MJLiverock

Using the innings pitched from Ender's post above gives a total of 736 innings out of Gallardo, Parra, Bush, and Suppan. Assuming 6 2/3 innings a start for 162 games yields roughly 1075 innings from the starting staff. Those projections leave a hole of 339 innings of starting pitching needed from McClung and ?? Given that Suppan and McClung and even Parra have a hard time averaging 6 2/3 a start the bullpen may be very taxed. They might even have to look at piggyback starting if they can't reliably count on some of these guys to go 6+innings or else the bullpen could be burned up by the third game of a series.

What if MLB had a franchise player type designation for a player like the NFL? If a team like the Brewers threw a franchise tag on CC. he gets a one year deal at the average of the 10 highest paid pitchers or if the Yankees sign him the Brewers get the Yankees first round pick and any player they want out of the Yankees farm system. After his one year deal is done he is unrestricted and can't be franchised again. The team gets a sandwich pick or something for losing him. BTW; I don't think Green Bay has been shut out of the free agent market in the NFL, I think it is more of a reflection of the management not pursuing free agents. Thompson has been a well known front office guy who focuses on the draft and not free agency. I don't know that Sherman was a big free agent guy either.

It is tought to root for a guy who you hope keeps the bat on his shoulder and doesn't swing because that is about the only way he can get on base. He may have drawn a bases loaded walk to tie the last game but how many also remember about a week earlier where he struck with the bases loaded against the Cubs or with one out and runners on 2nd and 3rd in extra innings against the Cubs and he couldn't hit the ball out of the infield to score a run? Or the countless pop outs to second base with runners on? I just can't get excited about any Counsell AB's when if he swings the bat it is an automatic out, usually a weak out at that. (unless the bases are loaded) RISP .155/.311/.224

I just quickly glanced through some of the organizations and it doesn't seem all that well thought through but I don't follow the minors that closely to know, just some of his comments seem contradictory. On one hand he says the Yankees top four prospects have serious quesitons and as a whole the system lacks players with upside and the 2008 class isn't very good, yet he rates them 15th. He then rates the Blue Jays 18th while saying two very good prospects on top, some middle to back of the rotations guys, and a fair amount of high risk but promising guys. Just based on his comments I would think the Jays would rate higher the Yanks. Boston ranks 7th based solely on the 2008 draft? Seems pretty high for a bunch of low level players with probably high potential, sort of the reasons why he downgrades some teams with too much low level talent, not enough upper level. He rates the Marlins just below the Sox and comments on the system being top heavy with 6 or 7 excellent prospects and not much depth below them. On the bottom end he pretty much calls out some teams for just having horrible drafts and not much in the system after trades.

I just quickly glanced through some of the organizations and it doesn't seem all that well thought through but I don't follow the minors that closely to know, just some of his comments seem contradictory. On one hand he says the Yankees top four prospects have serious quesitons and as a whole the system lacks players with upside and the 2008 class isn't very good, yet he rates them 15th. He then rates the Blue Jays 18th while saying two very good prospects on top, some middle to back of the rotations guys, and a fair amount of high risk but promising guys. Just based on his comments I would think the Jays would rate higher the Yanks. Boston ranks 7th based solely on the 2008 draft? Seems pretty high for a bunch of low level players with probably high potential, sort of the reasons why he downgrades some teams with too much low level talent, not enough upper level. He rates the Marlins just below the Sox and comments on the system being top heavy with 6 or 7 excellent prospects and not much depth below them. On the bottom end he pretty much calls out some teams for just having horrible drafts and not much in the system after trades.

I just quickly glanced through some of the organizations and it doesn't seem all that well thought through but I don't follow the minors that closely to know, just some of his comments seem contradictory. On one hand he says the Yankees top four prospects have serious quesitons and as a whole the system lacks players with upside and the 2008 class isn't very good, yet he rates them 15th. He then rates the Blue Jays 18th while saying two very good prospects on top, some middle to back of the rotations guys, and a fair amount of high risk but promising guys. Just based on his comments I would think the Jays would rate higher the Yanks. Boston ranks 7th based solely on the 2008 draft? Seems pretty high for a bunch of low level players with probably high potential, sort of the reasons why he downgrades some teams with too much low level talent, not enough upper level. He rates the Marlins just below the Sox and comments on the system being top heavy with 6 or 7 excellent prospects and not much depth below them. On the bottom end he pretty much calls out some teams for just having horrible drafts and not much in the system after trades.

That Ramsey stuff looks like a scam to me. I went to the website and saw all the ads about how he will help you save money.... if you pay him $10/month or more for subscriptions which immediately reminded me of an old question. If Carlton Sheets was so good at making money in real estate why does he need to make money selling the ideas to me? Why doesn't he just make money in real estate? Not completely germain but the idea of charging me money and selling me subscriptions to tell me how to save money strikes me as ironic. But then again I hate people like Suze Orman too. Nodakfan17, You have an MS in Econ so you are light years ahead of most people. I have a BS in Econ and a BS in Finance and work in the financial industry. I would recommend a few simple rules. Understand what you own, understand what fees you are paying to own that investment or get that advice, and understand how the person selling it to you is being compensated. And above all, if it sounds to good to be true... it probably is. Most people don't understand the fees they pay within a mutual fund or the actual performance of that fund relative to a benchmark. Fees paid to a financial advisor may be tacked on on top of the actual mutual fund management fees which can be buried in the share price. They also don't take into account the tax consequences of the funds' distrubtions and figure that into returns as well. Rember risk is a two way street, anything that has really high returns or projected returns probably has a much higher risk level. The younger (or longer investment horizon you have) you are or the more discretionary the investment income is then the higher the risk level can be. i.e. don't invest money you are trying to save for house purchse next year in the stock market or natural gas futures. An intersting book I read a long time ago was The Capitalist Pig, it was kinda humerous but covered a lot of basic investing questions. The author was a young guy who was a student at Northwestern and used to have a radio show. It has been a while since I read it but it was a funny easy read. I would also suggest learning about how banking works. What terms the loans like your mortgage and car loans are offering and how to compare them. Some people swear ARMS are bad, but I have never had a fixed rate loan because used properly ARMS are just fine as long as you understand what you are doing. I could probably write pages of this stuff since I've dealt with it everyday for the last 10 years of working in banks and investments. Feel free to PM me if you have specific questions.

Henderson and Raines were two of my favorite players as a kid in the early 80's. I still remember the famous Raines quote of admitting he slid headfirst into second so he wouldn't break the cocaine vials in his back pocket. Maybe this is why I am so lassaize faire regarding the steroid issue. All my favorite players as a kid seemed to have coke problems, Raines, Gooden, Strawberry, Molitor, Dave Parker, Mario Soto. Well at least I still have Yount as far as anyone knows.

Going into 2008 it was fresh off of ridiculouslly good years from Braun and Fielder so people were riding the wave of their awesomeness. Hart and Weeks were expected to improve and Hall was supposed to be more relaxed playing in the infield again. Sheets/Gallardo were supposed to be the 1-2 punch with Bush reverting to his old ways of low WHIP pitching and being solid. Parra was supposed to break out and Soup be average. Now we see Fielder and Braun may not really be a combined 100 HR duo (not bad players just not 1.000 OPS players either). Hart wasn't very good for half the season and seemed to get even worse as the year went on. Weeks didn't really improve either so now expectations for both of those guys have been tempered. Hall didn't bounce back to 2006 form and now has many more doubters. The rotation is without Sheets, Gallardo is coming off missing most of the season due to an injury so people are unsure how many innings he will go and now we hear he may pitch in the baseball classic. Parra hit the wall about 2/3rds of the way thru the season. Bush was inconsistent and below many expectations. Soup was hurt and maybe aging quickly before our eyes. The cobbled together bullpen was very average last year and is probably about the same this year. I think the opinion that this year's team is worse is a result of last year's performance by some players offsettinig the exhuberance of the 2007 results where players exceeded expectations. It really might come down to if you believe 2007 was "career year" type seasons for Braun and Fielder or was 2008 more the norm to expect from them. I don't think it is unreasonable to believe some guys like Hart/Weeks/Hall/Bush/Suppan will ever be as good as hoped for or that they will automatically improve.

Also Andro was a perfectly legal and available over the counter, available to by in any vitamin store, supplement when it was noticed in McGwire's locker. I still remember when it came out because my roommate at the time was taking Andro and had been for about 6 months as he was trying to bulk up his 6 foot 145 pound body. We were both laughing at the insinuation that Andro made McGwire big because it really had done nothing remarkable for my roommate. It has always bothered me that many people think Andro was some sort of illegal substance or that it is the same as taking anabolic sterioids.

If Hardy is locked up long term would he really care if was moved off of SS to play 3B? I assume one of the reasons he doesn't want to move is the money will be better as a SS with a decent stick. If he is getting paid for the next 4 or 5 years maybe he would be open to playing 3rd since by the time he is a free agent in his early 30's he may very well profile as a 3B anyway. In 2010, this would allow Escobar to play SS, solve the black hole of 3B for the Brewers, allow Gamel to move to 1B, and trade Prince for some sort of pitching. Just sort of my own scenario, not sure how realistic but could be possible.

The link AJHawk50 provided mentioned Gabe Kapler may be platooned with Gabe Gross so he still isn't guaranteed a starting job but Kapler does mention he liked the idea of playing for a winner and playing in the Tampa area. Which to me is kinda along those lines in other threads that he (along with many other players) rate Milwaukee on the lower end of places to play even if the team is decent.

Backupcathcers, Sheets ERA after the All Star break was 3.46 with a 1.21 WHIP and a 2.6 BB/K ratio. His K rate dropped some after the break going from 7.9/9 to 6 per 9. He even threw 2 shutouts after the break I just don't know where you are coming up with the idea he was Looperish or only a #3 type starter in the second half. Even in your example which is bascially just 2 more starts than the after ASB numbers Actually combined they had the numbers of one great pitcher and one #3 type starter. Our # 3 last year was Parra who had 166 IP and a 4.39 ERA. If you look at his numbers for July, August and September you find Sheets was not all that much better. July 29.1 IP 14 ER, August 32.2 IP 10 ER, Sept 24.1 9 ER. That is about a 3.80ish ERA over a three month period. during the same time we had CC and Sheets CC pitched like CC and Sheets pitched more like Parra than CC. I think Parra and YoGa can pitch as many if not more innings than that in 09. Those numbers for Sheets are 86.1 innings and 33 earned runs which if I am calculating ERA properly is a 3.45 ERA not 3.80ish and still much better than a typical #3 starter including Parra. Sheets 1st half of 123 innings was phenomenal, CC's 130 was phenomenal. That is 253 innings of phenomenal pitching. Yo might go 180, even giving him benefit of the doubt and saying 200 leaves 53 phenomenal innings and the 86 Sheets threw in the second half which were much better than the #3 type quallity assumed even with the faulty 3.80 ERA assumption. Yo's 200 innings most likely won't come close to the ridiculously good 253 innings performance by Sheets/CC so those innings will see a drop off and his numbers most likely won't match an average of the 53 and 86 inning performance which will average out to excellent pitching numbers and much better than #3 quality. EDIT: I just want to mention I am not trying to pick a fight with you Backup, I just vehemently disagree some of the posts I have seen that insinuate that the Brewers can lose two pitchers like CC and Sheets and replace that quality with Yo and some guy like Looper or another scrap heap reclemation by Melvin without seeing a serious decline in the rotation and rippling into the bullpen.

Parra was already in the rotation last year so I wouldn't count his production against the lost production of Sheets and Sabathia. So even with Yo at 175 innings the team still needs to come up with 178 innings of very good starting pitching. If you want Parra to account for 20 innings of that by going up to 186 innings fine but remember Parra wasn't very good during the second half of the year. If you want to call out Sheets performance for the post all star break where he pitched 75 innings with a 3.46 ERA and 1.21 WHIP, 50 K and 19BB effort I don't think you can ignore Parra's post ASB performance. Parra only threw 66 innings with a 5.32 ERA, 1.62 WHIP 69 K and 25 BB.

12-12, 3.95 ERA, 180 IP, 80 BB, 165 Ks, 1.40 WHIP

I was counting Torres as one of the better ones because of his role in closing out games and being a reliably decent to above average pitcher of which only Villy and Shouse were last year with Mota being close. Out of those guys Villy is the only one coming back. Riske may or may not be improved over last year but to just assume he will automatically be better because just because the Brewers need him to be may be overly optimistic. As far as Sheets and Sabathia being one great pitcher - - Sheets threw 198 innings for the Brewers and Sabathia threw 130, I wouldn't call 328 innings one pitcher. Gallardo threw 24 last year, maybe he hits 175 this year so he replaces 150 of the 328 thrown by Sheets/Sabathia. Odds are his numbers still aren't as good as the combined Sheets and Sabathia and still leaves 178 innings of elite pitching that is lost. They also threw 12 CG allowing an already mediocre bullpen to rest or not bring in an inferior pitcher at all. The combination of Torres/Mota/Shouse/Gagne threw 234.2 Innings last year with a 1.35 WHIP k/9 of 6.6 and BB/9 of 3.7 If I take Gagne's numbers out (just to make it three comparable pitchers to 3 comparable pitchers and Gagne's stat line for last year is probably a little better than Coffey's career line) the 3 headed monster of Torres/Mota/Shouse was 188.33 innings, 1.32 WHIP, 6.4 K/9 and 3.6 BB/9 sliding in Coffey/Julio/Stetter careers lines for those 188.33 innings yields 1.43 WHIP, 8.1 K/9 and 4.2 BB/9 So not too much worse, little better K rate due to Julio and Stetters high number in only 30 innings. A higher WHIP due to more BBs. Still have to replace Gagne's 46 innings of 1.47 WHIP, 7.4 K/9, and 4.3 BB/9 which seems pretty average for a reliever. As well as make up about 35 innings due to the 12 complete games of Sheets/Sabathia being gone. So I would say another solid reliever capable of 70-80 innings is needed that can put up a sub 1.30 WHIP, 7 K/9, and less than 3.5 BB/9 before I would call this bullpen improved and that is only an improvement off a pen that was smack dab in the middle of the league last year and the worst of any playoff team. Tim Dillard seems to be the only candidate at this point. His minor league career line of 1.25 WHIP, 6.1 K/9, and 2.2 BB/9 or his AAA numbers from last year as primarily a reliever of a 1.34 WHIP, 7.8 K/9, 4.4 BB/9 probably don't quite translate to the above line for improvement. So even with some improvement from Riske to offset his own performance and maybe eat some innings due to fewer 7-8 inning starts with the loss of Ben and CC the bullpen I expect the pen to be at best equal to last year's middling quality and most likely slightly worse.

Bradley fills the need of a LH bat (he is a switch hitter), he put a .940 OPS last year vs. RH pitching vs. DeRosa's approx. .840 vs. RH. Maybe Bradley regresses a little but if you believe that then there is no reason not to believe DeRosa won't either since he just had the best year of his career. The Cubs lost some flexibility but got a better bat. They lost Wood, but added Gregg who may be a little worse but in looking at his K's, WHIP, and BAA he isn't too bad maybe a few more walks. They have Harden for the full year now and Marquis is gone. The signing of Miles is just a back up player and hardly a make or break signing. So far the Brewers have lost their 3 best pitchers from a year ago. Including a guy in Sabathia who drug the team kicking and screaming across the finish line. The Brewers will have Gallardo for a full year. He is making his first full season of starts at the ML level coming off missing 90% of a season with an injury. The Brewers are still a minimum of 180-200 innings of ace starting pitching below last year's level. The Brewers have Coffey and Julio to replace Gagne and Mota, so probably a wash there. And... Nothing else, not even a back up infielder to replace Counsell. Making the Miles signing still better than anything the Brewers have done. What about Kapler, anything there? Or is Trot Nixon the answer? I just don't agree at all the Cubs moves have made them worse or that the gap between the Brewers Cubs has been narrowed one bit. At worst the Cubs have stayed the same if not improved while the Brewers have gotten worse.

The Brewer pen was mediocre last year and has lost one of 2 reliable relievers in Torres. They also lost some guys that fall into the throw against the wall and see what sticks mode in Gagne and Mota and have replaced them with more of the same. I see no improvement made to replace Torres' innings nor addressing the idea that even more bullpen innings will be needed due to the loss of the only 2 starters who have proven the ability to go deep into ballgames. So a mediocre pen loses one of the better relievers in the pen, will be relied on for more innings, and it is supposed to be improved?

Now we'll see them unload a bunch of spare parts and swag for Peavy and have 4 starters better than what the Brewers will trot out in their rotation.

The bullpen may not be complete garbage but it isn't much above that level and I don't believe it is near the level needed if anyone is still clining to the pipe dream of competing for the playoffs in 2009. The pen was dead center average last year and has lost its most reliable pitcher in Torres while adding no one. The loss of Mota may also hurt as he was pretty reliable in the second half and at least had the ability to get the timely K. Maybe Julio can offset Mota but other than that the pen will be below average as constructed, especially given the number of innings that will be needed given the craptastic starting rotation. Parra, Suppan, Mclung is going to lead to a lot a of 5 and 2/3rd innings starts.

Mario Kart for Wii is pretty fun, probably my favorite game to just pick up and play for half an hour when time is limted. My wife likes the steering wheel but I prefer to just use the nunchuk and controller. I saw plent of copies of Mario Kart at Best Buy both before and after Christmas. We got our months ago on Amazon when it was more hit or miss in Best Buy. I am pumped to hear people like Resident Evil 4. My wife bought it for me for Christmas. She wasn't sure if I would like it but it was only $20 so she thought maybe I'd like it. I haven't played any of the Resident Evil games since spending a few minutes on the first one in college on an original Playstation. She also got me Shaun White snowboarding, I haven't spent much time on it yet though. I think I have the 2K8 Baseball game, I bought during the summer when we first got the Wii but haven't even opened it. I think I bought it because it was a baseball game for $20. A co worker told me he hated it but I just haven't gotten around to it. My wife likes Mario Galaxy, think Super Mario Brothers for the Wii as a comparison.

But that it was drive people crazy about the Yankees... it doesn't matter if a guy truly "earns" is salary from them, they can afford to pay it and it doesn't cripple them. Giambi could be the worst signing of all time and it wouldn't have hampered their ability to sign Arod, Damon, Rivera, Jeter, etc. People still complain about the crippling effect of Hammonds on the Brewers or say we can't take the risk of a 3 year deal with Sheets because he might miss a year or something. The Yankees have sooo much more money than most teams in baseball that they really can't make a mistake because they can just buy their way out of it. People keep trying to point out wins per dollar and getting value out of players and using that as justification that the Yankees are failing but I just think that is completely wrong. They have so much more money that it doesn't matter what the incremental win costs them because they want it and have the resources to "overpay" for it because to them it isn't overpaying it is just money they have around the only other option for them is to put the money in the bank. But why do that when they can spend it on the best players available and still have more money left over than anyone else, still improve their brand image, have a good shot at the World Series, create more interest in their team, etc. Even overpaying they are probably still generating more dollars of profit than the Brewers and their likes. No amount of great managing will change it because their target market is so vastly bigger than Milwaukee's. Virtually guaranteeing a playoff spot year in and year out it very much worth it to them versus banking the money. I keep seeing the rationale of Colorado or Tampa as reason there is balance in baseball but these are one hit wonders who don't compete year in and year out. Colorado has already been dismantled, how long before Tampa is selling?

As whizkid stated, it is not the antenna but the tuner you need to worry about. Rabbit ears will continue to work if hooked to a digital tuner, I have pair hooked up to my plasma right now just so I can get the weather channel on 15-2 in Madison. If you are wondering about getting the HD channels over the air check out antennaweb.org for a lot of info on the subject and I know they used to have a system telling you what kinds of antennas will be necessary to pull in a signal based on how far you are from the local TV towers, i.e. rabbit ears, powered antenna, etc. They also give you the compass headings for the best line of sight for the signals. For instance, my rabbit ears in my house in Waunakee pick up all the HD or digital signals from Madison in one position except for Fox 47, I have to angle them differently to get 47 and then lose all the other channels. It does't bother me since I watch all the locals in HD over DirecTV but just have the rabbit ears for backup and the local weather.

I would check out Goodman's on State Street if you are in the Madison area. They have been around for ever and have a great reputation. They treated me and my wife great, working to design the wedding band around her engagement ring and did a great job setting the loose diamond I bought from them. They clean her rings and polish them up everytime we stop in while wandering on State Street. A few different girls I dated in college swore by Goodmans and I learned a rule from the daughter of a diamond wholesaler I used to date. He told me to look for the jewelry stores that are authorized Rolex dealers. He said Rolex has very high standards on who they deal with and if they have done the work on the store you can be sure they are pretty good jewelry store. I had one friend who bought his diamond from Bluenile.com and said it went pretty smooth. I know he bought at least an $8000-$10000 diamond and trusted the online store for it. I compared the cut and color and size for the one I bought at Goodmans vs. Bluenile and it was about 20% cheaper but I didn't really have buyers remorse since I liked going in and seeing the diamond in person under the microscope, picking out the setting and knowing I can stop in anytime and they take care of me. I would recommend spending more for the color and clarity than the size. Some guys go all out on getting a huge stone but then skimp on the quality of the diamond so it just doesn't sparkle or look good. It is just my opinion but those huge stones with bad color and clarity just look tacky like the buyer is trying to show off by going big but ends up making it look cheap and dull. Another tip with the color, if you go with yellow gold for the band it will make the diamond have a little more of a gold hue than say platinum or white gold. I ended up buying a yellow gold band but the color of the stone was very clear so I didn't have much affect from the yellow metal. Good luck.

The problem is most restaurants make their money on the alcohol sales so a place that just sells food and soda just isn't very profitable. Selling a soda is very profitable (over 90% gross margins) but rarely does anyone go out and drink 6 sodas with a meal or watching a game plus people expect free refills on soda so even if you drink 2 or 3 during the game most people will complain about paying $2 for each one. A guy with your issue might not complain but there are just too many people who would and not enough of a market for the dry atmosphere. As someone mentioned even Chuckie Cheese sells beer.