JoeHova

Is there any point at which you consider cutting your high-priced closer? I should make it clear that I'm not advocating cutting Gagne or anything like that. It's just that my wife and I were discussing this last night during the game- do you ever totally give up on a high-priced reliever? Or do you put your faith in sample sizes and regression to the mean? Gagne was the impetus for the discussion (you have to love a game where a guy blows a save but his ERA goes down a run and a half), but neither of us want him cut or demoted, we both see no reason he can't at least be as effective as Todd Jones. This is purely hypothetical. Jeffrey Hammonds was cut at the beginning of June after hitting .158 in 10 games, but a reliever is maybe a bit different than a hitter in that signs of permanent decline may be less obvious (also, Hammonds was never any good anyway). A pitcher might still throw in the 90s whereas a player's bat might be noticeably slow. The Brewers have shown patience with relievers in the past, but they are trying to contend this year so there would be more risk in sticking with an underperforming guy than there was in the past. As for the original question, I'm aware that there would always be variables like contract length, age, and possible alternatives, but I'm just looking for a general opinion. I'm thinking that cutting a guy may be appropriate in some instances, like if a guy was becoming a problem in the locker room because of how bad he was pitching or if he wouldn't willingly step aside from the closer role. I would think that a demotion to mop-up for a stretch would generally be a good move before cutting someone, just to see if they could get it back together (Texas did this with Cordero before the Brewers got him). However, that's the problem with judging relievers. They just don't throw enough innings to be able to make a great month to month (or even year to year) assessment of their effectiveness. To conclude, I think if a team thinks they have a better alternative, they shouldn't keep trotting out a terrible guy just because he makes a lot of money. The hard part is deciding whether someone is legitimately terrible or just having a bad stretch.

If he's doing that well, I don't think you change anything. Not because it will affect the players much, but because the rationale for putting Kendall 9th was to get more guys on base in front of the big guys. If they then move him because he's doing what the plan calls for him to do, you have to question the whole thought process, imo.

Agreed. Also, I would look into a therapist of some sort as well.

Wow, credit companies have to take some responsibility. If some guy has $100,000 in debt, you would think they would say "well, why don't we hold off on loaning you that next $60,000 until you put a dent in that 100 Gs you owe us". Also, I was wondering when panhandling would get online.

I dunno. I got Wii at launch and had a lot of fun with it for awhile. I bought a bunch of virtual console games and stuff. I don't think I've played Wii for months now though. I've got a bunch of games that I have that I've never even unwrapped, including Mario Galaxy and Metroid Prime 3. I haven't purchased a virtual console game in almost a year. It seems like the criticisms of the Wii lacking staying power may be accurate. I just haven't got absorbed by it like I have with systems in the past. The one recent exception was Guitar Hero III, which I wholeheartedly recommend, but I haven't played that in months either. All that said, it's still worth being excited about when you first get it. Wii Sports is tremendous and Madden is more fun for the Wii than it is for other systems, at least imo.

Yeah, this has always been a funny story. It's a shame David Wells came out with a pathetic facsimile of the story when he claimed to be hungover during his perfect game.

I'm sorry to hear that man. As someone whose parents have a, let's say, "rocky" relationship, I can empathize. The thing I try to keep in mind is that people generally try to do what's best for them. If your parents think that now is the time to split up, maybe they're right and some good could come of it. Maybe they'll both be happier. Anyway, good luck to you and your parents and I hope you find a good home for your dog.

Arrggh, flashback to last season, I thought that said Brewers at first glance and I almost had a stroke.

yeah, there was a great article about that myspace suicide in the New Yorker. As for this story, when are people going to learn to not videotape themselves committing felonies? It's just galling that people are so stupid. (Not that I'm in favor of committing felonies, but if you're gonna do it, don't be such an idiot about it.)

everything. I guess I'm kinda lazy, there's no chore that I enjoy doing.

Oh, ok. I didn't know you got much of a discount. When I had Timberwolves season tickets for a few years, the discount was never very much. OTOH, playoff priority has never been much of a carrot in Milwaukee. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

When does he have to be up? Don't they still have a couple years? It will be interesting to see how long they leave him at 3rd.

I'm aware of that quote. I still feel it's his business.

Bruce Springsteen came out with a live album a couple months ago. It's pretty good, arguably better than the studio album the songs were pulled from. R.E.M. just came out with a new live record, though I haven't heard it yet. Also, it depends what you mean by new. Joy Division just released some live stuff from the vaults. Dylan's Bootleg Series 7 came out relatively recently. A new Johnny Cash live album came out last year. Richard Thompson did a double album of live covers a couple years back and just came out with a new live album. Wilco and The Melvins each released a live album in 2005. My Morning Jacket put out an excellent live double album in 2006. Daft Punk just dropped one last year. Neko Case did too. Marc Broussard put out a live EP last year. The White Stripes did the same in 05. The Harry Smith Project Revisited came out in 2006, which featured guys like Lou Reed, Nick Cave, and Richard Thompson. There were a couple good benefits in support of Hurricane Katrina victims as well. Widespread Panic has come out with 4 or 5 live albums over the past 5 or 6 years. The Who came out with one in 2006. Steve Earle did the same in 2005. Dave Matthews (my wife is the one who likes him, not me) came out with one in 2007. Matisyahu (got it as a present) came out with one in 2005. Rhonda Vincent & The Rage came out with one in 2006. The Cedar Cultural Center here in Minneapolis put out a sweet live compilation in 2006 featuring people like Ali Farke Toure, Gillian Welch, Loudon Wainwright III, and Doc Watson. The Counting Crows came out with one in 2006. The Mars Volta did the year before. A mash-up (they didn't call it that, but that's what it is) of a live Ray Charles show and the Count Basie Orchestra came out in 2006. That's just off the top of my head. I'm sure there are many more. And that's not even counting the hundreds of live classical and Jazz albums that come out annually. I used to be of the school of thought that live albums sucked or were, at best, unnecessary. I always loved the Velvet Underground's live stuff (Live 1969 & Max's Kansas City), but other than that, I never liked live albums. I always thought studio versions were superior. That all changed when I saw "The Last Waltz", about The Band's farewell concert. Neil Young's version of "Helpless" in that movie is twice as good as it is on "Deja Vu" (and it's pretty good there too). It really opened my eyes. Since then, I've been a devotee of live records. You have to be willing to overlook some flaws in a live record. For example, "Live At Max's Kansas City" was recorded on a home tape recorder that a friend of the band brought to the bar. Because of that, the sound quality on that album is piss-poor and you can hear people ordering drinks and stuff. However, it's still a great album because of the music. Also, alorrigan, your point about different versions is well-taken. However, I don't think that is necessarily necessary to make a live album great. Check out any of the live Ramones albums. The songs are generally almost identical to the studio versions (maybe faster and wilder), but that doesn't detract from the albums. Sometimes a band just gets into a groove and the result is worth hearing. Judging live albums can be nebulous, because much of what makes one good or great is something almost intangible. It's soul or feeling or whatever you want to call it. Also, I think part of the reason for the seeming decline in live albums is that many songs are difficult to recreate on stage. I saw Andrew Bird live a few months back and he sounds like garbage live because he has to use a bunch of backing tracks to recreate his songs. I think he would be better off rearranging his songs rather than doing that, but most of the audience was loving it, so whatever. Hip-hop songs are almost impossible to make sound good live (imo), because few artists use bands, and the ones that do, are not talented (The Roots, I'm looking at you). The shows can be fun to be at, but because of the necessity of backing tracks, it's not really possible for an artist to stretch out on a song like a band can. That makes the albums generally superfluous and of dubious relevance. Some guys have the kind of stage presence that can pull off a live album (DMX, for example), but even groups like OutKast and the Wu-Tang Clan aren't great live. So, with the rise of hip-hop, I think a corresponding decline in the release of live albums makes sense. That doesn't mean some people aren't coming out with excellent live albums though.

Maybe, but litter is litter. Apple cores and banana peels may biodegrade, but they don't look attractive and are disgusting to find in your front yard (I used to live across the street from a high school). I don't think you're on safe footing here.

I hope nobody does that, it would be the epitome of classlessness. Why should we try to interfere with his personal life?

wait, how is it a privilege? I don't get season plans because I never know when I'll be in Milwaukee far enough in advance, but unless you are getting a huge discount, I don't see how getting what you pay for is a "privilege". If you want tix for (for example) games 4, 15, and 27, you can always ask them for what is open and buy the seats you want. Why would it be different for a 20 game pack or whatever (barring the unlikely possibility that they get 45,000 full season ticket holders, of course)?

pretty sure that's illegal. I think it's not just the litter itself, but the danger of moving cars being hit by flying debris that makes the fines so high. $500, I believe. Then again, that may be the fine for any littering. Either way, good luck trying to talk your way out of that fine if a cop sees you.

wow, this sucks. It's not that Williams will be a bad coach, but I thought Marquette had a lot going for it. Guess I was wrong.

this is more how I felt too. I couldn't watch it. Part of that may have been because Linney & Giamatti are two of my least favorite actors (although I did like Giamatti's dad). also, to not even mention Tom Paine? What's that about?

The thing to remember about High Fidelity is that, despite being based on a book by Nick Hornby, it stars John Cusack, thus everything in it is to be disregarded.

I wonder if Russ has ever gotten any offers from the Japanese league? If Tuffy Rhodes can be the home run king there, Russ seems like he would be a good fit. He could make a lot more in Japan than he can in AAA. Of course, maybe NPB is no bigger a fan of the three true outcomes than MLB.

This is what I'm hoping as well, but somehow I doubt it is what will happen. They seem inexplicably high on McClung.

you should feel lucky. We Extra Innings people don't get the game at all because of some stupid game on Fox.

A lot of alums and fans already care a lot, Marquette is top 20 nationally in attendance.