danzig6767

Um. What? Take it down a notch would you. Hockey is a much more blue collar sport than basketball. You don't see a bunch of pretty boys flashing their fancy clothes and cars and jewelry in hockey like you do in basketball. And Milwaukee is definitely a blue collar city, wouldn't you agree? Who on the Bucks does what you imply here? Plus, the NFL has plenty of players who does what you said, nobody cares in Wisconsin or elsewhere. And what exactly makes the NHL blue collar, for whatever that even means and compared to basketball? The NHL is full of millionaires just as the NBA is. Wanna bet lots of those rich hockey players also have multiple very expensive cars and dress well, but maybe with a different sense of style? Most guys love cars and if wealthy will spend lots on them. If though some rich black athletes like spending lots of cash on jewelry and rich hockey players spend their cash on other type of toys, why should that even matter? Rich males tend to like to blowing cash on frivolous stuff. Additionally look at the cities where NBA players want to play. LA. Chicago. NY. South Beach.....er Miami. How many players actually want to play in Milwaukee? Sure some feel this way, but the Packers also had the same problem when they sucked for a long time. They start winning though under Favre and company, suddenly players want to stay and free agents sign with Green Bay. Giannis just signed an extension and Parker likely will also. If the Bucks front office ever gets competent and thus can surround those two with better talent, the team will win, regardless if other superstars won't sign here. Hell, you listed NY, LA, and Chicago. The Knicks have been trying to lure a superstar for a long time, but the stars keep passing because the franchise doesn't win. The Lakers lately can't get one to come either. Stars aren't lining up to sign with Chicago. Bigger cities and nice climates have some advantage, but only if stars think they can win big there and there are only a limited number of true stars anyways and the Bucks already have a young one locked into an extension. Win and supporting talent will sign here to play with Giannis. Plus as I said even with this enormous PR campaign and young and up and coming team and new arena......even with all that attendance at Bucks games sucks. Win consistently for awhile with regular playoff games and attendance will be better. The Bradley Center was rocking that year the Bucks made the ECF. They've mostly sucked since. Put an NHL team here and have them be bad for most of nearly two decades as the Bucks have, you wouldn't be able to give away tickets for free.

Yes he will sit often vs lefties unless he hits them early on. That's precisely where Perez will get many of his at bats unless an injury on the infield forces Perez into a starting role elsewhere. Arcia and Villar are going to play pretty much everyday assuming good health. Same for Thames. Counsell isn't going to have Perez locked to the bench and thirdbase is his best position. So unless Shaw hits lefties so well that it forces Counsell to play him everyday, i see it ending up being a soft to strict platoon at third.

Yea i'm excited to see how the lineup and defense ends up performing. Both have the chance at least to be better than many expect. It's the pitching though where things could be pretty ugly, especially the rotation. The bullpen is much harder to guess on because from year to year some guys do better or worse than you'd expect for many teams who lack proven arms in the pen.

Because hockey players are white and most NBA players black? I'm a somewhat big hockey fan. Have followed Badgers hockey strongly since i was a kid and BTW, glad to see things are turning around since Barry finally canned Eaves. Only casually follow the NHL until the playoffs where i watch a lot. As for an NHL team being able to draw well in Milwaukee, i'm very skeptical. We have no hockey history here besides the Admirals and few attend those games. The hockey season takes place at the same time as the NBA, so both the Bucks and an NHL team would be fighting for the same limited entertainment dollars. That would hurt both teams. NBA teams can survive easier with lackluster attendance simply because the TV revenues are ridiculous. Hockey teams need to draw and i think an NHL team in Milwaukee would only fill an arena if the team was really good.

My daughter is into bluegrass a lot and got me to try it. Some i think is flat out horrible, but one band she really likes and i think is pretty good is The Devil Makes Three. We are going to see them in Madison on the 19th. Check them out if you want.

When it comes to concerts today compared to the past, there is a sizable difference which i've noticed. When i was younger, there were a collection of say roughly 20-30 big rock groups who sold a ton of albums/CD's and their fans would go see them in large arena shows, at stadiums, or large outdoor venues like Alpine Valley. Now for many young people, they listen to an array of different artists, but don't buy CD's, meaning these bands don't get huge like in the past. So they can't put on shows in large venues. My kid is in her early 20's and sees lots of bands live, but most aren't super well known so they play in small venues. For example, a few months ago we went together with a few other people to see this band we both liked called Kaleo play at Turner Hall downtown. It holds maybe 500-600 people. I've seen two other bands play there. Been to quite a few shows at the Pabst Theater. She goes often to The Rave/Eagles Club to see bands, but rarely to ones in large venues. Sure there are still some current pop/rock/rap groups who can and do play bigger venues. Look though when say Summerfest rolls around, many of the bigger stages are full of bands from the 70's/80's/90's where the fans of those bands are vast and went to big concerts. For so many current bands today, they tend to have smaller, but loyal followings because their fans may also have 150 or more groups/solo artists in playlists and often only a few songs by each. Even for me, i now listen to a much more diverse amount of music than in my younger days, but a lot of the new music i find and like is say only 2-3-4 songs by this or that new artist i come across vs buying and listening to full albums/CD's in the past. Someone will send me a link to try this new group or song and i'll like it, but i only add a song or two from them to my listening list.

That term hipster for music today gets thrown around to loosely. Music today just gets delivered so much differently than the past. When i was in my early teens and really started getting into music, for myself and friends, new music out came via a few radio stations and then we'd buy the album/cassette and later CD's. I still remember being 12 and getting my first album, Dio's Holy Diver. We'd request songs on the radio. Now everything is so different. My kid is in her early 20's and she like most her age get much of their new music via a variety of different ways online. They rarely buy CD's. New music is spread word of mouth online. Younger people today also tend to have more diverse tastes than in the past. That's where i also find so much of the new music i like. It's incredible. Instead of being force fed what only a few stations play, there are so many different avenues outside of radio to experience any genre of music. It's dramatically expanded my musical horizons, while i also still can enjoy music from my youth. Many musicians don't make as much money though because young folks don't buy records or CD's.

Or when you're talking about a popular show and someone goes "I'm watching (insert totally obscure show that is only known by the actors and their parents) on Netflix. It's so much better than anything on TV." Yes, most mainstream things are watered down for the masses but your underground, hipster, indie show is probably just as crappy and you only like it because it's not popular. Don't buy this at all. I'm in my 40's so i'm old enough to remember TV when there were only 4-5 channels and network TV ruled the day. All i can say is thank god those days are over because most of the shows on network TV simply aren't as good as ones on cable or sites like Netflix/Amazon Prime. Has nothing to do with so called underground or hipster attitudes. It's just a reality. Pretty much anyone i know among my friends/family/coworkers roughly in my age group who do watch cable, HBO, Netflix, etc, nearly all of them also much prefer shows via those platforms over what's on network TV besides maybe some exceptions. For example, i just finished watching Narcos on Netflix and Westworld last month on HBO. Both were fabulously made, but just couldn't have been done on network TV. Neither could Breaking Bad, which IMO was right near the best drama series ever made.

The development degree on their young players will be huge in determining this, especially on the pitching side. Stearns has traded for a lot of young talent, but prospects can be fickle. Some highly rated prospects not only become really good big league players, some do so quickly. Some end up being busts. Some lesser ranked prospects become better than higher ranked ones. There are also guys like Arcia, Santana, and Broxton on the big league roster already. Just how good either of them become over the next few years is far from a given either way. Same for how Villar plays going forward after a breakout season. Stearns is also a very active GM. Moves he makes over the next 2-3 years will have a big impact. Through some combination of skill and/or luck he needs to hit on undervalued pitching. Look at Theo in Chicago. For as much as their young players get a ton of deserved hype, Theo never could have envisioned Arrieta or Hendricks being as good as they were for Chicago when he traded for each of them. A variety of factors impact the length of a rebuild which can often be unpredictable. What i like about Stearns is that he seems like a talent miner. Always looking to add talent via any avenue possible, thus hoping that it can help cover for when some simply don't pan out as you'd have liked.

Bucks desperately need to find a way to shed the contract of either Henson or Plumlee, preferably Henson. I can't deal with watching Henson play anymore. That guy is so damn soft. Game after game he gets bullied away from defensive rebounds. Plumlee sucks also, but for now at least, i'd like to see him get Henson's minutes. Plumlee has zero skills on offense besides dunking, but he isn't soft as hell and will fight for rebounds instead of getting pushed around like that toothpick Henson does.

Yea, if Braun isn't traded, i think the offense will be decent. I'm also fairly confident that Stearns will put together a respectable bullpen. The rotation though could easily end up being among the worst in all of MLB.

Joey Votto is still owed 180 million dollars and he's 33 years old. Granted, he's a fabulous hitter and his on base skills should keep him good for awhile, but it's only a matter of just when not if that contract becomes ugly.

I was also going to mention that luck needs to be factored into smart overall team building. Take the Cubs for example. Theo in general did a fabulous job building up the Cubs, but even he would admit that when he acquired say Arrieta and Hendricks, he wasn't envisioning either becoming CY Young caliber starting pitchers, much less both of them. Yet both did. So Stearns simply needs to keep trying to add younger talent in every avenue possible and then hope a couple of those players hit big, along with multiple others becoming solid to above average players. The league is full of upper tier and next tier players who weren't top 5 picks. Also players who didn't become really good until they were picked up or acquired by another team for a variety of reasons. Look at playoff darling Andrew Miller. He was a 6th overall bust and nearly out of baseball until Boston switched him to the bullpen in year six of his career. Jose Bautista and Encarnacion for Toronto were cast off by their original teams and then they stole Donaldson. Building a quality organization overall and big league roster takes more skill than luck, but catching a few breaks with a player or two/three vastly exceeding your expectations sure does help. Just keep mining for talent.

Contenders aren't looking at stats like WAR though when trading for relief pitchers who may only throw 50-65 innings. They instead are planning on making the playoffs and once there, they have been watching teams often advance as much on the backs of a dominant bullpen as an elite rotation. It's a different game today, especially in the playoffs where upper tier bullpen arms can pitch nearly every game because of days off and not needed to worry anymore about a long 162 game schedule. So if it's say game 1-5 or 1-7 of a playoff series and their team holds a small lead, the GM's of these contenders aren't sitting around thinking well i am only getting X amount of WAR from each of my main relievers, they simply want the guys to each get three outs without any runs scoring. And don't want t be one of those teams who get bounced because their bullpen blows a late lead or two in a playoff series. Everyday position players during a long regular season generally will have an easier chance to produce a higher stat like WAR than a reliever throwing say just 55 innings, but that isn't why these type up relievers are acquired. They are acquired mainly just to protects close leads or tie games and eat sunflower seeds in the bullpen for non-close games.

It's not only that. As a starter his velocity was more in the 92 range while as a reliever only having to pitch one inning, he can let loose. There is a sizable difference when a guy throws 96 instead to go with his quality off speed stuff. Hitters now lose that extra split second in trying to determine whether say a high 96mph fastball is coming or a curve. Like i mentioned, a guy like Wade Davis is another example. He could let loose only having to pitch one inning and had the arm to throw 95-97, to to along with his secondary pitches. Clearly, command was another issue for Thornburg last year, as is for any pitcher. Stuff only becomes dominant when mixed with command and Tyler had both. He needs to repeat that going forward, but some pitchers for a variety of reasons just are better suited for the bullpen than as a starter. And thrive as a result. Given the steep rise in importance of bullpens over the last 6-7-8 years, teams need to be less shy about converting struggling starters with stuff into relievers. No question that high end starters are still the most coveted and needed, but for guys with stuff who can't seem to get past being mediocre as a starter, switching them to relief pitcher makes more sense in today's baseball.

There are also two other factors 1. Thornburg was being shuffled between starting and relief pitching. Last year he was allowed to stick with just being a reliever and he mentioned this helping him a lot. 2. The eye test. With him being just a relief pitcher, his velocity was regularly in the mid-90's. He has a quality change and curve. Thornburg has three plus pitches that when commanded are filthy. We've seen this out of many failed starters who have quality stuff that when allowed to just pitch out of the bullpen, they go from fringe starter to elite reliever. The Cubs just traded for one in Wade Davis. A guy with stuff, but who struggled to stick as a starter for whatever reason. When moved to the bullpen though, he thrived. Many of the best relievers have followed this path.

Supposedly his velocity was down and that for all of the hype about Gioloto, he wasn't dominating minor league hitters as was expected, so they wanted to cash him in before his prospect ranking declined. In fact i read that most Washington fans were more bummed to lose Reynaldo Lopez than Gioloto. Fangraphs had an interesting article about Gioloto the day before this trade went down. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/why-the-nationals-would-trade-lucas-giolito/

This is also about the playoffs where Boston expects to be. Watch the playoffs the last 6-7 years or so. Bullpens are having as much importance as starting rotations and teams have taken notice. Just having a reliable closer is no longer enough in the eyes of contenders. They want at least 2-3 shutdown arms in their pen as is becoming the norm of many teams who advance in those playoffs so managers have flexibility at holding leads from the 6th inning on. That's why good relievers in general are in such demand, not just closers. Teams are finally realizing that leads can be lost in the 6th-8th innings as much as the 9th. Getting out of that jam in the 7th inning can decide more on who wins a key playoff game than a closer coming in with nobody on in the 9th.

I think this is a great trade for Boston. Get an elite starter on a cheap contract for three years. Moncada is a top prospect, but does strikeout quite a bit and while Kopech has a special arm, he's only thrown 130 minor league innings and for now at least, walks a lot of hitters. Boston prints money. Plus, that 31 million is easily saved by how little Sale is being paid.

FWIW, i decided to see what Red Sox fans thought of this trade on a popular Sox forum. About 90 percent either liked it or loved it and thought they got Thornburg on the cheap.

I pretty much agree with this. There's risk in holding on to Thornburg and him getting hurt/not being productive but I'd take that risk. I'd put it this way. If i was a Boston fan, i'd like this trade. Sure Dubon could potentially become quality starting caliber, but he isn't the type of prospect where as a Sox fan i'd think damn, i really wish he wasn't included in this trade. Pennington is like so many A ball hard throwers who need to learn command and polish of secondary pitches. It's a long climb to the majors for those types and many more end up failing to make it than who do. Maybe for the Brewers we catch a break and Pennington becomes one of those who make it, but he's the exact type of pitcher contenders often throw into trades, knowing the odds are against regretting doing so.

That's a big key for me. I'd be bothered if the team had a firstbase prospect knocking at the door, but the farm system is pretty barren at that position, especially at the higher levels.

Not sure I buy that logic. $16M is $16M. It's not like if we don't spend that $16M we lose it. Mark A can save it and spend it some other year. The twins are in the same position payroll wise that we are. Why don't you ask a twin fan if the $9M they spent on Park was a good investment. Clearly, what will define if this signing is deemed a success or failure is if Thames hits more like Jung Ho Kang instead of Park. Neither you or i at this point know what will end up being the case. The Pirates made a better evaluation on Kang than the Twins did with Park. Hyun Soo Kim had a solid year for Baltimore. We'll find out how Sterns and his front office did in their evaluation of Thames. It's not like there are zero success stories of players transitioning from Korea to the major leagues and instead Park is the only example to view a player coming from Korea.

That's the rub with signings like this for players from say Japan or Korea. Scouting matters. We'll see if the Brewers scouting of Thames was correct and he can be a productive MLB hitter. None of us know whether that will happen. It sure will be interesting to see how Thames does. Given the Brewers payroll flexibility with so many lower pay players on the team now and likely going forward, i'm perfectly fine with Stearns rolling the dice on 3yr/15 million. It's not a payroll killer if he doesn't produce as Stearns and company hoped for.

And Arizona has to hope that Walker can be closer to his minor league hype than the mediocre pitcher he's been so far in the majors.