TheEndless7

I'm willing to bet that the team figured out who it was and pretty much said 'you'e gone if we see more of this.' They're not oblivious when things leak out. And are often very quiet in their handling of it.

I agree. I also think they should go look. Because at this point what do you lose?

And it's an era where young GMs are taking over that are looking more at the stat lines as well. I don't think you can reasonably claim collusion when, after being burned by so many bad contracts, teams are still (suppsoedly at least) offering things like 5/125 to JD Martinez who is 29 years old and has only paid more than 125 games once in his career. Even in Braun's 'injury riddled' years he played 135! Except for last year. I think it's just the era of the 8-10 year deal is gone.

Brewers still active. [sarcasm]Now we can afford a pitcher![/sarcasm] I wonder how much cash is actually exchanged in these situations... I always secretly hope it's like the Money Ball film and it's just really teams agreeing to pay for all the soda in the clubhouse of other teams.

I'd love to see a NHL team in Milwaukee. I also think the only way it ever happens is if I somehow wind up with a couple billion dollars and nothing better to do. On all the expansion and moving things that you see from the NHL, Milwaukee is rarely, if ever, even mentioned. They're going to try Seattle, Houston, and KC before they try Milwaukee. I think Milwaukee could support a competitive NHL team. I know I'd go. I don't know that it would support a mediocre to bad NHL team, especially with the Bucks and Brewers on the rise. There's only so much money to go around in the city. I'd love to see it, but I just don't see it happening unless there was an incredibly wealthy person who also would love to see it. I don't buy any of the 'Chicago would never let it happen' things. More Minnesota Wild games are shown Locally than Blackhawks games. I'm sure some of that is the whole Fox Sports vs NBC Sports things. But the Wild are on in Milwaukee pretty much every time there isn't a conflict with the Bucks. The Blackhawks are on only when they're a national game on NBC or NBCSN. Maybe Kenosha/Racine get some of the local WGN games, but I know I do not in Waukesha.

Saw I, Tonya and The Post recently. Thought I, Tonya was entertaining. I'm old enough to know the general backstory but not old enough to remember it happening. I found it amusing and entertaining. Was glad it doesn't try to turn Tonya Harding into a hero or anything. Thought The Post was almost unbearable. Meryl Streep seemed like she was just doing her Julia Child voice the entire time. Granted I know nothing of the Mrs. Graham in real life so maybe that's fitting. I just couldn't get Julie and Julia out of my head. And then there were all sorts of really odd script things that drove me batty that I felt could have and should have been easily edited out. For example, the film goes out of its way to tell you it takes place in 1971. Which is fine. But Tom Hanks's character yells, twice, that 'The government has been lying to us about the Vietnam war for thirty years!' The Vietnam War did not start in 1941. The movie also goes out of it's way to blame President Eisenhower for something it time stamps at 1951. Ike wasn't president in 1951. But if you're going to use that as the other given date you have, then at least have Tom Hanks yell twenty years twice to at least be in your own continuity. It also does absolutely nothing to explain why the audience should expect a study commissioned by Robert McNamara to be something Richard Nixon knows about. It even, late in it's running, points out that McNamara is closely associated with LBJ and not Nixon. And then blames Nixon for not knowing intimate details of a study done by McNamara. I understand how this should function in real life, but the movie literally SHOWS McNamara discussing the study, going in front of the media and lying about Vietnam, and then blames it on Nixon five years later after establishing that McNamara and Nixon are not close. Not trying to get political with it at all, that's just literally how it's presented in the movie. It's also a movie that is about the failure of the Vietnam war and references JFK a couple of times, and LBJ none at all. Yes, Eisenhower is referenced more in a movie about the Vietnam war than LBJ. And instead blames it all on Nixon. I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure American Involvement in Vietnam is typically dated 1961-1975 Which would be JFK/LBJ 1961-1968, Nixon 1969-72(3?), and Ford to 75. And the Movie takes place in 1971. So arguably two years of Nixon, seven years of Not-Nixon. Nixon's fault. And never points out that Nixon was withdrawing troops during this time. It's edited to make it seem like they're still sending thousands of troops in. And then there's a subplot about how the Post is going public because it doesn't make any money. Which is all fine and dandy. Except that we then get shots of Meryl Streep's Cartier watch, and elaborate parties she's throwing, and practical tours of her Washington mansion. Which is also all fine and dandy. I understand that someone shouldn't be expected to put all their own personal wealth into a business. But why keep reiterating the 'not making any money' bit. Why not just edit it to be about going public and the difficulties in there. They make it seem like the newspaper needs millions from investors to keep publishing, while showing the ritzy life the publisher/ceo is living where she hob nobs with Jack Kennedy and Robert McNamara, and the like. It's just a jarring tonal shift at times. There's an interesting movie to be had in The Post. But it should have focused on the changing dynamic of the Media and the Government, rather than just trying to vilify Nixon. Or pointed out that this 'cover up' dated back to at least LBJ and likely LBJ/JFK. This is a movie that is, ostensibly, about the Government hiding things from the People and it's narrative is literally Nixon is to blame for everything that happened in Vietnam. It doesn't even establish how or why Nixon would even have this study. The real life Pentagon Papers were finished shortly before his inauguration and the Nixon administration's excuse was pretty much, "we didn't read the 3000 page study about the failure in Vietnam because we were already going to pull troops out." and while that's a horrible excuse, it's better than anything this move posits. To it's credit, it does say 'The Government' but at those points, it only then goes on to name drop Nixon. To me it felt like saying 'Why didn't Bill Clinton tell us everything about Desert Storm?!' in a way. It then ends with a setup of the break in at the DNC. Which again makes it feel more like it's trying to setup an All The Presidents Men remake more than telling it's own story. It comes off as 'we must show Nixon is always evil to make this next movie' more than actually making an interesting movie about it's topic. I came out frustrated and wondering why we needed a Watergate prequel movie and not a Pentagon Papers movie.

If there's more than one music app associated with the account, the Echo won't always think to pull straight from Amazon music. Try saying 'hey Alexa, play Song from Prime Music" and it should figure it out. I think you can also set it to default in the alexa app but I can't remember.

Isn't that a given that they will unless Ted is fired before the draft? Under Thompson, they have traded out of the 1st round twice in thirteen drafts. 2005- Arod 2006- Hawk 2007- Harrell (I went irate) 2008- Yes 2009- Raji 2010- Bulaga 2011- Sherrod 2012- Perry 2013- Jones 2014- Clinton-Dix 2015- Randall 2016- Clark 2017- Yes And adding to that in 2009 they traded back up INTO the first round to draft Matthews as well. While Ted does love to trade picks, his trading out of the first round is grossly overstated.

I watched "The Man Who Invented Christmas" last weekend. Wouldn't say it's my favorite but it was certainly an enjoyable Christmas movie about Charles Dickens writing "A Christmas Carol" but I'm a sucker for that book so

Miami loss really doesn't mean much, either way the ACC is getting no more than 1 team in, they were never going to take a 1 loss non-champ Hurricane team over undefeated B10 champ Wisconsin. Rest easy, we win today and vs. OSU we'll be in. You say that now. But just wait until Auburn beats Bama and then wins the SEC Title and the four teams wind up being Auburn, Alabama, Clemson and Oklahoma while WI sits there at 5 wondering what the heck happened.

No...why did he swear? I heard him say something like "Jimmy Nelson has pitched a hell of a game". It seemed awkward enough to catch my attention but not enough to do much more than that. I figured that they're probably slightly delayed and if it was considered a swear it would have been edited.

Seeing Fernando Alonso drive a McLaren branded Indycar around the Indianapolis Motor Speedway is certainly not bugging me at all!

Alex Ovechin said he was going to play regardless. I wonder if enough players just said "screw it we're playing regardless" would the NHL owners kinda of have to take a break? I believe the Caps owner said he'd back any of his players who wanted to leave for the olympics. It will be more interesting to see what they do if it involves missing two weeks or so of the season, which could amount to 5-6 games, while teams are fighting for playoff spots. Does an owner of a team who's somewhere in the mix for 6-8 in the conference where 4 points from two wins could mean missing the playoffs react differently than, say, this years caps who you could literally take out 10 of their wins and they'd still be like the 5 seed in the conference?

I would have to say that Martellus Bennett is definitely on their radar right now.

This is pretty much my personal view on the matter. I don't care enough about it to fight it or anything if the Brewers were to do that. But logically, they never played for the Milwaukee Brewers. They were never part of this franchise. The point about Aaron is interesting because it makes me wonder if, in five years, we'll be having 'Trevor Hoffman' night. I doubt it. The situations obviously aren't the same as Aaron played in Milwaukee but for a different franchise, but similar in their impact specifically on the Milwaukee Brewers. Arguably, Trevor Hoffman had more of an impact on the field for the Milwaukee Brewers than Hank Aaron. As for people not knowing who Eddie Matthews is. Shrug. The man hasn't played baseball in half a century. There's nothing that says you have to know players who played ball fifty years ago to be a fan. I know there are areas of the park that talk about the Braves, and I think that's fine.

I wonder if there is anything MLB wise that says players totally affiliated with an entire organization cannot have numbers required by another team? I mean sure there's the 42 thing but could MLB have perhaps said 'Spahn and Matthews never played for your franchise in any way, shape or form, thus you cannot retire their number'. The importance to the city is great and all, but I think most people would find it absurd if the Mets tried to retire Babe Ruth's number, or the Angels tried to retire Sandy Koufax's number. Personally I would have no issue with Spahn or Matthews having their numbers retired. But there is a valid point to be made that they were never Milwaukee Brewers.

I dunno how true that is. I don't disagree that Milwaukee, without someone with a whole lot of money just going 'hey I'm buying X land, building an arena, and buying a team on my dime' will ever have an NHL Team. But I'm not sure how much Chicago cares about a 'Milwaukee Market' in terms of NHL. There are more Minnesota Wild games broadcast in Milwaukee on local TV than Chicago Blackhawk games. I'm sure this has something to do with the Fox Sports vs. Comcast Sports deal. But even the games that are on WGN in Chicago do not get broadcast on WGN in Milwaukee. Of course that might have to do with WGN Milwaukee vs WGN Chicago. Still, the fact that the only time the Blackhawks are on TV in Milwaukee is when it's the NBC/NBCSN/NHLTV game as opposed to say, the Wild, who are on pretty much every time they play on FSWisconsin assuming the Bucks aren't playing at the same time. I don't know that you can realistically say the the Blackhawks have any control over 'Market area' in Milwaukee. Of course we are talking about a franchise that didn't broadcast all their own home games until about a decade ago.

I agree with Roco that Overwatch is one of the best PS games I've ever played. Especially if you're into shooters where it's not just about shooting. The MOBA/teamwork tactical aspect of it and different heroes with different abilities makes for a lot of very unique games. It is the best when played with a group of friends on your team though, as communication is the key to success. My PSN ID is TheEndless7 if anyone ever wants to add me. PSNow and PSVUe are two different things. I've used both. PSVUE is a cable TV alternative with a bunch of non local channels. It seems decent. But I have nothing to compare it to. It's completely different from the FIRETV box I have, although I can stream PSVUE through the Firetv. I honestly use it mostly because it was the cheapest way I could get the racing and hockey channels I wanted with little extra. Right now for like 55$/month you can get like 100 channels INCLUDING HBO, showtime,and the NFL network. And there are various packages below that. The user interface is not very good and a pain to navigate. But the video quality has always been good. While you do get the local fox sports affiliate, you do not get any local channels. ((Although it does give you ABC/NBC/FOX on demand)) SO you need an internal dish for things like the Packers. PSNOW is a streaming video game service that offers around 150ish PS3 titles to stream on your PS4. It works pretty well, but if your connection isn't strong it's prone to skip and lag a bit. Usually nothing that pausing the game and waiting a few moments wont fix. It does have some great titles on it like Red Dead Redemption and all the Borderlands game and I think every Telltale game. It's a bit pricey for what you get. Buying it for a month here or there to beat a couple of the games that come on monthly may be worth it. The library has been expanding more in the last few months than it seems like it did all of last year. So I'm hoping they add in even more. I'd like to see PS1 and PS2 games added to but i have no idea how feasible that is. Steam is just essentially a digital retailer of video games. You can log into their store and buy games to download and play. You can also set up friend lists and see what friends are playing and if, say, they're in a game of Battlefield you'll have the option to join them. They do offer a lot of great sales here and there but it tends to mostly be on older stuff.

The drivers basically have to stay on the track if they can still drive due to contractual stipulations with the sponsors of the race car. That's mostly more a NASCAR thing of late. In most cases in Indy the car will retire, unless it's in a points battle and can gain something from putting in a few more laps. ((IE a few years ago Power crashed at I think Fontana, they repaired the car, and he did like 12 laps, because that put him at more laps than another retired car, adn gave him 2 more points in the championship, it's the difference between all positions scoring poitns and just the top ten like F1)) But the 500 is special, and with how the purse is split like a NASCAR one, Lazier staying on the track putting in laps put him ahead of cars that crashed much later, and ended up in a bigger pay day for Lazier. I do think he retired after it became clear that he couldn't gain any more positions, but I could be wrong. In Indycar they have a 'Leaders Circle' thing at the end of the year where purse money is distributed to the top 20ish in the points, I forget the exact number, so if you're in a position where running a few more laps with a less than stellar car can get you a bigger payday at the end of the year, they try to put in the laps.

To Samurai Bucky: Formula 1 does not race on any oval track. For a long time the F1 Championship INCLUDED the Indy 500, but that phased out during the 1960s. They only race on natural terrain road courses or temperary street circuits. Last weekends Monaco GP is their superbowl, taking place on the streets of Monaco. Other notable events include the Belgian Grand Prix at Spa, widely considered one of the best road courses in the world, the Italian Grand Prix at Monza, the Canadian Grand Prix at Circuit Gilles Villeneuve in Montreal, The Japanese Grand Prix at Suzuka, and the US GP in Austin. F1 is a more 'World Sport' as they race all over the world, taking 2-3 weeks often between races, hitting a variety of countries, but always on a 'road' course. One of my personal favorite events (and I'm in the minority) is the Singapore Grand Prix in Marina Bay, where they race on a temporary street circuit at night. Open Wheel cars do not have headlights, so they bring in hundreds of bulbs to light the track to the point that it's clear as day to planes and what not overhead. It's a unique event on a challenging track. At BillScott: Monaco is often the most boring race on the F1 Calendar. The cars have evolved past the track limits, and they're left with not beign able to do much other than follow the leader. It's too narrow for them to effectively really race. This years was one of the most entertaining Monaco's in recent years. I thought Hamilton should have been forced to cede the position to Riccardio after he went off, and then cut back onto the racing line. The rule is pretty clear that when you're 'off' you do not get the racing line. He had the faster car though, which became clear after VSC's, and probably would have gotten him out of the tunnel one one of the laps. Heck, had he just drag-raced him to the next corner he'd have probably passed him back then. But I found that to be a horrible non call. If the situation were reversed Hamilton would have driven straight into Riccardo and whined afterwords about how the guy going off has to give up the right away. Hamilton does stuff like that constantly, and it's infuriating. People tend to forget how dangerous racing is (Both series had driver deaths last year, Indycar on track, F1 as a result of an accident a year earlier) and the rules exist for a reason. Doing something where the outcome is 'guy who has the line either has to hit me, or stop' is not good racing. It's dirty. Riccardio wasn't furious at his teams botched stop (which was hilarious) or the fact that Lewis jumped A VSC that no one seemed to notice (gained a 3 second gap under the last safety car), but the fact that nothing happened to Lewis, after he LOST the lead, for giving him the option so 'wreck or cede'. That's a NASCAR mentality that will ruin the sport. There was a report a few months back that indicated only Mercedes and Ferrari turned a profit as F1 teams. They can't afford reckless actions destroying 4.5 million dollar machines. As for the indy 500, I'm also in the minority that I hate the current package. They can't actually race, it just becomes a back and forth from the tow between 1-2 and the rest of the field stacks up behind. It's a NASCAR esque pack racing, which tends to be rather dangerous in open wheel racing as it leads to wheel on wheel contact, which leads to cars going airborne, which leads to cars in catch fencing, which leads to Dan Wheldon. Their current package provides much better road course racing than it does oval racing. Although Iowa, being so short, tends to be interesting. But it certainly doesn't feel like 'real' racing. When they're just trading spots every few laps based on how well the draft worked and they have no real way to defend. They hype 'SIXTY LEAD CHANGES!' but they're all just the guy getting out of hte way, knowing that he'll pass back in a lap. It becomes anti-climatic. Nitpikcy, Rossi was never 33rd, no matter what he'd like you to think. He was never, at any point, behind Buddy Lazier, who was four laps down before he even took to the track. But this hasn't been uncommon lately purely because the package forces them together. There's so little difference between the cars that unless there's a problem, lapping becomes rare. Detroit has had some good racing the past few years. And you get double the fix as they run a full race on Saturday and another full race on Sunday as their last 'double header' it's usually a good weekend. I can't wait to see them at Road America.

On a side note, Formula 1 has actually had a string of interesting movies come out lately too. "Rush" is a look into the 1976 title fight between Niki Lauda and James Hunt, staring Daniel Bruhl and Chris Hemsworth as Lauda and Hunt, and, while dramatized at points (although not the ones involving Lauda's wreck in Germany) is really a well made movie. "1" is a documentary narrated by Michael Fassbender about the history and development of Safety features in Formula 1. It features a good amount of time with Mario Andretti and really chronicles the history of the sport with a focus on when it no longer became okay for driver to die in a racecar. A lot of modern race fans forget how deadly the sport was for a very long time. and "Senna" is a biopic about Ayrton Senna, his rise, and his rivarly with Alain Prost. It's perhaps too critical of Prost at points, but also a great look into the sport.

I'm looking forward to the return to Road America myself. I lost my rooting interest in racing when Dan Wheldon died a few years back. Since then; I haven't really picked a team or driver to follow and just enjoy the racing. Although I was pulling for Hinch to put it on the pole at Indy. One thing to note is how bad the ABC Broadcast team is compared to the NBC/NBCSN team. It's literally like they're not paying any attention at times. Often large shakeups will happen on track at Indycar events on ABC that they won't even mention. And even after years of the same crew, they still pronounce driver names incorrectly. And not even hard ones, ones like Rahal. I had to laugh during Q's yesterday when each of Hinch's first three qualifying laps were faster than the average time he needed for pole, and Cheever insists he needs to go even faster to get on pole. Simple math is hard I guess! But long-story short, don't judge Indycar on the ABC broadcast, it's honestly like they have no idea how to present a race. Often there's all sorts of passing, intrigue, strategy and what not that they just don't bother showing or talking about that one then has to read about the next day.

I've preferred Indycar to Formula 1 of late, but watch pretty much all forms of Motorsport. Never been a big Hamilton fan, think he has a tendency to play bumper cars and isn't the same caliber of the likes of Alonso or Vettel; but he is certainly on more social media and around more than any other F1 driver. Kinda hoping Rosberg pulls it out this year. A week from Sunday is always a good day for racing, as it's both the Monaco Grand Prix and the Indy 500. The racing in Indycar the last few years, especially on the road courses, has been phenomenal, well, excluding Simon Paganaud running away with the last three; but that was still super impressive even if it didn't make for the best TV.

The scenario in question was that how, by the definition of the rule, if you throw an 8 IP complete game and do not allow a hit and lose, it is not a no hitter, because the rule was changed to require 9 innings. The scenario that got questioned then was essentially: what if it goes extras and the deciding run is not the result of any hits. The counter examples first proposed were examples where there were a hit in extra, not where the team won but did not get a hit. So if an 8 IP no-no loss is not considered a no no, what if the same thing happens but in the 10th rather than in the first 9.

No it needs to be a complete game with no hits or there is no no-hitter. You can have combined no-hitters, but the opposing team cannot get any hits ever in the game for it to count as a no-hitter. The Babe Ruth/Ernie Shore game is a decent example of this. Ruth walked the first batter, was ejected for arguing balls and strikes. Ernie Shore came in, the runner was caught stealing, and Shore faced the minimum 26 the rest of the way. Shore was the pitcher when all 27 outs were recorded with no one reaching base, but he is not credited with a perfect game. Ruth and Shore are credited with a combined no-hitter only. In the above situation, though, would the losing pitcher not get credit for a complete game? IE didn't Capuano pitch an 8 IP complete game years ago? I understand that a no hitter must be 9 innings, but again, if he's pitched 9, and then falls apart and we'll say walks the bases loaded and walks in a run in the 10th, he's met the 9 inning criteria of the rule, as the rule does say 'at least 9 innings'. So he would have: 1. Pitched 9 innings. 2. Faced every batter that was in the game and recorded every out or decision or whatever you'd like to call it in the game. And 3: Not allowed a hit. I don't see anything in the rule that states that getting a no hitter requires 'winning' the game. In my mind that does meet all of MLBs criteria. You can even expand it, say it's a visiting pitcher and he gets two outs in the eleventh before walked the bases loaded and in a run. Does pitching 10.2 innings not get you a complete game if no other out is recorded? Is 10.2 1 ER 0 h 4BB not a 'complete game'? I don't see how that, given the context of 'at least nine innings' wouldn't be a no hitter despite the loss. I mean it is perfectly possible to throw a no hitter and lose as a home pitcher. Is it not considered a no hitter if you're at home and you give up a run (unearned, walks, whatever) but still go 9 and lose?