Jump to content
Brewer Fanatic

tmwiese55

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    7,313

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 Content Type 

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Milwaukee Brewers News, Rumors & Analysis

2026 Milwaukee Brewers Top Prospect Rankings

Milwaukee Brewers Videos

2022 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Milwaukee Brewers Trade & Free Agent Rumors

Milwaukee Brewers Fan Guides & Resources

2023 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

2024 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

The Milwaukee Brewers Players Project

2025 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

2026 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by tmwiese55

  1. tmwiese55
    I'm all for a getting a middle ground stable SS to fill in for a year or two. But don't think I'd be breaking the bank or going nuts on it as a massive upgrade probably isn't out there. but just would prefer someone more stable and consistent on offense. Get someone in the 1-2 year commitment at under 6 mil per year, then sure. Just not sure that guy is out there. Iglesias would be fine if he fits in that money. But IDK why Reds wouldn't just keep him at that price.
  2. tmwiese55
    No I wouldn't factor that in, there is a day off between Sunday and the WC game anyway. So really everyone should be available again anyway. So I would play to win the game Sunday and get HF. Well, I suppose other than Suter due to being fresh off TJ. And there would be at least one off day between WC and NLDS so everyone used that day would again be available for game 1. I would play to win if it mattered. We're 49-32 at home and sub .500 on the road. WAS last series is at home so they wouldn't have to travel at all. So it would be nice to make them travel just like we're going to have to. If MKE won the road WC game they'd then have to turn around fly back to LA. Col to WAS to LA (travel over time zones like this is a big thing in NBA betting btw) in the span of like 4 days after being on the road for a week leading up to it. Besides easier travel everyone would get some time at home instead of hotels. I'd play to win. Without the off day I think I'd be on the other side though.
  3. tmwiese55
    Exactly, and they can't overlap with anyone else who's going to play special teams. Defensive lineman (who normally are the 90s) are one of the rarest to play specials. Obviously all athletic people are common so anyone in the 0-50s and 80s area there. O Lines play line on FGs so 60s and 70s out.
  4. tmwiese55
    Found it, https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/nfl-week-4-picks-odds-packers-roll-past-eagles-patriots-pummel-undefeated-bills/ : "Well, they barely had enough people to suit up for Sunday's game against the Lions. At one point last week, the Eagles had to basically cancel their practice because nearly 25 percent of their roster was injured (They ended up holding a walk-through). When 25 percent of your roster is injured, the last thing you need is to play a Thursday game on just three days rest, but that's exactly what the Eagles are going to have to do this week. If the NFL would permit it, I'm guessing the Eagles would probably trade all of the cheesesteaks in Philadelphia to not have to play on Thursday this week. Unfortunately for the Eagles though, Roger Goodell hates cheesesteak, so I'm guessing he'd never approve such a trade. "
  5. tmwiese55
    Also an extra couple days after week 2 by getting the Thursday opener.
  6. tmwiese55
    Scherzer had a DL stint and hasn't quite been his normal self since.
  7. tmwiese55
    Could just be the guys is a full of himself jerk who thinks he's bigger more important than everyone else and can do whatever he wants. Not everything is a mental disorder, sometimes you're just a jerk. Heck, I'd say most times it's really that simple.
  8. tmwiese55
    Well, you can't forget these kids are supposed to be going to school. The week after the championship games is Finals time for almost every school. Plus, after the physicality and grind of the season they really could use another bye week for the health and safety. Some teams will be playing 8-10 weeks straight at that point. If you needed a 3rd round give a break and play one in the just before christmas type area. Then there would be another longer break before the last two rounds. For me, I'm fine with 4 but see the argument for 6. I'd stop there. Having the top 2 get a bye still keeps the big emphasis on going undefeated and the key that makes CFB great (beside the pageantry haha) is that essentially every week is an elimination game for teams other than Bama. You don't want to go too far and water down the regular season to make it irrelevant like in NCAA basketball, NBA and so on. I also don't want a bunch of 2 loss and possibly 3 loss teams in the tournament. Allowing 6 will eventually have some 2 loss teams in but it will be kinda rare. Going to 8 it will happen every year and scenarios could come up where 3 losses get in. ETA: A factor (but not the most important one) in my keeping at 4 is that down the line with the financials, health, paying the players, type issues in CFB that I see more merging of conferences creating 4 mega conferences. Essentially each of their championship games would create a defacto 8 team playoff.
  9. tmwiese55
    For this game, saw a write up on CBS saying how massively injured were going into Sunday. To the point where they couldn't practice and could only do walk throughs. Seems like the worst possible time to be on a short week for them. Seems like GB should be in a good spot here
  10. tmwiese55
    At this point anything is gravy to me. We get the bragging rights or at least should shut the Cubs fans up after doing this to them two years in a row. Considering where they were a month ago I consider that a success and we're on house money at this point. Now I'd at least like the WC1 to guarantee a fun home game.
  11. tmwiese55
    It'll be annoying if he goes the whole year without a hamstring problem
  12. tmwiese55
    I caught that sequence last night too and a bit later also noticed another former Brewer great playing for TB. Who'd have thought this? Oliver Drake: 4-2 with a 3.25 ERA with sub 1 WHIP and respectable FIP.
  13. tmwiese55
    With Shaw falling apart I don't think they have a choice but to do their best on Moustakas. Maybe start the discussion before he options out and get a 2-3 year reasonable deal done. By reasonable, no I don't mean 45 mil for 3 years. Some kind of middle ground between the 1 year deals he's taken and that. So he gets some stability but we don't have to pay a high AAV.
  14. tmwiese55
    It's probably also worth pointing that after Bell's ridiculous first 2 months of the season he went back to just being OK again rather than freak. I'm not saying he sucks or anything, just that those 2 months will probably be a huge outlier for him, not dissimilar to Jesus. He's going to finish in the 275/365/930 area this year. Chances are the reality going forward will be a tick below that in the 260/345 type world. IDK, similar to Shaw-ish type level before he fell apart, someone in the ballpark. Again, solid player I'd of course take and of course has the perk of being switch hitting and not a Shaw type who needs a platoon. But, probably should just delete those first couple months from the data.
  15. tmwiese55
    They get last pick?? Surely, someone on this board played college ball. Some insight? That could be it. I'd theorize too that in college you have the issue of some numbers going to two players. So you have to be on top making sure those two kids don't play together or it's a penalty. I'd guess the most common or prone to overlapped numbers are the 20-70s because both sides use them so much. 80s are filled with WR/TEs. So, you're left with 1-19 and the 90s. They have to make sure the kicker and punter have a stand alone so everyone can play special teams with them. Just tossing out ideas. Some big program botched this year and was penalized for it. Can't recall who, but I'm going to guess Michigan.
  16. tmwiese55
    Managed another 4/5 weekend on college football. Only loss being Bama -24 1st half. Up 28-0 and gave up a TD with under a minute left to blow it, even just a FG and I'm ok. In general, I'd recommend these next year in September as well. Bet the mega favorite to just cover 1st half. This week the Bama went bad at the end. But OSU and Clemson hit easily. Previous weeks this has hit at a high rate too. Been good ones for me. The ones that would apply this week are UCF/UConn but with UCF not being a true blue blood IDK if I'll do it. The other is Bama but they're playing Ole Miss, not a true cupcake. So not sure if either of these really apply. Threw out some random cheap teasers and parlays just for action on more games and hit 1/3 of those so I think I basically pushed on those. Too bad Poto wasn't as friendly before the game yesterday. Not a ton is standing out to me as of now, was hoping OSU/NEB would be a smaller number than 17. Maybe Ravens over Browns.
  17. tmwiese55
    Hmm, really thought he was into the Games vs LHP splits but I guess not. Backed away from it two days in a row.
  18. tmwiese55
    Ha. I saw days ago there was a clause that NE could get out of all this money due to a conduct type clause. Hopefully he doesn't get squat, essentially costing himself 30-50 million being an idiot
  19. tmwiese55
    But, all they cared about was getting the 1 title and they got. They accomplished their goal so I'm not gonna rip them. But man if that extra inning game 7 went the other way, ouch.
  20. tmwiese55
    It is seriously amazing how badly Theo destroyed what should have been a dynasty. We basically should have had a yearly NLCS of Dodgers vs Cubs for a significant stretch, over 8 years...it probably should have been that about 6 times. The Dodgers were there, but where were the Cubs? The Cubs should probably take notes from the Dodgers, and use more of their gobs of money on talent evaluation/development rather than past player performance. Yea I think we went over that here a couple weeks back. But yea in their situation with a ruined farm, an attempt to help their biggest weakness in bullpen without giving prospects was totally logical. And the money doesn't matter to them. Get him healthy for next year and he should be fine. Maybe not his dominant 1 ERA old self but still good.
  21. tmwiese55
    Yea this as much about future years as it is this. My general take has been that he was going to regress, the red flags were there last year following him closely in fantasy. But, I still wouldn't predict him to be awful next year. But, being a good/solid reliever isn't worth 15 mil per year. 15 mil for his former dominant self, sure fine. But again, money isn't anything to the Cubs so I'm really not going to rip them. They really didn't have a choice with their pen situation.
  22. tmwiese55
    FYI- I've done this a few times. It's just like Vegas in that they have tons of TVs and kind of a lounge area to watch. Have a window to go make your bets with a guy at the computer. Along with that, there's also around a dozen Kiosks where you can just put in money and make the bets yourself. This was at Diamond Jo, haven't been to the other. Seems there is a mobile way to do it as well, but my understanding is you need to be in state lines for it work so I'd assume it's GPS linked somehow. 10/15 on the year so far on the last two weekends, hopefully I don't crash too hard this weekend.
  23. tmwiese55
    Weird, I was under the impression it was a fireable offense to not sign him and that our owner was a cheapskate who should just sell if he doesn't want to win. Still, if I'm the Cubs I think it's a good signing. Attempt to sure up their biggest weakness and only cost money (which they have plenty of) and no prospects from their already depleted system. For us, good one to avoid
  24. tmwiese55
    Obviously I didn't read the article, but based on what you wrote there he could just be laying out how difficult it is for the Cubs even in a kind of best case scenario(us going 5-4) as opposed to him actually predicting it or anything. Basically saying as long as we win 5 (which as you're pointing out, should be very doable) they have to go 6-3 and every extra win make it worse up to 7-2 and so on...
  25. tmwiese55
    2003 - 523 2006 - 489 2008 - 449 2013 - 598 2018 - 624 I couldn't go farther back than 2003. The answer seems to be yes. I will also mention the average yards on a punt has dramatically changed. There used to be a ton of guys averaging 10+...that simply isn't the case anymore. The more important question would technically be net return, but at the same time I think there is a sacrifice to make guys not have dangerous returns. There were only 7 returns for TDs last year, no one had multiple. Ten years ago there were 17 TDs and four guys had at least two. In 2003 there were 18 TDs and once again four guys with multiple TDs. This shift of punting smarts seems to be in the last 5 years...which makes sense to me. Yet they continue to not listen to the math on 4 and shorts and goal line situations. Well, I guess it's improved but still it's very slow progress.
×
×
  • Create New...