of playing Rogers at 3B for an extended period? There's only one way to get better- playing time. He is a wildcard. He's at .700ish OPS so if he can get that up to .750ish we may have something. If he still stinks defensively, he's an option for 1B and a trade chip to some AL team who needs a 1B/DH type. He's shown enough that I would like to see more of him, especially in a season that is a lost cause.

Won't be surprised if the next move is Perez down, Chapman up. As for Scooter, it's all on him. I wouldn't mind a platoon at 2B the next couple years if Scoot can really pick it up against RHP. They have Sardinas, Gomez, Rivera who could all potentially platoon with him.

Every AB he takes away from Rogers, Hector Gomez, or potentially Sardinas or Herrera makes me cry.

Not unless it's as a joke once in a while. But if that's what he really calls her.....yea that would bother me.

I fear they will panic and trade KRod for less than he's "worth." More than one contending team needs a closer, and Krod is legit. Lohse, Garza, ARam- their value is about as low as they can get (other than being injured) so they may as well wait a bit to see if they have a hot streak. Worst case, whatever you can get for them now you can get 4-6 weeks from now. Lind and Parra have value, hard to know exactly how much. But a LH OF that can play all 3 positions? A LH bat at 1B/DH that has some power? Those chips have some value at least. Then I think guys like Segura, Gomez, Lucroy, Braun all fall under "if the price is right" category.

Oh, no question people get minor injuries quite often. For those of you who go to TRates games, more often than not a fan gets hit by a ball at lest once a game. Not as often at MP, but I'm sure it still happens often enough. But since serious injuries almost never happen, there just hasn't been any outcry to put up more nets I guess.

Honestly, I really don't care either way. On one side, I see nothing wrong if the Brewers or MLB put in nets all the way out to the dugouts. Realize seats are much closer to the field than the last generations of stadiums. Plus, it's not just balls- bats are flying into the stands way more than in the past. And no, you can't be "paying attention" 100% of the time. On the other hand, there is risk in most things we do. The odds of being seriously injured or killed by a foul ball or bat watching a MLB game is wayyyy down the list. I would bet anything it's in the "struck by lightning" range. But, as I said, I just can't get worked up either way. I love to sit behind home plate at HS games, TRats games, etc. Would at MP too, if it wasn't for the cost. Net doesn't bother me.

Yuni B playing 1B

Yea, jury is still out on a lot of guys. Evan Arcia has cooled down the last couple weeks. And Segura looks encouraging, but we're not even to the mid-point of the season yet. Davis, Rogers, Sardina still need more of a look. I like what they're doing, giving lots of position players and pitchers a chance to show what they can do.

Michael Blazek. Credit where credit is due, I didn't think he even deserved to be on the roster to start the season. Proved me wrong, good for you Blaze.

Yea, it's not time to give up anyone, but not time to anoint anyone either. Lara is a kid you don't clear a path for by any means. All of this proves athletic ability doesn't necessarily equal success on the diamond, especially overnight. It's why the draft never gets me excited, it's just impossible to know who will develop, and how long it will take.

Struggles were expected, not a 50% k rate. I would have liked to see him at least make contact more often with all his athletic ability. As for Gatewood, yea his eye has improved as the season has gone on. It hasn't fully shown up in production yet, but a good first step. Expecting him to be in A+ by the end of next year is probably asking too much. I would be thrilled if he played a whole season next year in Appleton with decent numbers.

Thanks Crew, great insight as always

You're going to like this one...

This is over-simplifying things, I'll admit, but here's a question I've always had. It seems like almost all front of the rotation starters in MLB have one/both of these things going for them. 1) Have a nasty pitch other than a 4-seam FB and 2) Deceptive delivery- tough to pick up the ball as a hitter. My questions is do our scouts look for this when evaluating pitchers? All I ever see is a rating for each pitch, which doesn't seem to fully capture those two items. There's always a lot of talk about FB speed, control, secondary pitches, etc. Wouldn't you lean towards guys that have a nasty slider, curve, change, etc. even if they don't control it very well? Just seems like control is something that can come along, but difficult to development something nasty. Same with delivery that's hard to pick up the ball, it's an "either you have it or you don't" type of thing. Maybe what I'm asking is this. All else being equal, what is the main thing you look for in a pitcher? The stuff that gets hitters out in HS and college (or even in the minors) won't necessarily get hitters out in MLB. We have seen this over and over with guys that have big FB, but it's straight and they don't have much else to go with it. Same is true with hitters. A lot of guys can hit FB, congratulations. How do you identify guys that can hit all the nasty stuff MLB pitchers can throw? Do you look for a short swing, proper swing plane, or what? It just seems with all the math and science involved these days, it still takes a trained eye to identify true potential?

Thanks. That's right, he was actually on the roster already this year.

If Peralta and Nelson were having great seasons I would worry, but how can they possibly think they can contend in 2016 with the rotation they will have next year? Heck, if Peralta repeated the season he had in 2014 and Nelson was close to that you may even be able to convince me they could retool and compete next year. Instead, you have a rotation that is almost impossible to predict, and big question marks at LF and 3B. There's no way they can believe the team can compete with the rotation so up in the air. Can they? People can talk themselves into a lot of things. Here's what I could pitch to you: 1. You shed the salaries of A-Ram, Cotts, Broxton, Lohse, Parra - that's roughly $45M. Raises (either by existing contracts or arbitration) will likely eat up $20M (Braun, K-Rod, Maldonado, Lucroy, Segura, Gomez, Smith (I think he's arby eligible next year), Peralta). That leaves you with $25M to spend - assuming spending is roughly at the same level as this year. You have significant holes at 3B (A-Ram), and the rotation (Lohse), plus the bullpen might need an arm or two. And some depth signings might be in order. 2. Fill your holes with one-year (maybe two-year) contracts (Aaron Harang or Dave Freese, for example), and you're not incurring too much long term commitments. 3. Count on good health - no major injuries like Lucroy has experienced this year. And guys who have had injury issues in past manage to avoid them (Lind, Braun, Gomez). 4. Count on improvements from young players - Davis, Sardinas, Peralta, Nelson, etc. 5. Count on certain players returning to form - Garza, Scooter, Maldonado, etc. 6. Hope a couple of rookies or cheap signings pan out (sort of like Blazek emerging this year as a solid bullpen part). This means the club is a lot like this year's team. As noted, it's counting on rebounds and improvements from some players, and good health. The rotation (Garza, Fiers, Nelson, Peralta, FA guy, plus Cravy, Jungmann and Wagner as fallbacks) could be average-ish. If the bats pick up, the hitting could be better than average. Add in a little luck, and it's a team with a shot at the Wild Card. Also, I can argue that if things don't go well in the first half, you can look to place key vets - Lucroy, Gomez, Lind, Segura, etc. - on the trade block at this time. Yes, the return probably isn't as good as if you did the deal this summer or in the off season, but you could still get some decent players. Did I convince you? Personally, I think too many stars have to align for the team to be a contender next year. It's not impossible, just improbable, in my opinion. No. But your last post is more in line with where they should be headed. Like you said, we would be counting on a whole lot of things to go right- just like this year. Almost impossible for so many things to go right. But yea, you could take the same approach, get lucky and maybe hit .500. But like you said in your last post, I think they need to give the young arms a shot and see what you have. 2016 should be the year to figure out which young pitchers can stay in the rotation, hopefully Peralta and someone else steps ups to show they can be top of the rotation guys. Also a chance to test drive some young bullpen arms.

Slice it however you want, they have the worst record in MLB which, by definition, makes them the worst team. Regardless of how they got here.

Exactly, plus they don't want to burn another option on Thorny. At this point it's not about earning a start. I would expect Lopez and Hall to get a look at some point this year to start a game, and a few others will get a look in the pen. Chapman, Magnifico, Ross, etc. That is one of the advantages of being the worst team in MLB, it gives you a chance to look at a lot of players.

If Peralta and Nelson were having great seasons I would worry, but how can they possibly think they can contend in 2016 with the rotation they will have next year? Heck, if Peralta repeated the season he had in 2014 and Nelson was close to that you may even be able to convince me they could retool and compete next year. Instead, you have a rotation that is almost impossible to predict, and big question marks at LF and 3B. There's no way they can believe the team can compete with the rotation so up in the air. Can they?

Globetrotters and Whitesnake concerts Been to both and actually preferred Whitesnake even without Tawny Kitean. I bet Vanilla Ice is hoping the Bucks leave so he can book up an entire week for a concert and home flipping seminar. Another 34 "headliners" and it will be "Bucks who?" Marquette HS volleyball games, Billy Crystal stand-up...these dates are going fast

Globetrotters and Whitesnake concerts

Robert...I don't know how else to say this. You keep bringing up alternate replacements for the Bucks. Yes, I agree. I don't think it will be to the degree you do, but let's say it's 100%. Neutral. Not a dollar lost in sales tax revenue. That still has NOTHING to do with the "jock tax." That tax is a zero-sum game. If the Bucks leave, that tax revenue goes away- 100%...period. And sorry, I have no idea of what you're talking about with more corporate money going to Packers and Brewers. That will have no effect on the jock tax. Player salaries are driven by TV contracts, especially NBA and NFL. There is no "funneling down." The Packers salary cap is set, for example, and has nothing to do with more corporate dollars coming in. All these alternatives you're talking about help off-set the SALES TAX revenue that would be lost, but has absolutely nothing to do with the jock tax.

I think the downside if even bigger than what they're saying if the Bucks leave. Operating costs of the BC and jock tax are a given, not disputable. But if that isn't enough, how about sales tax revenue that will be lost? Just to use round numbers, let's say the Bucks attract 500,000 fans a year. A big share of those may eat at home, or out in the burbs, whatever. But there is still a large number of fans (like myself) that come in from out of town, dine at dtown restaurant, sometimes stay at a hotel dtown. All that money is lost without the Bucks, including the sales tax revenue I'm spending. Now multiply that be however many thousand people. SOME of that can be recouped by spending entertainment dollars elsewhere. But most of it is not. It's not like people say "hey the Bucks are gone, I'll go to the Symphony instead." No, they just don't go downtown. So, in addition to the known impact of losing the Bucks, this is another factor that needs to be considered. Tax revenue lost, and the ripple effect of downtown restaurants, bars, hotels and their employees.

And nobody has ever built a great economy here by pumping millions more into the UW System. I'm sure you're familiar with the problem WI has with "brain drain." People graduate and leave the state in record droves. That's not adding anything to our economy. Spending hundreds of millions on new academic buildings when often times the existing facilities were just fine adds nothing to the economy. Or having redundant 2 and 4 year campuses close by in rural areas. Point being, $80MM in state money for an arena has zero effect on educating students in this state of any age. But if you feel it does, then you should want the money spent on the arena, because it will be less than doing nothing. You used the example earlier of how the jock tax can be made up by people using their entertainment dollar elsewhere. I see where you're going with that, but you're mixing two different things- sales tax and jock tax. Yes, you may be able to make up for some of lost sales tax revenue by losing 41 Bucks games a year. Many of those people will buy a hot dog somewhere else. But that has nothing to do with the jock tax. That tax revenue goes to ZERO if the Bucks leave.