tmwiese55

I essentially agree with Plush's sentiment a few posts back. Think he's spot on. I think they should hold Nottingham as it's inevitable catchers get hurt. Plus, as Pina's price goes up in coming years if Nottingham does well that's a few mil they can save. I agree it will be rare to use the extra spot on Cs outside of rare circumstances. I suppose you could say if we play Narvaez at 1B a lot that would qualify as a rare circumstance though. But in general teams, especially NL ones are going to want the flexible guys and better hitters. Or another P if they're allowed, can't recall if they ever finalized the P limit and all that.

Yaa gotta love people who knowingly and willing root for the smallest market team who you know can't sign big FAs and have to operate frugally, then complain about it. You know going in that you're the underdog and at a huge disadvantage. Might as well accept the reality or just be a Sox, Yanks, Cubs or Dodgers fan.

Yea to me I think it's fairly simple in that the chances of that pick even making the big leagues is very small. Sure, it's a numbers game so you can't just give them all away but when you have this Yelich window and our financial limitations to buy players, plus a weak system overall, this is a tool we can use to help the team right now.

Thanks for whoever pointed out the trade kicker on Seager, yea that changes things for sure. If that's all we gave up for Narvaez then of course there is no need to also take on a bad contract. Seems like a steal to me. With these D issues it wouldn't surprise me if he plays a chunk of games at 1B as well here and there. [sarcasm]Another seemingly great value move by our lazy idiotic GM haha[/sarcasm]. Still have all the money available to do something at 3B/1B.

With how desperate they are for a 1B/3B I could see it making sense to take on Seager in order to not have to give back our already thin level of prospects. It's a gamble but at this point he's at 2/37 left on his deal. Sure even if he plays well he's overpaid, but you have to get someone and you're doing it to save prospects and you're balancing it by not having to pay much for C the next few years. Surprised it's taking this long to come out on what the cost is, going to be interesting.

I'd agree with many that think Dallas seems like the most likely fit in terms of level and contract. But, when someone posted that big list earlier today it got me to thinking Bumgarner might not get anywhere near the deal his 'name' would command and actually end up in the same reasonably priced 3-4 year deal we're thinking on Dallas. I know many here hate him and I fully realize he's nowhere near what he was, but if the cost isn't near what we fear I'd be OK with it. I wanna say he's originally from the NC mountainy type area initially. If not for what ATL just spent they could've made sense for him. Cinncy probably isn't too far either to match him up with our old boy, obviously Cincy seems to be all in.

I'd agree there. Quick look at this prospect doesn't seem like he is super high ranked. Found an article from last spring that didn't have him in Angels top 30 prospects. Seems that could've been a worthwhile buy low risk/reward to me. Get him to the NL and away from the NY/Bos for 1/5 of this games. ETA: Turns out there was multiple prospects, not just one. So that changes things

I'd be OK with this guy being added. But if you'd have told me 3 months ago we'd be talking 80+ mil I'd have been really surprised. So far on what the market is showing (wait, COLLUSION?!!?) though I see how that could happen. But man I'd like to think he could be had for something more reasonable than that. Don't wanna get caught overvaluing one hot streak. While not good on D anywhere his flexibility I think fits well here and would allow for a multi year deal. You're primarily 1B this year. But, if Braun is hurt and our best fill in is a 1B then he can play RF. Then when Braun is done he could shift to OF if all we can get is a 1B. Or if say Ray or someone else pans out then he can stay at 1B. Can maybe survive for a DL stint of someone else playing at 3B some times. Then throw in possible DH down the line. I'd hope he's at least someone they're talking to

And with the rules tweaks our September tricks/magic seem to be a lot more difficult going forward to cover for a blah pitching staff.

When you lose 1/3 of the starters on your team there is going to be doubt as to the credibility and competitiveness of the future of your beloved team. I get it we are a small market team but the fans have supported this team through attendance and apparel etc as if it was one of the Largest markets in baseball. I agree with the OP. You're not wrong in that we should expect the team to try again for next year. But the initial point was to give the GM benefit of the doubt that he is going to do something and he's proven himself good/competent that he'll put something together. Or at least is going to make the best effort he can given our situation. If this was a proven incompetent FO yea I'd get the worry/pessimism more, like say it was still 2006 type Brewers or the current management of IDK the Mariners. But as of now, I think we sit back and hope/trust he's going to do something and they'll be competitive again next year. That said, I'm sitting here thinking IDK what they're going to do at 3b/1B all the while also needing to address pitching. It's not gonna be easy.

Duh, yea there you go. Someone like Spangenberg. All I could think of was Saladino but wanted someone better, forgot about Spangenberg

I'd assume if that worked out that we'd pencil in Lowrie as the everyday 3B. But while knowing of the injury risk you have Arcia there as the super sub. He'd come in to play SS and the new Padres SS would slide to 3B. But, sure yea I'd be for getting someone else too. I'm just saying being the Brewers that I wouldn't bank on it, maybe grab minor league type guy as insurance. I can't think of someone right now, but think of a Will Middlebrooks type signing of a few years ago even though he never amounted to anything again. I'd guess a Todd Frazier type would be too expensive. But he would fit what your'e getting at in moving Lowrie to super sub.

I'd be all for this move, obviously depending on the price or if what else we had to kick in on it. Seems to make perfect sense for MKE needing to fill both spots. Smith with years of control for cheap also lines up perfectly with what MKE targets and needs.

That's going to be the debate with chalk wins this weekend. Utah or OK. Well I guess Utah or either B12 team. I'd have my money on Utah barring a massive blowout by OU combined with a narrow Utah win. OU has just looked crappy the last several weeks before the solid win vs OK ST last week. Squeaking by some mediocre teams while Utah has been flying under the radar blowing everyone out since their loss other than one road game at Wash. 7/8 games blowouts. So I'd assume Utah remains ahead tonight and barring something drastic in the title games will hold onto it. OU has just looked off. But like you're getting at, since its Oklahoma they'll find a way in. Utah will lose to free up that spot, then boom they're in, yet again. Would just be nice with some fresh blood this year with LSU, Utah, and really I guess OSU hasn't been in several years either.

Being the 1 seed and avoiding the Clemson matchup in the first round is huge too. I think OSU gets the 1 assuming a non fluky win vs UW. Even if just a normal 27-17 type win. Of course I wouldn't guarantee it and say LSU straight up annihilates UGA that would change things. But just my general vibe, nobody has been as close to dominant all year as OSU, heck few teams ever. Another quirk of the seeding is that to my best memory (could be wrong) the 1 seed gets to pick their preferred location for round 1. OSU should pick ATL and make the two southern teams go west. This would make Utah (assuming chalk wins this weekend) have to travel all the way East to play the home crowd of someone else in ATL. If LSU goes 1 they'd get to play in ATL again, then New Orleans for the title game. Obviously not a big deal, but I like making the southern teams leave home for once. An unspoken thing in all of the bowl system and now playoffs is the massive advantage the southern and Western teams have on locations. When it was just Bowl games for fun then whatever, no big deal. But now that it decides the championship I feel like Indy, Detroit, and MN should be included in the rotation to create some semblance of balance. Indy is absolutely perfect setup with their stadium and would give OSU a location equivalent of what all the southern teams get in NO, ATL, MIA, Dallas.

Would've loved to have him back. But sorry that's just too much to pay. Good for him that he finally got his big payday. Maybe in hindsight they could've got him on like a 3 year deal before last year at say 40-45 mil. Who knows, maybe they tried to do exactly that but Moose decided to stick to the 1 year and keep this possibility open. Reds should be a really solid team next year. Really not sure where they go from here at 1B and 3B. Thought after the Moose news that Shaw would then be back but I guess not.

Something I don't think they've pulled out yet is Groshek throwing a pass. I could easily be wrong though. I seem to remember they were lined up in a WC with him at QB in a big 3rd or 4th down situation this year where I predicted that would be the call but there was a false start, timeout, or something that changed things and it didn't happen. If they're down big in this game I wouldn't bother showing it, but as some point you'd think they could burn someone with it or get an easy 2 pt conversion with it.

The NBA is as exciting as it’s been in years, certainly more entertaining than the NFL. Why bother posting in here if you don’t follow it? Just craving attention or what? I follow from afar for the Bucks is about it. I seriously wonder why it has such a strong following. The top teams will win just about every night and will meet up in the finals. What suspense is there with the league? It's not at all competitive for the most part. Doesn't this pretty much apply to NCAA football and basketball as well? Heck, 90% of college football games have ridiculously high spreads and aren't competitive at all and you go into every season knowing that OSU, Clemson, and whichever SEC team makes the playoff are about the only 3 teams with a chance to win it all. ---- And to the NFL in that the 6ish teams with the top QBs almost always make the playoffs and are the top competitors. Granted, being a 1 game playoff creates more variance in the playoffs but for the most part you can predict over half of the teams every year to make it an out of nowhere team without an elite QB almost never wins. Keyword of course is almost, I know about the Eagles and some other one offs. And it would apply to MLB in that the highest spending teams have a huge advantage every year and LA, NY, Bos make the playoffs virtually every year. But just in general that the whole financial structure of the league is totally unfair. Basically, if you go into something with a negative viewpoint you can find negative things to say about everything. NBA has never been more popular, had more star players, overall talent, and or made more money than it is now. IMO the opening up of the rules from the mid to late 00s with 78-71 type scores in the NBA finals to what is now has saved and help the league tremendously. Man the Bucks are so good. I know it's a long ways out but I'm going to really mad if they don't win the East if Giannis healthy. Also, how ridiculous is LBJ to still be doing this at his age. Ditto for Luka with what he's doing at age 20. Saw a stat the other day that Giannis is having the best PER season in NBA history.....except Luka is beating this year at age 20.

With how paranoid each and every team is that the other team is attempting to steal their signs when a runner is on 2nd, it tells me that they themselves are also doing it and have done it while on other teams. I take that as part of the game. Same reason they have to put through multiple signs to begin with and why the 3rd base coach needs dummy signs. Or why if a QB yelled the same word to audible to X play that after like 3 plays or enough data everyone would figure out. Or if a basketball team yells out their play coming down the court as "computer blue" that you eventually figure out what it is. Or the examples of a pitcher tipping. Part of the game. But something like this goes well beyond IMO. Also, remember the Yu Darvish pitch tipping thing in the WS vs them? Hmmm

Also, many people in those trades end up making it their own business. Sometimes just for themselves, other times they start doing so well and it becomes bigger and bigger and next thing you know you're the owner of a fairly legit business with several employees. Being your own boss is a huge perk. The stigma needs to go away.

Yup, I think I phrased my talk on the trade type thing as "make aware" while also not shaming people for not going to college. I think we're all in agreeance there. Fro the live at home, I agree that's something people should/could do to help in these situations, I know I would. But that's getting to the original topic, this is something the 'boomers' are shaming the young people for. Being lazy, living off their parents at home, when I was their age I owned a house etc. This is exactly why their getting snarky back. And again, this is simply not something the old generation had to to do to get ahead.

Fully agree with making young people more aware of the trade typs of things, I've said this throughout, rather than this societal pressure that if you don't go to college you're a failure, dumb or second class. That's a big problem in this, too many people are pushed into going to college. I come from a rural background and yes I agree on the drug test issue for tons of jobs in these trade type skills, factory jobs, and all that. Also, truck drivers and DUIs. not to get into a whole different topic, but I'd also guess if you eliminated weed from the test it wouldn't be too much of a problem anymore. And at least then you get to the real drugs that matter. Not hiring someone for failing a weed test is the equivalent or actually could be argued worse than not hiring someone (for a non driving job) for drinking alcohol. That said, yo know the rules these days and you know you're applying for a job. how hard is it to just not smoke for that time period.

I wouldn't use the word outrageous for that much either. But again, you did all those things cheaply you mentioned, had a degree that could be done anywhere and isn't specialized. Not everyone has the options you had. And again, you still ended up 26K in debt which will probably cost more than double that to pay off with the interest and everything. And don't forget you're in WI which is cheaper end of college and COL. You're basically stating the case of the problem here but just chalking it up as "not that bad". Along with all the other points made in the thread. Now add in how much better you and the national economy would be with your 300-400/month extra in spending power (with the millions of other people) to be used to help you get ahead but also spur the economy. As you're getting at and OSS said, it's not like you and most won't survive and can't come out just fine, but that doesn't mean the system can't be improved. And specific to the 'boomer' talk, this problem didn't exist for them and essentially the 'boomer' created the problem and is subsequently blaming it on the young person.

Soooo, you did all that stuff correctly, cheaply, etc and worked hard and still ended up 26K in debt. Again, that's the point here that they're making. Then tack on other people's situations without such options you had or who's fields required specific schools.

There was a class in my HS called something like "Consumer Math" and it was about these type of topics. It for sure wasn't required though, and frankly it was kind of the 'math' class for people who couldn't or didn't want to go any further in the traditional math track like Algebra, Calculus, etc. You can imagine how serious people took the class