FVBrewerFan

If it were me, I would have to feel out the interviewer to see how open I would be willing to be. Most importantly, try to be calm and stick to the facts. Acting and sounding emotional, calling him a crook, etc. will make you look bad. (Not that you would do that, just saying.) If he and his company are getting sued a lot, you can look all that up in public records, a lot of it is right out there on the internet. How about something like "I know rule #1 in interviewing is to never say bad things about your former employer. But in my case, certain things happened that just can't be ignored. " I think you can get away with telling the truth. I mean, look at former Enron employees, they have valid reasons to say their former employer acted unethically. The whole key is to not sound bitter, and even talk about all the things you liked about the place, and more importantly all the great work you did.

I honestly had no idea there was such a thing as "Diamond Dancers." So I guess my answer is, yes, I can do without them apprarently. (With that said, whatever this gimmick has been, I'm sure it's not meant for us.)

Yea, but "long-term success" is a pretty broad goal. There are thousands of variations in how to get there with various trades, FA signings, etc. And if you have four different opinions on every move, well, that's not good.

Agreed, and have always felt the same way about Dave Matthews Band. I guess I just never "got it." Was forced to see them in concert once, almost fell asleep, and left half-way through. First time I've ever done that at a concert, movie, or sporting event.

This has concerned me fro mthe beginning. Not sure how true this is, to what degree various people get involved etc. But you have two majority Owners, the GM, and then the HC who has a voice. That's potentially four people making decisions, at least at some level. If that's the case, why don't they just axe Hammond already and make Kidd the GM.

Never thought of Bevell for whatever reason, that's my vote. Guessing Anderson looked at next year and knew it's going to be an ugly year. Still no QB or WRs, and now no Gordon. So he can't recruit blames Wisconsin (Not publicly, I understand.) Good riddance, I was open-minded about him coming in but his recruiting has been awful, and has done nothing to bring the offense into the 21st Century.

Or 100% on Monday, 50% on Tuesday, 63% on Wed....

I don't need a 94-89 game to be entertained, I don't mind a low scoring game at all if it is well played. That thing was UGLY!

Not as deep for sure, but Okafor and Towns are at the level of a Parker. Also interesting that Looney could be a top 5 pick. But yea, they need to just keep playing hard and wherever they end up, they end up.

I agree with you on Dekker. He reminds me as poor-man's Keith Van Horn. Dekker obviusly has skills, but I don't think he's great at any one thing. Even in games where he has better stats, it's just that..stats. I realize in Bo's offense it's difficult to take control of a game at times, but I don't see how Dekker is a lottery pick or even a 1st round pick if he can't dominate at times against good competition. As for the Duke game, they should have taken it to Duke instead of settling for so many jumpers. Drive the ball, get fouls. Especially for a team like Wisc that can really hit their free throws. Wisc just played too timid.

Reality tour begins now. The Bucks have had the easiest schedule in the NBA to date, that is about to change. Don't get me wrong, still impressive they have won a bunch of games against anybody- we're talking about a team that won 15 games all of last year.

True, but we're talking about instincts, court awareness, basketball IQ, if you will. That iss more art than science. For any of you that have coached basketball at the youth level, you'll know what I'm talking about. Some kids just "get it" early on, others don't and never do all the way up through high school. They can learn the game, learn the plays and get better...but still never acquire the basketball instincts other kids had from the very beginning. Knight is in his 4th year in the NBA, and has played highly competitive basketball for most of his life. Sure, he can improve. But after all this time he is an ideal 6th man, not an ideal starting PG.

I don't think you can make a blanket statement like that. It's not just age, it's about NBA experience too. Henson, for example, is in his 3rd year. Do you really think he'll be much different/better 3 years from now? Because I can't picture him becoming a stretch 4, drilling bombs from behind the arc. He's been essentially the same player since his first game in the NBA. Can he get better? Sure, but it's hard to project him higher than being a good guy on the bench to give you some minutes. Same with Larry. Sure, he's still realtively young- but he "is what he is" at this point don't you think? So there's no guarantee at all that just because Knight is young, he will develop into more of a true PG, have better shot selection, etc. He's played quite a bit of NBA basketball and hasn't changed yet. Now, I'm not saying all this to be negative. I am excited about the future, just responding to the notion that just because Knight is young, he'll get better.

As of today, I agree with you. I also don't like how all too often he will kill the movement of the offense by standing and pounding the ball- especially late in games. But there's 70 games to go. Sometimes I forget how young he is too. Look at Giannis, his shot selection is getting better seemingly every game. This will play itself out, and I'm sure by the end of the year Kidd will know if he is the answer at PG or not. It's amazing what showing up every night and playing as a team will do to the win column in the NBA. This team needs a true PG, shooters, and an offensive presence in the post- yet they find ways to win.

I like Kidd's rotations. Part of it is back/back games, and handing out playing time accordingly. He also will go with the hot hand, which I really like. If Irsan is off, he doesn't play much. When he is on like last night, he rolls with it. An NBA team can win a lot of games just by showing up to play on both ends of the court every night. We saw that early on in the Skiles regime, now we'll see how long Kidd can get them to play hard every night- especially on the defensive end. They sure need work in how to close out games, which is to be expected a I guess. But yea, 6-5..... that's exceeding expectations so far.

Watched most of the MU/Ohio St game last night. First time so far I'm going to call out Coach Wojo. The way they handled pressure was horrible, and somehow Juan Anderson was the guy who needed to break the press 80% of the time. This team has 37 guards, why is Juan Anderson the press-breaker? Also, Derek Wilson is still on the floor way too much. I get Wojo is the new coach coming in, and probably needed help from the seniors to get everyone on board. That deserves some minutes. But there is nothing he brings to the table. In a perfect world, he would never see the court. But at least limit him to an honorary start, then pull him after 3-4 minutes and that's it.

I've come full circle on Jim Rome for some reason. Couldn't stand him at first, then slowly but surelt got sucked in and listened every day. Now I never listen to him anymore. I'm in the Fox Valley now so I don't know most of the Milwaukee guys anymore. There was a guy up here for a while I enjoyed- Shane Sparks. He was similar to Rome in that you loved or hated him, but you never knew what would come up on any given day. But that's what I liked about him, he wasn't cliche. One quick example, he dared to point out Favre's flaws up here in Packer country, and backed it up with facts. People freaked out!

Apples and oranges. As an employee, you weren't taxed at a different rate. It's just that taxes were withheld at a higher rate, and that comes out in the wash when you did your tax returns. What Point is talking about is how a bonus is treated in an S Corp vs C Corp. And that DOES involve a different amount of tax you would have to pay.

This bothers me a lot. I will always hover at a table before I sit down to see the knowledge level of the players- especially 3rd base. I refuse to sit at a table when the person at 3B has no idea what they're doing. Nothing worse than "that guy" busting instead of the dealer.

I've been on two DCL cruises. We've also been on RCCL, Norwegian, and Carnival. (Obviously, we're big cruisers.) I would put Disney at the very top of the list. I love their ship. Big enough, yet not one of the mega ships that are out there these days. Huge ships means thousands of people fighting for a limited number of deck chairs. Not to mention you don't even feel like you're on a ship- which some peole like. Personally, I love that the Disney ships feel more like a classic oceanliner. Very clean, very classy. Service is also the best. Entire crew was more personable, friendly, helpful. Especially the waiting teams at dinner, simply fantastic. I also think their food is the best. You will go to their private island, which is fantastic. As far as being swarmed by kids, oddly enough I didn't notice any more kids than other cruise lines. 90% of them are in childrens programs all day, even at night. Plus, there are adults only areas. Also, love Port Canaveral. Small port, so easy to get in and out of. You can fly to Orlando, or even Melbourne or Daytona. If you haven't cruised before, cabin will seem very small, but DCL cabins are actually a little bigger than other cruise lines, and they have 2 bathrooms- which is really rare and comes in handy. I only have 3 negatives. 1) No casino. Not a major issue for me, but for some it is. 2) Disney ships do "go to bed" earlier than other cruise lines. Gets real quiet after 10:00-11:00ish. Doesn't mean YOU have to turn in, but definitely not a late night party ship. (Which, again, is not a major issue for me.) 3) Cost. That's the biggest issue for me. We would do DCL more often, but the cost is up there for the 7 day cruises. If it's the shorter Bahamas cruises, those aren't bad if you shop around, buy at the right time, etc. We are over-planners, so if you have any questions feel free to ask, happy to help. (As long as you're not a Cubs fan.) By the way, with such a glowing review you would think I'm a huge Disney fan, but I'm really not. My wife is, but she actually likes the ginormous ships a little more.

Henson isn't the only one. Middleton and Irsan are playing limited minutes also. Sometimes that means they are on the trading block...

Just read Bucks have broken off talks with Knight's agent about an extension. I don't love him at PG, and too small to play much at the 2. He would be a good 6th man for a lot of teams. But he can score, and I think he's playing really good defense early on here. To me, this is a good test for Kidd. Can he make Knight into a true PG this season? Otherwise, probably need to trade him before he's a FA. Pretty simple formula so far, Bucks can compete when they're not turning it over. I know they're young but that's the stat I'll be keeping my eye on. That, and they need a few "go to" plays/ players if they go 3-4 trips without scoring.

Reynolds will not be back, for more than one reason.

Not jaw-dropping, but I like it. They would have had to pay Estrada a big arby number, or let him walk for nothing. Instead they got Lind, which is an improvement at 1B. Rodgers can back-up at 1B/3B, and Lucroy can get some starts at 1B as well. I like deals with little downside, and potentially big upside. This is one of those.

Braun could also move back to LF depending on how Davis develops (or is traded.) Lucroy could be moved to 1B in 2 years also.