HiAndTight

Yes, at least in the last 30 years. The MeToo movement was more about women getting harrassed or in the worst examples pressured or forced into awful situations because men there were men in power who abused that power. Gross, disgusting, despicable men. You're conflating Roger Ailes pressuring women into sexual acts to the detriment of their career, or Matt Lauer and his creepy button that locked the door, or Harvy who would do unspeakable things to young actresses or Bill Cosby who drugged them. You've conflated THAT issue with this Cephus issue in which the women said they were raped when there doesn't appear to be any evidence of that. One of the main points of the movement wasn't that women weren't believed, it was that they simply weren't coming forward because many of the people were so powerful. Or because it may adversely impact their job. That's very different than an accusation of rape by someone who is their peer. You're saying you don't understand where I'm going here, I guess I don't understand where you're going here either. You keep saying, "as a society, we need to listen to these women and not just dismiss it." Were we doing this? When? Maybe in the 60's and 70's, but not in my lifetime. Women who accused someone or Rape were listened to. The issue was it was under-reported and again, much of that was due to the pressure. But I don't know when women were just dismissed as you're suggesting. Maybe you're older than I am. Maybe you have different experiences. But even if both are true, how are we not listening to women? This very case shows that maybe it's actually swung too far and we're listening to and blindly believing ever accusation. As I said, accusations by women should be taken seriously(ie, investigated, looked into) but not blindly believed(arresting someone and charging them with no evidence as appears to be the case here). I don't believe that's an outlandish argument. And finally, when I said Women need to be responsible as well. I was referring to the Anziz Asari incident. If a woman isn't comfortable, she needs to say no. By her own account in that incident, he did not assault her, yet it nearly ended his career and it did cost him millions of dollars. When did this become a crazy position? Taken seriously, not blindly believed. Shouldn't that be the baseline for everyone?

It'd make no sense for the Reds or Mets to claim him. But, it'd also make no sense for either team to go out and get the best starting pitchers on the market(before Greinke was traded) either. But at least in that case, they're under team control for next year as well.

So you literally think there is not any logic to him going to a new school after being accused of raping two students at the one he's currently at because "he knows the offense," and "these are his teammates?" That seems really naive. Knowing the offense is the most illegitimate point I've heard. It's almost laughable. I'd imagine he feels a bit betrayed by the school. And I guarantee you there are a lot of people who believe he's still guilty. Maybe he'll be back, I hope he will. I'm just struggling to understand how someone can think it makes absolutely no sense for him to get a fresh start at another school. I can't imagine a scenario where he'd want to be in this state. If I was him, I'd be long gone. I see he's applying for reinstatement, but it sounds like a necessary step to clean his record...and he'll transfer shortly after. That's exactly it. This goes SO far beyond simply "knowing the offense." If you're 100 pct innocent or you believe yourself to be, your team and your school just hung you out to dry. Nobody had your back and you went to trial. And you've established yourself enough in my opinion anyway, that you should be able to transfer to a good school. Maybe not Georgia, but some school closer to home and get a fresh start. But if he does want to come back, best of luck to him.

You've said this a couple of times now. We as a society DO listen to these women. In the world I live in, we've listened to them my whole life. I don't believe anyone would or has ever suggested we don't listen to them. What's the phrase? Women should be taken seriously, NOT blindly believed. I don't know why this would be different than any other aspect of the law. Men have to be responsible for how they act, but so do women. If they don't want to engage in any activities, they need to say no. Some of these stories now are about how a certain man didn't "read her" correctly. The Aziz Ansari situation. Ashleigh Banfield, one of the most respected reporters, came out and talked about how much that hurt the me too movement and how irresponsible it was. I know a lot of women believe it's sexual assault if you're both completely coherent and you don't get verbal consent. So something can feel natural and organic and consensual, but if you don't actually hear, "yes, you may," or whatever, it's an assault because they feel afraid of what you'll do if they say stop. The MeToo movement put a lot of really despicable people behind bars(or at least stripped them of their public life and the respect of their peers, but like everything, whenever the pendulum swings back the right way, because of all the sickening stories you hear, it swings back a little too far and you hear stories, where someone had a bad date and the minute you said no, the guy stopped and even in your own re-telling, was perfectly polite to you(Ansari) and now his career is almost ruined. So obviously Women should be taken seriously. I don't think I've ever heard anyone say they shouldn't be. But they shouldn't just be blindly believed.

So you literally think there is not any logic to him going to a new school after being accused of raping two students at the one he's currently at because "he knows the offense," and "these are his teammates?" That seems really naive. Knowing the offense is the most illegitimate point I've heard. It's almost laughable. I'd imagine he feels a bit betrayed by the school. And I guarantee you there are a lot of people who believe he's still guilty. Maybe he'll be back, I hope he will. I'm just struggling to understand how someone can think it makes absolutely no sense for him to get a fresh start at another school.

Out of college and even through his first year, I thought he was going to be a solid lineman. Man, that ended poorly. I was still holding out SOME hope that he'd figure it out this year. I can't fault the Packers for taking an athletic tackle in the 2nd round, but it really sucks to look back and see Deion Jones picked just a couple spots behind him. He would look GREAT in this defense. Not much of a run stuffer, you'd want to play him with a bigger, more physical LB'er, but great in coverage. Anyway, apparently, the Packers backup tackles have looked pretty good. So...hopefully Bulaga stays healthy. If we can keep both of our tackles healthy this year, our offense should be in really good shape. But the drop off from those two is so huge, we're gonna need to keep Mercedes Lewis on this roster just in case.

Kind of ironic that over the offseason these were the guys mentioned the most as getting cut (or wanting to get cut). I thought Kumerow was the golden boy. I haven't seen many calling for him to be cut. I wouldn't really "call" for anyone to be cut, but I'm pretty skeptical about J'mon Moore's future at WR'er given his terrible hands. As for Davis being hurt or King for that matter, I kinda take injury's with a grain of salt at this time of the year. Anyone who's got any minor twinge in a hammy or quad is gonna be on the sideline and getting treatment. Also, has Davis been that injured or has he just been that ineffective that while he may have been knicked up, he wasn't important enough to play with a minor injury? With guys like him on the periphery, it can be hard to tell if they're not playing due to injury or just ineffective play. With King, it's obviously been injury. With Davis, I don't know. I do know Davis looked really good in the family night scrimmage. He went up and attacked the ball, going over a couple of Corners to do so. My guess right now, assuming guys are healthy enough, is that we go into the season with Adams/Allison/MVS as our starting 3, Kumerow, St. Brown and Davis filling out the depth chart and then. They're saying a "stinger." That's usually nothing.

I really doubt they'd do that. They're really no need to. He's extremely athletic and has all the physical tools to play CB. I'd say being a Corner is akin to be a starting pitcher. You only get moved to safety(or the pen) if you can't hack it at your current position. Given that Brown's a guy who can run a sub 4.4 40, isn't real physical and has been getting work with the 1st unit, I doubt they'd want to play him at safety. There's also the fact that despite scoring a 31 on the Wonderlic, he apparently doesn't pick up schemes very quickly. That comes from him, so I'm not picking on him and I wouldn't know. He likely would have been drafted if not for the stupid failed drug tests(of which there were at least 3) and the on-field mental errors which he dealt with both at 'Bama and last year. But he's working with Tramon, he seems like he's maturing and he has a ton of natural ability. I don't think there's any question you're right about his ball-hawking ability and how explosive he is though. They apparently really like Savage, Amos, Greene and if they were to move someone to safety or play them in both places, I'd think Josh Jackson would be a more likely candidate. He's far more physical, he lacks the ideal speed to play outside. And then obviously Tramon could play FS as he did last year. One of the benefits of having Amos out there is that you know you can put him at Free or Strong safety and he's going to know where to be. You absolutely have to have that player who can get the secondary in position. I'd probably put turnovers atop the list. Remember in the early 2000's when we had Ed Donatell as our DC before he was the scapegoat for the infamous 4th and 26 Freddie Mitchell play, our team was always among the league leaders in forced turnovers. We had some talent on defense, but not a lot. He just played a real bend, don't break style of defense and it resulted in us giving up a ton of yards but then getting a ton of turnovers. The fact that we had the best running back(arguably) in franchise history and an elite OL really nullified Favre's proclivity to turn the ball over. But whatever order you want to put them in, it's hard to argue. If you're holding guys to 3 points every time down, you're going to lose to a Rodgers led team. If you're forcing turnovers, same. If you're getting off the field on 3rd downs, same. The ONLY real area the Packers have been good at in recent years is the short-yardage run defense. They've been able to stack teams up in short-yardage situations, but they've been unable to create turnovers, get pressure and they sure haven't been able to get off the field on 3rd down. I think it's really as simple as Bulaga. If he's healthy, or relatively healthy, the Packers have a stacked OL. If he's not, there are question marks. We keep hearing about some of their tackles, how good Light has looked and how he's probably earned a spot. de Beer looks like he could be a capable tackle. I think Adam Pankey is going to be a long time starter in this league and I think he can play all over the place. And then of course you have Billy Turner who they signed, presumably in part because he's a backup tackle. But as things stand now a starting OL of Bakh, Bulaga, Linsley and then two of Jenkins, Turner, Taylor, McCray, Madison, whoever wins the two jobs at guard, that should be as good of an all-around OL as we've had since we had Clifton, Tauscher, and company. It's deep, they MUST believe Jenkins is going to be an immediate starter and he should be if you pick him as high as they did, so that'd leave one spot left for a lot of talented guys. And while Pankey and McCray may not have looked great last year, remember how bad Lang looked at times early on? Same with Sitton? The majority of the fan bases wanted both of them gone. Well, as fans who really pay close attention, it's a yearly thing, but I think you're right, this year they're likely to have to cut some guys who are certainly going to make other teams 54 man rosters. I just listed the depth at guard we've got. I don't know if we've got any studs in there, but I think we'll cut a few who can at least be serviceable in the NFL. OLB'er...I know this uncommon in the NFL and more a baseball thing, but should we maybe consider trading Fackrell? His 10.5 sacks last year was soo incredibly lucky based on his pressures and QB hits, but a long, athletic OLB who is young may bring back a decent draft pick and I honestly don't think he's as good as either of the two FA's we brought in named Smith, Gary. I like Gilbert better and then we have a couple of young guys who look impressive. But this year is definitely going to be different with so many draft picks and free agent signings. I think we could potentially see some pretty surprising cuts/trades. Lane Taylor as I've mentioned, I think he's a good guard, struggled a bit last year, but hard to imagine the gap is real big between he and Patrick or any of the other options. WR'er, St. Brown looks like he's been bumped down the depth chart quite a bit. I'll bet we see at least 4-5 guys we cut end up on another teams 54 man this year if not more.

Of course, you can. If there's ANY position you can actually put any stock in their performance in a scrimmage, it's your front 7 and your OL. I don't care if they get a sack or not(sacks are actually really overrated stats). But when you see Montravius Adams beat a guy like Lane Taylor as badly and as quickly as he did, why wouldn't you be able to put stock in that? And they're definitely not just practicing footwork the first 3 seconds of a play. Hell, 3 seconds IS the play. But I'm talking about the team portions, the two-minute portions. Of course, they're playing competitively there. The run blocking is obviously pointless and tells you nothing, but the pass blocking? Yeah, they're going full speed there. And the guys who are injured like Bulaga weren't out there. So yes, that would be the one area I think you can actually get a look at and actually gauge how effective the guys are.

I think this is procedural only in that it allows him to get the expulsion removed from his record or something to that effect. Not 100% on that. He could still go back to UW but I don't think this is necessarily evidence of what he wants to do. That would certainly make sense. You don't want to have an expulsion on your record and have to explain that. It's just inherently going to bias future employers. "So why were you expelled from college?" "Well, I was accused of rape......" and that's all they'll hear in most cases.

Maybe that's it. You look at his playoff stats and I'm sure others were like me and focused on last years stats and thought he could be a really clutch player for us, but he's been bad now in 3 of 4 playoff runs. But maybe he just wanted to play at home, and given that he's making close to what he'd be making in the NBA, maybe that was good enough for him. I'd bet we see him again in the NBA and he probably has something in his contract about being able to leave to go back to the NBA at some point. But perhaps he has a sick family member or his fiance/wife wanted to live in Spain. I love Milwaukee, but Barcelona is a bit nicer place to live than Milwaukee or the Suburbs of Milwaukee. Especially if you're wealthy. Either way, he clearly wanted to go back home since he didn't even sit around and listen to all the offers(presumably since he signed rather quickly). So he was likely never an option at any reasonable price.

I don't think there's much room in Middleton's game to improve. His shot selection is pretty much baked in with Bud wanting him to take more 3's, so he becomes more of a catch and shoot type guy when Giannis is driving. His defense is good and always has been, but he doesn't have great athleticism, so I can't see him really getting a great deal better there. I don't watch how often he gets a body on someone on a miss, perhaps there's room there. But he's a guy who's just pretty good at everything and not great at anything. The only area I can really see him improving would be his shot..and then it's pretty much going to be his 3 point shooting just given the system. If he can go back to knocking down 40 pct of his 3's and just continue to be the player he's been, I think that's probably a best-case scenario with him. He's one of the few guys on the team who doesn't have many ceilings left. And that's why it kinda sucked that he got paid so much, but I didn't really see an alternative. It's just an imperfect situation and we were forced due to where Giannis is in his career to pay him a ton or else some other team was going to do it. It's like Kemba in Charolette. Really nice player, but not worth paying if he's your best player as your upside is but so high. If you have another superstar(or even a few potential superstars as the Celtics now have in Tatum and Brown) then it makes sense. It's obvious with the Bender signings and demand picks back for Brogdon that while Horst is focused primarily on this year, he's also exploring other avenues in which he may be able to acquire a player who will become that legitimate #2 option behind Giannis. I know everyone's just worried about a single title...and that's kinda the first step, but if you get Giannis for 10-15 years, you need to win multiple titles. You need to find a way to surround him with another elite player.

Really shocking he'd want to come back to Madison. But good luck to him getting back into school and back on the field. Without actually knowing what happened, I've gotta respect the jurors and their 30 minutes of deliberation. He could really help the team on the field this year. Still, a fresh start seems like it'd have to be better.

I mean, tell the jury to disregard the comment all you want but they all heard it. Also in that article from where that quote is pulled from is the ADA just going rapid fire against him basically trying to confuse him into providing an answer that would help his case to the point where the judge had to tell him to slow down with the questions. Like I said, I have no idea if he's guilty or not guilty but the ADA played the case about as wrong as you possibly could just based on the quotes in the story. I don't have a big problem with how the prosecutor handled that. Their job is to try and make the defendant sound like he's lying, to make him sound cold, heartless. I just find some of it silly. Did he care about the women? I'm sorry, but is it a crime to have "relations" with women you don't care about as in have real feelings for? Isn't that a pretty big part of the Madison night life? Of being a college student? Of just life in general? How naive does he think people are? I don't think to ask if he's got millions riding on being found not guilty is that bad...but it doesn't seem pertinent. Who cares if he does? I feel very badly for all the women who are the victims of sexual assault who never file reports. I feel probable just as badly for men who are the victims of false accusations as that's a scarlet letter that's going to follow you around. And honestly, as stupid as I once thought it was, maybe those "letters of consent," should be used. I know there are a lot of young women who believe that a man needs to ask for consent before anything transpires and at every single step. Rape on campus is already obviously a huge problem. So too are false accusations. You try and send someone to jail because you didn't get a call or you realize it was simply a one-night thing. Both should be punishable. Of course, if you do that, you don't get women recanting and someone like Brian Banks is still in jail. I guess as a UW alum, I'm happy we don't just ignore these issues like some other schools have done, like FSU did with Winston, but I'm too ignorant about this particular case to know if he forced himself or not.

The bar for breaking the honor code and for finding someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is so vastly different, the UW Chancellor could very easily refuse his petition...that'd likely lead to some lawsuits, that would likely drag on and on. This wasn't a Brian Banks type situation where they have conclusively decided he did nothing wrong. Even if he didn't, you can't ignore today's climate. There will be people who absolutely believe he did. So the best thing would probably be for him to transfer to another school and finish out his career and then let NFL teams decide how and if this impacts his potential future. My guess is that it'll be tough for a team that views him as a 4th or 5th round talent to draft him with this in his background. It's a sad story either way. If he's actually guilty, something horrible happened. If he's actually innocent(different than being found not guilty obviously) then he's the victim.

Ok, I was going from the time they moved him to the pen until now(89.1). Naturally, his fastball ticked up a bit in the pen. But guys generally don't lose nearly 3 MPH in velocity between 27 and 29. Especially guys who are just starting out in their career. Either way, he's not throwing as hard and he's struggled and now the D-backs are cutting a cheap pitcher as they're starting a rebuilding phase. That's troubling. It's not like the Yankees or Astros doing it, a team that has very pressing 25 man and 40 man concerns, but a team that just traded their ace, MVP, among others, since the end of last year.

I don't understand how a young, seemingly uninjured pitcher with great stuff goes from being great to downright horrible. Really discouraging. The Brewers just can't catch a break with pitcher development. Woody was great this year, but seriously, come on. I have seen very few things as baffling as this. I don't buy that guys can see the ball so much better out of his hand or any of that. But I think you almost have to just let him sit for a couple weeks right now, send him home even. Then bring him back and work with him. But running him out there and letting him get lit up is only going to further destroy him mentally. Way too talented to be getting such terrible results.

Ok, as little as we can see in practice, you have to be almost giddy about Gary thus far. I'm just amazed at the way he moves. He moves like Roquan Smith does, except he can also move through you. I hope he's demanding(rightfully) to be the highest-paid OLB'er in 4-5 years time!

I watched that Family night scrimmage and while you can only take some bits as pieces from that as anything useful, all night I thought it was Za'Darius Smith who was just dominating matchup's. I assumed he was 91 and Preston Smith was 55. Turns out it was flipped, so I didn't notice Za'Darius Smith, but man, Preston Smith looked outstanding. He lined up over Lane Taylor and absolutely blew by him. He lined up over Bakhtiari and walked him back...and was basically just a wrecking ball. We've all heard about what Za'Darius Smith is doing in practice. As for that other time, Taylor was beaten BADLY, Adams came over the line and did a beautiful rip and just blew right past him. One of those pass rushes that just destroys a play. Heck, even if it was a handoff, that was going nowhere. I really am starting to doubt Taylor makes this teams final roster. Like I said in another thread, the dropoff to...Jenkins or Turner or McCray is just not worth the difference in salary. Rashan Gary...everything I've seen from him so far, most of which came on Family night, though I did catch a practice because I happened to be up in the area, but he looks so fluid and explosive. It's not hard to picture him playing a 5 technique in rushing situations, but man, I could also see him being able to drop off and cover the flats or a hook zone. He just moves so much better than I thought he'd be able to laterally. Again, just compared to the other guys. Tony Brown-Absolutely looks good, but all their DB's did. King looked good. Offensively- Kumerow looked really good. I did not realize he was 6'4. I remember when he was at Whitewater a friend of mine was raving about the QB and the WR looking like they could be NFL players, naturally I thought he was exaggerating. Obviously, he was not. Trevor Davis looks like he's taken a big step. Oh, and my guy, my breakout star for this year or next, Robert Tonyan looks like he could be a real weapon. So far the pass rush looks relentless. I'm a little disappointed we're not seeing or hearing more about St. Brown, but it sounds like Adams, MVS, Allison, Kumerow and Davis are pretty well locked in at WR'er. The DB's, it's hard to really see what you have when you're trying to not go to the ground or take someone else to the ground, so you're not really coming in there and ripping at the ball when they catch it. The perfect example of this was a catch on a deep post with King lined at RCB and Rodgers hit someone(I thought it was MVS, but not positive) for a perfect throw and he went up and made a really nice catch in the air, but King was right on him. Who knows if he breaks that up in the game, but he was in a great position. I just read about King's hammy. I really hope it's just a training camp thing. They said they don't believe it's an issue, so I won't worry about it until it becomes something more. But this guy has to get on the field this year for 14 games and find a way to stay healthy. It was why I was hoping they'd bring Breeland back. You need some depth when you're counting on a guy who's been injured his first two years and a guy who's undersized to be your starting corners. All in all, the defense looks like they're really looking great thus far, small sample size though it may be, Tony Brown, Montravius Adams, Raven Green, and even Hollman and Summers looked pretty active. Though the latter I would assume is a special teamers at best for the Packers this year. This team just kinda feels like that team in 2005 or 2006 that Favre called the most talented Packers team he played on. We had a bunch of really talented rookies/2nd year players like Collings, Jennings, Hawk and then some other players who weren't quite core players, but guys like Jarrett Bush who were extremely important in building a complete team. Now this team didn't draft guys like Finley, Collins, Jennins that we know of, but they sure went out and spent a lot of money to get some really productive and probably more importantly, reliable pass rushers. It's just fun to see a team coming together from what little we can see after they ACTUALLY went out and addressed the big areas of concern that even conservative Packer fans like me have called for. I was fine with them just keeping their own guys when they were hitting on draft picks and Rodgers was in his 20's, started to get frustrated when those Pro-Bowl hits became above-average starter picks and then just bad picks and we weren't doing anything about it. Finally, it's gonna be interesting to see if Crosby holds onto the Kicker job. I have a hard time believing that they're going to let him go this year, but Ficken has a MONSTER leg. Thought I was watching Justin Tucker out there or Greg Z-whatever. Greg the leg. Hit that 63 yarder with about 10 yards to spare.

Mike Daniels was their second-best defensive linemen. So of course it was about the money and I cant' stand it when guys who leave the Packers get bashed by the fans like this. They have no use for him? Of course they did. Haven't you said several times if he was making 600K he'd still be here? I may have the wrong person, but it's obviously true. If Mike Daniels were cheaper, he's still be here. It absolutely comes down to the money. And that's fine. That's a totally acceptable reason to get rid of a guy in the NFL. But I don't see it as a reason for fans to try and make some peripheral argument while he's leaving that you don't really need him anyway, he wasn't really useful. He's been arguably their best defensive player the last 4-5 years as Matthews has dealt with injuries and saw his play decline. And that article that you keep referencing...first of all, it's written by Silverstein, but beyond that, you're talking about 3 edge rushers...and one late round DL who may or may not ever make an impact on this team, but who's smaller than Daniels. Not nearly as physical. But you really believe because Keke is an inch or so taller than Daniels, that's why-or rather a bit part of the reason they let him go? You did the same thing with Cobb. Maybe it's because the expectations you had for him after the big breakout year or because he was overpaid, I don't know. I do know when a guy is here, fans look at their players with a bias towards them and then they leave, they look at them with a bias against them oftentimes. Randall Cobb hasn't had 1,000 yards? So what? He hasn't had 700 yards? Who cares. People were all over Adam Humphries who's a couple of years younger and signed for nearly 10 million per year with almost 20 in guarantees. Humphries has one year over 700 yards and none at 1,000 yards. Cole Beasley at 30 years old got 4/29 with 15 guaranteed. He's never had 1,000 yards, 1 year over 700 yards. Crowder got 3/27 with 19 guaranteed. John Brown, another guy older than Cobb got 3/27 with about 12 guaranteed. So this is my issue with this. It's the way we take guys who played for the team, who played hard and played well and we tear them down, listing what they didn't do, how much better they are than their reputation, etc...and we call for the Packers to sign guys who are demonstrably worse or at the very least worse deals than the former Packer signed for. Just seems needlessly and pointlessly disrespectful. Mike Daniels wouldn't still be here if he were an inch taller and was listed at 6'2. That would make zero difference. He's gone because he was set to make 8 million next year. The other 15 teams that called immediately upon hearing that he got cut didn't care about that and I guarantee the Packers don't care that a guy is just under 6'0 as opposed to 6'2. It's strictly a subjective equation factoring in age, value and future value. The Packers decided they weren't losing enough going from Daniels to Lowry/Adams and company to justify 8 million dollars. The Lions decided that adding Daniels was worth that 8 million dollars. That's it. Height is a particularly useless tool on the defensive line. Not at LB'er, CB, Safety, MOST other positions, it's important. But you're picking the one it's really not important at as evidence of superstars all around the league and saying he doesn't fit a prototype. If they are using this prototype, it's really awfully stupid.

Godley seems like the perfect pitcher for a team that's building to pick up. Under team control for several more years, had a breakout year, then a pretty solid year(at least based on FIP). I'd be all for signing him, but I wouldn't be real confident that he'd be able to help us out much this year. He's had a big drop in velocity and that usually points to some type of issue with his arm. Guys don't just lose 3-4 MPH in their primes. Still, worth the risk, but as you pointed out, likely too many teams who'd be interested in him as someone they could use for now and then hopefully flip in the near future. I'd feel more confident if we had a certain pitching coach, but that Horse has been beaten and is getting pretty ripe...

No....no it would not. It would NOT cost Hiura+ anything for Syndergaard, certainly not Burnes+Peralta+Keston.

Hypothetically, the Astros want to keep Bauer out of the Yankees hands and go all-in on a World Series with Cole set to be a FA and they offer you Whitely or Tucker as a centerpiece and then put a couple of other pieces in the trade...that'd be tough for the Indians to pass on I'd think. Especially for a guy everyone pretty much knows will be gone this off-season if not at the deadline. I'd think the Indians would be looking to add a couple of pieces, but there's a whole lot of smoke there.

Even if he's not up until Sept(though I agree, it's been a really long sustained run now) this is one of the best stories of the season for the Brewers. The way he, Turang and then obviously Hiura have come along as young players is exciting. He was an interesting prospect before this Bondsian outburst because of his ability to get on base. The enormous change in his stance and swing, it seems like the only thing it's done is to make him more aggressive in the strike zone while maintaining his plate discipline.

To your first point, yes. I remember watching Woody take Kershaw deep! But seriously, your point is taken, pitchers are usually awful hitters. Anyway, I agree with your post. What's unquestionably silly is having two different sets of rules. That's...absurd in Major League Sports. Either add the DH to the NL or eliminate it from the AL.