tmwiese55

Cubs are putting this up next to the stadium. http://chicago.suntimes.com/opinion/questions-for-the-cubs-before-they-opening-a-giant-outdoor-bar/ Brewers could likely get an area setup that resembles outdoor bars in Madison for football games

Supposedly our boy Gomez is going to be starting CF for the Rangers. Finished last year strong and has been hitting well in the spring. Can probably get him with one of your last picks. If it's categories he'll at least help in SBs as long as he keeps playing.

He's essentially insurance on another guy getting hurt or really underperforming. You're already paying the money anyway, might as well keep him around just in case. A guy like Nelson could easily continue to struggle and they decide to send him down mid-April. Just like happened with Peralta later last year. Then you can throw Garza in for a few starts and see how he does, hopefully eat up some innings.

I think it would make a difference. There's usually a band in that one outdoor smoking/bar area right next to the stadium. But it seem people aren't going to walk up there until they're ready to go in the game. I suppose one issue I see is how 'open' it will be. They're trying to sell beer of course, but people in the lots usually have their own and aren't going to be looking to buy from them. So not sure how easy it'll be for people to just kind of hang out with their own. So I could see this easily operating in the red for the team as people will just have their own drinks, but I think it should provide an enhancement to the experience overall.

I have always wondered why this wasn't already happening. They should have a venue where local bands come and play before games for people to enjoy near the parking lots. Yes, people want to tailgate but it could add even more to the "party atmosphere." I've been thinking this for years as well. When this renovation was brought up i thought it would be something more along these lines, not the concession stuff inside. It's not mentioned, but I think they should sell basic foods too. Brats, burgers,etc as some people don't like the hassle of lugging along everything needed to grill. Especially if it's only for two people. I know some will say they'd prefer people to go eat inside, I get that but you could charge basically the same price outside for burgers and brats as you do inside.

Why don't they make more of it then? it's marketing, and people are falling for it. And it's done on purpose so it gives the customer away of acting kind of like "they're in the know" so it gives them a feeling of exclusivity, vip, superiority. And then you can charge more. McDonalds sells the most hamburgers. Does anyone think McDonalds hamburgers are the best? Beer is basically liquid bread. Maybe you just like eating all your sandwiches with white bread, but i like to spice things up with a rye or soughdough or a nice roll. Nobody's going to stop you from eating your white bread. And I'd like to know what bars you go to where you can't get Miller lite or Highlfe. Cause even the snootiest beer bars I've been too still have "regular' beer available. I meant on draft, some places have the taps all for other stuff. And no on McDonalds for me, but to some it is. I mean that one guy eats a big mac everyday. But I don't think anyone is trying to claim that the burger made in this on bar in the middle of nowhere is the best burger in the world and so much superior than the other ones, anyone knows they're all the same and what's the best depends on each person's preferences. And when a burger place does start doing really well so they think they're onto something, they make more, franchise, expand. Think Culvers, In N Out. They don't make 10 a day and claim they can't make them fast enough because they're so in demand while charging double the price. Same in terms of beer in regards to preference, so I don't need to be told it's all better and people that don't like it are wrong and just don't know as much. I think most people here would agree with not liking wine snobs who act all pretentious and blather on about the subtleties of the wine to try and seem better than everyone else. People are doing the same with beer now. Drink what you like, others will drink what they like, who cares. Just order what you want, don't need to tell people why or push it on them. It's just beer, not that big a deal.

SABERMETRICS?!?! NO THANKS!!!! WINS AND LOSSES IS THE ONLY WAY TO ANALYZE A PITCHER!!!! Times change. 21 year olds are now legally able to drink during this boom, and the beer culture is definitely spreading. 5 years ago I could go and buy a case of some beers after its release date. Today it's gone immediately because people camp out for it. (I'm not that silly). I doubt we'll ever see a time where yellow beers dominate the market again. Micro breweries are popping up all the time. Including brew pubs, Milwaukee has over 30 different breweries in the area, and I'm sure more will be opening up by the end of the year. Why don't they make more of it then? it's marketing, and people are falling for it. And it's done on purpose so it gives the customer away of acting kind of like "they're in the know" so it gives them a feeling of exclusivity, vip, superiority. And then you can charge more.

totally agree. Some places you can't just get a normal beer anymore and everything is slowed down because people need to have a discussion about what these beers are, then sample before buying. Overall I really hate the smugness associated with it, even as simply as describing them as 'good' beers while turning the nose up at basic lite beer. I mean, the stuff is intentionally made to be bitter and even many advocates admit they can't drink more than a couple. Why are they so much better, because they charge way more and tell you it's better? To each their own, I don't care, do your thing and I'll do mine. But don't act all smug about it as if I'm a heathen for liking normal beer and then try to continually push this stuff on me and say I'll like it if I try it. No, I won't. A few times after being friendly for a while of someone pushing something and telling some dumb story about how it's so good they can only sell 6 at a time because it sells out so quickly because it's so good type stories blah blah. Eventually I just say, yea I get that problem. High Life is so good and was in so much demand they actually decided they should mass produce millions and millions per year.

I agree with Danzig. Seems a good compromise overall even though I don't agree with the principal of it. I don't see how our being entertained better should outweigh the right of that person to do what's best for him

I thought the exact same thing as Gard was trying to instruct Trice where to go because he looked confused to me. Sure, if Gard calls a timeout it gives Florida a chance to set up what they wanted to do, but i think it was more important for Gard to be sure all of his players were on the right page for how things should be defended regardless whether Hayes made or missed the second free throw. Can't have any confusion among the players. My guess is we subbed after the 2nd make in order to set our D, but it also helped them set a play. Call the TO after the first make and you could've done all your subbing/planning then and they would've had to go immediately make or miss instead of the long setup they got. We essentially gave them a TO there by subbing

The "we've got to go for it because our star QB isn't getting any younger," line has been around since the 90s. I don't think tailoring free agency around one person's age is a good way to build a team capable of winning every season. if we go for it while Rodgers is here and have to pay for it when he is done doesn't that take away the ability for the next guy to establish himself? Part of what helped Rodgers was having a young talented group of players surrounding him. They didn't have to go through a couple years of over the hill has beens making way too much money and contributing nothing because they can't afford to cut them while he was trying to gain some confidence. Why should the next guy's career suffer just so Rodgers can have more chances than the new guy will be afforded? I just never believed the QB is owed anything more than any other player when it comes to how you build your team. As far the defensive backs keep in mind they dealt with a lot of injuries. To see how that can hurt a player's performance look no further than Davante Adams playing through a significant injury vs when he isn't. Ditto for Montgomery. Would adams have broken out if we found some average veteran to take snaps away from him due to his rough sophomore season? I think we need more bodies at corner but I think the talent level isn't nearly as bad as it appears. I'm not really against all free agents. If there is one who would fill an hole that has no real option fine. If there was a few unanticipated losses at a position fine. The D-line is a prime example of that. They lost Raji unexpectedly then Pennel and Guion's issues left a larger than anticipated hole to be filled. No problem adding a lineman or two in those instances. I just don't beleive in older guys being added for losses that should have been anticipated. All that shows is managerial shortsightedness. It's not out of owing Rodgers or screwing the next guy. It's that we know we have the best QB right now so our chances at a title are best right now, definitely willing to sacrifice the future to go for it that situation. Similar to trading for help in MLB when you have a title caliber team. In NFL though the by far biggest key to that is QB, and for the next 4-5 years we have that.

To me the only thing criticize from a decision making view is the decision not to miss the FT. Having the two points only matters if you foul as the shot is going to be a 3 if you miss the FT. They'd have to blow 2 seconds just rebounding and getting it out, best case would've been a half court shot. I suppose you could say substituting after the make is also questionable as it allowed them to get organized, but I'm sure we did it so we could get organized. Up to me, i would've called our TO after the first make to talk about everything and do your subs. You can also set your D there if you decide to make it and give instructions if you decide to miss. Which I think is what the decision would have been. I think it's below 10% chance they get a shot off much beyond half court and obviously that shot is extremely low chance if they do. All the other things we can complain about are in the moment split second decisions, this was one that could've been thought out.

College basketball players essentially sign contracts with the university to play basketball for them, along with the other things that go along with just playing. HS kids do not and their admittance, attendance, and tuition (well besides some shady private schools) is not contingent on them playing ball. Pretty big difference to me.

I believe the new NBA CBA allows for a couple flex roster spots to bounce back and forth from the D league and the salary is going up to 75K in the D league as opposed to like 25k now. So this is the route the NBA seems to be taking to try and fix this argument along with keeping the best 'next tier' guys in USA easily accessed by the NBA rather than on a contract in Europe. This seems like a good first step to me. I guess I'm not sure if they'll allow HS kids to play a year there and then get drafted though, I mean, if they're going to allow that then why not just let them go to the NBA? Maybe that's the next step though, they want to establish the D league more and get a team affiliated with every NBA team and then they'll allow the rule to be dropped? Maybe IDK.

Seemed like they blew an easy opportunity in the WS last year (with Chicago involved so it's close to MKE and Cle for Major League) to have Ueck pop down early in one game and BS for an inning or two. Can have it somewhat focused on him telling Cubs/Harry Carry stories and some stories about the movie along with his normal stuff.

They do already. But yea I'd be fine with an increase to it. Also, they are being paid market value. This is the best deal they have right now. Anyone is free to step up and pay them more and/or not ban them from their league.

Very good idea Chorizo, obviously easier said than done but that seems like a very good end game to be shooting for eventually.

Yea like I said it's currently considered legal because the law only technically applies to old people as of now. So showing another example doesn't change it. It's just there hasn't been enough incentive to challenge it yet and the SC might not bother on it anyway as they have more important things to worry about. Change it to 3 years like was mentioned here, and you might run into a lawyer that tries to make his name on beating this, and I'm sure the NBA won't want that attention. Especially since they also would probably look at the greater good and know it's not good to have lots of players going overseas at age 18, which is what would happen with a 3 year ban. But again, there is probably clear reason why when it comes to their companies insurance why they don't do it or they simply don't view the person as having enough experience so they don't hire them. The NBA doesn't have to draft the guys if they don't think they have enough experience and aren't good enough, just like trucking companies don't have to. But to completely ban them based off age just doesn't seem right to me. Disagree if you want but if you can get drafted, can rack up thousands and thousands of student loan debt, work as a child actor at age 8, play pro tennis at any age, coders at any age then I don't see why you can't play basketball and I think it's wrong to block it. Besides, back to the original point it's not the NCAA banning them. And if the NBA chooses this route then someone else can get a league together of top 20 HS players and have them go head to head over and over (or whatever league they want that doesn't have a ban). Since it's not a law someone else can do it so I don't see why the NCAA is so evil. And if Lincoln Hawk (Sylvester Stallone from Over the Top, the equivalent of LBJ to truck driving) showed up at age 19 and could whiz the exam and was the only guy who didn't have a DUI they'd probably hire him since he's the best guy.

But they're basing it purely on age. Totally different. They don't have to draft them, if they're unqualified (as in your example) then just don't draft them. not really, for example to be a lifeguard you have to be 16, that has never been questioned in court. to bartend you have to be 21, i can go on. its not just sports players that has age restrictions on the job. Fine nitpick all you want but there's no reason why bball should be treated unlike any other job based on merit. Bartending is a clear one as there is a different age law involved there relegating that and it's the government choosing. And from a quick googling that the government has specifically made the laws that way for lifeguarding too. When government makes a law specifically say that bball players can't play basketball until after a year out of HS I'll then accept it. Otherwise I'll continue thinking that basketball should be treated like any other job.

nobody is banning 18 year olds from working. i am an engineer, i wasn't banned form working as an engineer at 18, i was just unqualified and needed to get a degree first. I do give you that these kids can do the job, so in that sense you do have a point, but if there is a job requirement to play in the NBA (one year of college, or whatever). that is no different that any white color job. But they're basing it purely on age. Totally different. They don't have to draft them, if they're unqualified (as in your example) then just don't draft them.

Have to think if they tried to expand it beyond 1 year that someone would challenge it legally and it would finally get enough traction to make it illegal. My understanding is the only reason it's legal right now is that only old people are currently protected under age discrimination laws. Good chance if it's challenged the same logic would apply to all ages. To me, it's crazy to ban 18 yr olds from working.

The NCAA is not responsible for the NBA implementing the rule. The NCAA isn't responsible for someone else not creating an alternate league that has a better compensation/training package. I agree the two main sports should probably get a little extra walking around money. But I'm somewhat sick of hearing over and over how the NCAA is evil in regards to CBB for the two reasons I just mentioned. NCAA is currently the best deal they have and outside of the top top players who are getting ripped off (because of the NBA rule) the vast majority of kids are getting a pretty sweet deal. If these players could generate so much income without the schools/community affiliations then someone should create a league for them or at least not ban them from the current league. Football is a different problem due to the physicality but basketball is fixed very easily. Just get rid of the rule.

Fondy, totally agree. It's probably one of the best teams ever but will be forgotten because they didn't win it. Probably would have won easily last year too. Somewhere yesterday I was reading something and it included a still frame of the 2014 year where Harrison made that winner in the FF vs us showing how far back it was. That reminder hurt too, seriously could've won b2b assuming of course Frank didn't go pro. Also, a little forgotten thing is that if Brust would have redshirted his freshman year where he played like 15 total mins he'd have still been there for 2015, who knows how that changes things for the season/bracket but it would've made the team better for sure. I also expect Baylor to cruise. Weird thing is of our next 3 potential games, I think we have our worst chance tonight. I would be more confident vs Baylor/SC and Zags/X than I am vs FL.

Ahh ok, I didn't go back and look. Top of my head I was thinking it was still a rough year before the respectability started in 06 or 07, turns out it was the first year of respectability. So ol Ned was right, knew we never should have gotten rid of him

Figured most on here would remember that. I remember laughing about it, knowing they had no shot that year. This year, and last before trades, I think it's about right. Thurston, you're exactly right. The people we have in the pen this year could be just as good, varies every year with pens. Going into last year though I think we all viewed that as a clear strength, barring huge regression or injuries. This year it's a question, could go either way. What you said also really shows what good trades they were. Smith likely having TJ now. Well done sell high by management.