tmwiese55

Might as well get weird, get Greinke involved too with them kicking in money. FYI: this thread already happened a few weeks ago viewtopic.php?f=66&t=37728

I'm basically with the last few posters. Just because the media wants drama doesn't mean there has to be something there. Sometimes things get stale after this many years. I'm sure Rodgers was frustrated just like everyone else. Doesn't mean there is some elaborate backstabbing drama bs situation going on. It's just time for a shake up with some new ideas, nothing wrong with that.

Yea i'd guess that within 5 years they expand again because this drum gets beat every year. I think a compromise could be 6 teams. Some reasons I like that would be it creates a massive incentive to get the top 2 thus still keeping the value of going undefeated as it is now. As opposed to (in theory) if Bama is undefeated going into their Auburn game they'd be better off to lose in order to skip the conf title game because they're in no matter what. After that, going to 6 covers all 5 major conferences and leaves one wild card for UCF, ND, 1 loss team that looks awesome (Bama/OSU types). Yet it should still not need for very many 2 loss teams to make it. It will happen sometimes but not always, therefore keeps that regular season "every fricken loss is a big deal" mentality going. I also think if you went this route you might as well write it that the 5 major conference title game winners are automatic bids (which would default make those playoff games too, basically making it like a 10 team playoff) in order to re-emphasize the value of conf titles along with giving everyone a shot (like so many are clamoring for). The alternatives to 6/8 team tourneys would be coming right out and saying let's blow the whole bowl system up once and for all. Thus making the only post season games be playoff games and make it 16 or 32 teams. Or, which this would probably take longer due to conference contracts at the moment, to make 4 mega conferences and seperate them from the rest of CFB. Each conference would have 2 divisions, who play for their title and automitc bid to the 4 team playoff (thus making it basically 8). If the big money programs wanted to get really greedy this would be the route. You'd essentially disperse the Big 12 remaining teams to the other conferences, but likely a few teams would get pushed out in the process as you'd probably cap each at 16 teams (and there is more than 64 currently I think)

With all due respect I could not care less what the Vegas line is. That should have zero determination as to whether or not UCF should get a chance? Do I think they could beat any of the top 4? I think they COULD beat Notre Dame and I think they COULD beat Oklahoma. But why should we have to sit here are argue whether or not think team A could beat team B when Team A could just play team B and then we’d know. right, like I said I know the whole point is give everyone a chance so it doesn't change anything from your perspective. Just showing that the committee isn't stupid to not think they deserve to be top 4 (or that they're on a different tier, like the MAC or FCS is as well). The issue they're dealing with is when to stop. In their eyes (and supported by the best experts in Vegas) is that this team has no chance to win it all. Again, I think ND is overrated so that would be their chance to make noise, so not arguing that as that is a whole different discussion the BS favoritism that ND gets. The issue then becomes, well if we have to let UCF in because everyone needs an opportunity even though we think they have no chance, well then why not the MAC champ, or if ND St goes undefeated, if UCF gets in why shouldn't OSU/Mich who everyone with a brain would guess is better, well heck might as well get a 64 team tourney going, etc. That's the issue, where do you cut it off. And due to this issue yes I think the major conferences should just seperate themselves from the rest eventually. And not caring what Vegas says, of course they shouldn't have a say. I'm using to show how unlikely it is for them to win. There's probably been 1-5 28 pt favorites (in non major conf vs majors games) to win a game in the last 15-20 years. One I remember was Oregon St vs USC near the tail end of USC's big run, so 2009ish but that was both major conferences? Oh, I assume App St vs Mich was above 28. Extrapolate that down to the lower spreads and it just shows their likelihood of winning, that's it. As in, the chances of a 28 pt dog winning is something like 2% so maybe we should put in a normal team that at least has a normal-ish chance of competing.

Since you didn't look it up. UCF vs Bama would be 28.5 spread and vs OU would be 14.5. Can't find the ND now, but like I said I'd say that probably is between 7-10 so the only reasonable chance they'd have. And note ND would be would be dogs to OSU, Michigan, and Georgia. Clemson is like 12ish vs ND, so they'd be over 20 vs UCF. UCF isn't even in the top 10 Vegas rankings. It's one thing to win as a 4-5 pt dog like OSU did at home vs Mich. Winning has 20 pt dogs almost never happens. Like I said at the beginning, I know the whole point is 'give everyone a chance' so this doesn't change that. I'm just pointing it out that the best experts don't think they're even on the same level.

Yea I should've prefaced that, pass with our budget limits. If I'm Nats or other big markets, yea 21 million isn't ridiculous for them and he's 28/29 instead of 32 like so many other FAs. That said, I still think he's a big regression candidate but if you have as much money as these teams it's an ok risk. Also think it's smart of him to stay in the NL and not go into the slugfest that is the AL East, or a bang box like Philly.

I know this is outside the box and likely no one would think of it. And I know there's been some late game blunders in his years that he's been ripped for. But it seems every time I watch WAS play there is receivers running wide open and they've scored points for several years in a row now with mediocre QBs and no name skill position players. I'd be curious what that Gruden could do with Rodgers and these WRs. Basically I'd say they've overachieved their talent almost every year he's been in WAS. For him, leave the idiot owner that is Snyder and go to Rodgers seems like a no brainer.

An expanded playoff obviously makes sense to line up with all other sports, and lower levels of college football. Just have to remember they're trying to play both sides of keeping the bowl system going along with a tournament. Expand too far and eventually it could lead to just ending all other bowls, that's what they're worried about. And from what I understand the bowl system is a huge financial heist with a lot of hands in the pockets. So they're trying to have their cake and eat it too, cash cow of the CFP and cash cow of bowls. Go too far and you lose one side of that along with the tradition. Basically, I'm just saying these guys aren't idiots and know all of this stuff too, but their hands are tied a bit trying to maintain this old bowl system/tradition. Another thing that needs to start being discussed now and especially if they expand is that all the games are played in the south. if the titles are going to be on the line now, you have to start having Indy, Det, and MN in the rotation for these playoff games so that at least occasionally a northern team can have an advantage.

What I find funny about this argument is that the College Football system is at least in the top 2 playoff formats that most accurately has the best team win (that and NBA), yet it's by far the most scrutinized because it's by far the least democratic. Another part of it is the "ringzz" obsession pushed by ESPN that makes people only care about championship and acting like conference titles are irrelevant and people shouldn't care about anything other than the national title. Before this narrative started getting pushed people cared about Rose Bowls, conferences, bragging rights of winning Orange Bowls vs another big program. That said, a way to re-emphasize conference titles would be to give automatic bids. Also, check out what Vegas would have UCF in for point spreads. Granted the whole point is to "give everyone a chance" but they would be considered to have no shot if they played these top teams. ETA: That said, I don't think ND is really all that good and don't doubt UCF could hang with them and win like 35% of the time. Vs the others and OSU, not so much.

Two years before this ERAs of 5.1 and 4.03 with WHIPs around 1.5. And you have to give him 120+ mil. Yea I'll pass on that too. Good for him though, had a good year at the right time.

My friend who is a county cop in WI accumulates sick time similar to the teachers mentioned. It's almost impossible to use it all so it just keeps piling up. Besides getting normal paternity leave of however many weeks he's allowed to cash all that in and take like 6 months straight off when they have their first kid. After like 11-12 years as a cop a break like that has to be very welcomed (well I guess plenty of stress dealing with a newborn, but better than both at the same time I suppose...)

IDK, maybe Martinez would go back to AZ, then STL plays Carpenter at 3B and live with it.

I've often brought up on this topic over the years that the offense has rarely if ever been the issue, and obviously that's MM area of focus. Yes I know he's HC so also responsible for the D, but you know what I'm getting at. So in spite of nitpicks or things I'd have rather they done better at, or simply thinking "with Rodgers the O should be even better" they still usually graded out well on the offensive side (MM's area). Really besides this year and 15 the offense has been very good. 2017: Rodgers out so whatever 2016: 4th in PTs, 8th in YDs 2015: 15 and 23. I was surprised here, Rodgers played that whole year I think (guessing that's Nelson injury year?) 2014: 1st and 6th 2013: 8th and 3rd 2012: 5th and 13th

Yea I remember jumping out of my seat complaining the second he slid down on that interception. Sure I wouldn't say I predicted what happened to happen, but that was absolutely boneheaded by a 15 plus year vet in Peppers. If they run that back and take the almost gimmy FG the game is over. Couldn't believe someone was dumb enough to make that play in a non kneel down situation. And when bashing playcalling, don't forget that was the year Rodgers was playing with the bad calf muscle and was immobile.

Fair, however you also have a clear platoon need with Shaw. And potentially some time at 1B for Shaw if Jesus is more like 2nd half than 1st half. Basically, look at how much PT Perez got last year in spite of having Shaw, Moose, Schoop all healthy. There should be a lot of ABs for a versatile IF who can play vs lefties and I'd prefer that person to be better than Perez. Ideally you could clear Thames money to cover the cost and give more roster flexibility. Any clear DH options in the AL that could make sense for Thames?

Maybe, maybe not. A good reason to put Christian Wood into the game and see what he can do. I don't know what you're disagreeing with. You don't think he tries hard? I think that's clear. After that I said the guy is terrible and not an NBA player, so yea I'd play Wood and see what happens

Have to give Thon credit for his effort, the dude does try his balls off. But he's just overmatched and terrible. you can get a good 3-5 min run from him here and there but he's just not a legit NBA play and likely never will be.

Also another lefty who can play some 1B if Jesus is more like 2nd half than 1st half so you end up giving him more days off. If signed you'd hope you can move Thames somewhere else and clear that money, then you can have a more flexible bench. Could help to 'afford' Schoop more easily if that's what they want as well.

But he also hasn't really played 2B/3B in a few years. But yea with our management I'd assume it's fine and clearly offense was our issue last year so may have to flex a bit to get it.

Yes, this is a first for my lifetime. Discussing which of our 3 really good young pitching prospects would be most expendable if we haaaad to trade one. I don't think there's even been 3 guys total other teams would've coveted in my life, haha. Yes, I'm sure (I think) that I'm exaggerating.

I just went through the Bumgarner thread and the proposals were all about Woodruff for Bumgarner and almost everyone was saying No on that too. Granted I flew through it and maybe missed one, but the proposals thrown out were for Woodruff. So maybe the talk should be about not giving away Woodruff rather than this constant theme promoting Peralta. And again, I don't think if someone was willing ot trade him straight for Bumgarner they don't t hink it's a give away. They view Bumgarner as a true ace that could be a difference maker in the playoffs like he has before. They're just likely a little off on the current state of Bumgarner, but they would be viewing Peralta as a piece to get a key Ace to win WS. Don't think that's giving away.

I'd just stop using the phrase "giveaway". No one is trying to give him away.

Key here seems if Dietrich can still play 2B/3B. He really hasn't much the last few years, but as noted after what we saw with Shaw I wouldn't be super concerned about it and would have trust in our management to use properly. I'd take him as a good bench/platoon piece assuming cost is reasonable.

I just hope he goes back to 'secondary' rather than starting 3/4 games like he was at the end of the year. We never got an explanation, maybe Pina still had lingering injury issues so they wanted to keep his games down, idk. I'd guess their plan is to go with him on the MLB barring the addition of a significant catcher like Ramos/Realmuto, etc. Whatever, I'm not going to stomp my feet about it but yea wish we'd at least attempted to get someone who could hit respectably.

I have to admit, if I were running the Brewers I would already have Woodruff penciled in for a bullpen spot in 2019. So far as a MLB starter = 5.22 ERA, 1.38 WHIP. As a MLB reliever = 2.02 ERA, 0.97 WHIP. Not saying that would be the long-term plan, he could even be the first guy called on to replace an injured starter. Stick him back in the bullpen where he seems more comfortable and let him get himself firmly established as a MLB pitcher with an eye on starting him in the future. I've been thinking this too. Assuming Burnes moves into the rotation, Woodruff could step right into the Burnes role of last year. So again you have your righty and lefty killer multi inning guys in him and Hader. Then he could stick there or move to the rotation the following year if you lose some guys like Davies, Chacin, etc. He seems more likely to work in this role than say Peralta due to the control issues. this way Peralta can be the guy swinging between AAA/MLB as needed for starts. We'll see, they have a lot of options.