tmwiese55

Good for the Rays. The small market with no money takes down the team that just spent 300 mil on the pitcher to win that exact game (who of course did great) and found a way to do with a creative pitching strategy not unlike what MKE does. Hopefully they win it all. On the other hand, it would be kind of stinging to us seeing that it can be done. I also have no beef with LA winning, they deserve with how well they've ran their team for like 10 years now. I guess anyone but Houston.

Turbo, thanks for your service. Jericho, yea some of that is jumping to conclusions and trying to give answers right now in the moment. Along with trying to find anything they can to support their preconceived view. When the reality is it's unknown and the process is playing out in real time. Most scientific things happen behind the scenes and all kinds of tests/theories, etc are worked on before a conclusion is drawn. Now we all want answers so they put something out and of course the media outlets know the topic is clicks. That article is seemingly just like that. It's one study and, as long as I read that data correctly, was able to see a potential hole in automatically declaring it as a 'see, schools don't spread'. Really it should be a step in the process and then gain more and better data. It wasn't long ago folks on here were proclaiming bars don't, now schools don't either, well where does it then? I guess just ceremonies at the white house? IDK, my vibe right now is the numbers are too high in general to know for sure where things are coming from one way or the other out in the real world. I'd guess that would've been a benefit of starting at lower numbers but we never did, so now it's just too widespread to trace anything. Good post peavy.

Nice. Thing that pops in my head though, based on how I read that data in there, is who knows how many are getting it but never being tested since they have little to no symptoms but then go home or out in the world and pass, as well as among the kids and trickle down from there out to rest of the world. Of course, no way to know either if they got there or somewhere else so can't blame schools regardless. There's just no way to know that as of now, which is fine, either way that's good news so far. Sure seems to be a correlation with the current spikes going on, but of course correlation doesn't mean causation for sure. That kind of goes back to something we talked about a few days ago and kind of pre-screen type testing as opposed to after the fact, which would get to better data on what that article was looking at. But overall I get the vibe or impression that protocols and such are being very much adhered to in schools, as much as one can reasonably expect. So hopefully that's doing it's part to keep in check. plus, going in we knew this was the least vulnerable demographic so you can in theory be ok with some of it being passed around there(like in the possible unknowns I mentioned) while letting kids be kids. Just then need the rest of the world to kind of take some it more seriously too like it seems the schools are. As an example, I just had a friend who is a teacher who had no reason to think he had it. Went to get tested so he could go to see his parents knowing he's negative, turns out he had it. With kids you'd think this is very possible. But all they can do is keep trying and keep tracking as much as they can.

That all makes sense. However, as long as Pina is healthy he's just flat out better than Nottingham. He's gold glovish-level on D and adequate hitting. He's a very good safety net to have if Narvaez flops again. Essentially it keeps our 'floor' at C relatively high. Nottingham would open up a big risk of catcher being a complete black hole, like it was this year. But of course the money stuff is important so we'll see. Perhaps that's where the spring training decision on Pina could come in, if Narvaez is 'back' and management is confident he'll be good it's much easier to save that money on Pina.

If the Swine Flu had been more deadly as this COVID is it would have resulted in as many or more deaths. The H1N1 was basically just a bad flu but if it would have morphed into something like COVID-19 it would have been bad. The mismanagement of the H1N1 virus was as bad as the current mismanagement of COVID-19 we just lucked out that it wasn't as deadly as COVID-19. The current infections for COVID-19 is about 7.5 million and the total for H1N1 from April 2009 to April 2010 was estimated at 60.8 million by the CDC. We were very very very lucky that the H1N1 Swine Flu pandemic wasn't as deadly as COVID-19 is. If the H1N1 Swine Flu was as deadly as COVID-19 you are looking at 300-400k dead. We hit the luck lottery on the H1N1 Swine Flu for it not being as deadly. We should have learned our lesson from H1N1 but there was very little done to prepare for the next virus. Not knowledgeable here so real question. Wouldn't the less deadliness of the H1N1 allowed for a lesser response? Which would inherently let more infections happen? Somewhat in the same way people are still saying that's what we should be doing with covid since its not thaaat deadly in terms of deathrate. In the H1N1 case that approach seemingly would be accurate based on how less deadly it was and that were treatments for it. Of course that doesn't speak at all to what would've happened if it was the same virus as current corona. But the inverse doesn't seem fair either? Don't think anyone would disagree more preparations for the next one shouldn't have been done. That said, it seemed there was at least efforts, groups, and departments put in place after H1n1 to at least try (who knows if they'd have failed anyway) but of course those were gotten rid of by the current administration so we never got to know.

Probably accurate in hindsight or in a perfect scenario. At the beginning though there was the big unknown to it all, which at least has gone away to some degree. Plus, if the stay at home stuff had gone on longer and/or been more adhered to the numbers would've gotten to a lower point before more opening up and mingling, which would make numbers lower now. And then for right now in our current state, I'd generally view it as impossible to get a shutdown resembling March/April going again now with the current mindsets out there. Remember a faction of the government immediately sued back then to block it and is suing now just over masks and continues to plow on acting like it's nothing. Add in that businesses have already taken such a big hit. Plus, the big unknown of it all is gone now. ETA: To Igor's post. And fundamentally the logic that lots of people die every year so who cares if a bunch of people is just so wrong. Apply to other stuff and it immediately shows how dumb it is.

I'd guess it's still a bit too early to see it, at least in comparison to past increases. However, one would think the rate would still be relatively lower in this case with the presumption being young people were a big part. Plus, treatment just has to be getting better as time goes on. Testing is better so maybe folks are getting ahead of it a bit more than they would've been several months ago too. Plus, deaths have gone up in the last couple weeks. Maybe not to the level a term like spike would imply, but they have gone up.

Certainly crosses my mind too as a young-ish person with no known health problems and the ability to easily work from home and not infect anyone else. But yea common sense then comes in that I'd just rather not deal with the headache of it all, and even if is less than a .5% chance I'd rather not. But it would be nice to have a few months where I know I'm good and can do a bit of traveling without risking it and/or feeling like one who's contributing to the spread by not listening. But I'd sure like an easy/reliable antibody test to know if it has passed through. And of course that research (from what we talked about a couple weeks ago) to keep going on how long or how much antibodies are needed to not be able to get it for a while. As someone who doesn't get sick but before shutdown was around plenty of sick people there's a reasonable chance I was one it just passed through, but that is already pushing 7-9 months ago by now so who knows if it would even matter now.

Great post Peavey. It's much worse and that's with all the stuff we've done, it would multiples higher if we went on like normal this whole time. I have no idea how that is so hard to grasp but folks are just so dug in from 7 months ago. Also for death tolls here and through the world keep in mind the excess death statistics. For all the minimizing, chances are many more are dead from this than the numbers show. But with how this discussion started on the economics, that is going to be a big toll too. Eventually this is going to catch up to a lot of people, and eventually someone is going ot have pay for all this deficit spending. It would be nice to be able to discuss solutions, plans, ways to help, etc. To address these things doesn't mean one also has to minimize the reality or severity of the virus itself.

With how good Rodgers has been I think that hypothetical talked after Love was drafted of Rodgers only having two years left in GB should be out the window. Therefore, he's hopefully a route to moving around money to free up space. NFL cap is tricky and it seems many here have more grasp on it than me (I do well with NBA, especially before the newest CBA but not this) and you guys seem to think it's possible. So hopefully that's a route they can do and it also keeps Rodgers here for several more years. On the other hand, how open to it will he be if he has some bitterness left in him right now.

The business going under is a big deal. Adding that properly taking care of the small businesses is one of the things we could have done better. It's not specifically a health aspect, but if those businesses were taken care of better in the bill they wouldn't be in the dire straits now and/or needed to push to open sooner. Trillions of dollars spent and it didn't get to the right spots. I could go on a tangent on the topic of how that money was used but probably wouldn't be productive to the convo.

"this idea that the spot we're in was inevitable is just not true. We could have done better. I think we would still be under capacity limits and masking, but we could have kept a lot of people alive." This is basically where I'm at too. Seems to summarize it pretty well to me.

Not really. Look at Europe and all those countries that "did the right thing" and their citizens "followed the rules". As soon as restrictions were relaxed, cases went shooting right back up. The only thing that's going to end this is a vaccine. Masks and social distancing is just a bandaid on a severed limb. --- Generally true. However, in that process thousands of lives were saved. I know someone just said how they can't be convinced it's serious enough to change their lives, well to all those dead people and their families it is. And since Europe listened they re-started from a much lower number, which makes it easier to handle/track etc as they're now dealing with increases/outbreaks. If say WI had listened in spring/early summer then school timeframe would've been started at much lower numbers and the subsequent slower/lower spread at this time. Possibly all schools could've been started in person as well. And yes increases will comes as things are lifted and more thing open (such as schools) but if you'd started at a lower number all subsequent numbers would be lower. As I think snapper has said though, the horse has left the barn at this point. A huge chunk of people refuse to take it serious and there's nothing that can be done to change their mind. Blaming the sheriff's or a kwik trip manager for not getting in confrontations seems out of place. It's just impossible to do, the people have to just do it and it's not going to happen at this point with such a large percent writing it off as no big deal. I also don't blame the people deciding to open schools, for however much that's contributed. It was somewhat predictable to be a factor to increase (who knows how much) but you also can't blame communities for trying to find a way. I just wished they'd tried or cared back in spring/early summer with the end game of schools in fall in mind. Colleges though, yea I can see placing some blame there. But normal elementary to middle school kids, I get trying your best to make it work. I just generally don't get the 'well there was nothing that could've been done' type takes when looking at the rest of the world it's pretty clear plenty could've been done.

Your place of finish only affects two games difference vs rest of your division. While yes it's a factor, it's not thaaat huge of one.

I was just talking with a hospital worker about exactly this a few days ago and how much sense it would make for them. Came up since someone in their group just got a positive test, likely getting it from her kid (but obviously who knows) and this hospital just had to get rid or at least some new limits(can't recall exactly) on visitors due to a visitor having it. The assumption is the visitor brought it in, but really who knows if it wasn't the other way around.

I'd generally agree with that, like why not have teachers, hospital workers, probably even grocery, factories, etc have a regular test every Monday morning. Basically if you're doing it to make sure athletes and actors work environments are as covid free as possible why not do it for normal people too. I saw ideas like that months ago pointing out the flaw in that people will likely have had it for a bit and potentially passing before getting tested, and then waiting for multiples days for results, in some cases. Essentially the damage would have already been done. On the WI topic that was just mentioned. Dane County also is at a new high for hospitalizations right now. Seems we need to buckle down for a few weeks and get the numbers back down. https://www.postcrescent.com/in-depth/news/2020/10/01/wisconsin-coronavirus-hospitalizations-worry-staff-who-fear-surge/3574106001/

Haha, yea they didn't abide by that anyway. Come to think of it, I'm not sure what the workaround is in regards to the scholarship number limit. I'd guess if it's usually 85 (it's something like that) maybe it'll have a one year bump to 95 or 100 so you can still bring in your planned freshman and not have to pull scholarships. But yea, the SEC would anyway.

For sure, to set an unbreakable record would've cost him at least 5ish million dollars and two years of wear on his body which could cost more money down the line. The other odd thing would have been lets say he did come back to break the record (obviously not knowing covid would happen) he probably wouldn't have been able to do it due to the less games, that would've been some bad luck. Same with Lawrence. A prospect at his level has the power to dictate where he wants to go (if he wants to be that guy), no reason to wait another year or three for the right team to get the #1 pick. They're talking about this for basketball too, Big Ten fans are going to love seeing Brad Davison for a seemingly 8th year

Quirk of the year is it doesn't count for anyone's eligibility. Essentially they're all getting free redshirts. So, if Coan had done well again this year he'd be able to come back next year and kept Mertz on the bench. Another funny thing of it is that would give someone like Lawrence 3 more years if he wanted to rack up multiple Heisman's and possible titles. Or say Taylor hadn't gone pro, he could've ended with like 13K rushing yards if he played two more years.

Tough one. But considering they're the Brewers and their limitations, I'd lean towards giving him another try next year and hope a normal year he gets back to his normal self. I think Pina still has arby so you have solid compliment to him and someone who can play more games if needed.

How many games until folks are calling for Mertz benching and that he's overrated because he missed a deep throw? haha, I'd say by game 3. I wish everyone watched UGA/Auburn Saturday and see Aub 5 star QB miss several open throws. Give some realistic expectations for a college QB, these guys aren't Aaron Rodgers.

Yea I just kind of mean you'd like to find a way to not use the DH spot on a guy who's not big and slow and/or old. I wouldn't say he's on the top end of athleticism either. A young in shape guy with at least normal speed/athleticism you'd like to find a way to get in the field.

He's fast and athletic. I think you give 2B another year as it is a huge advantage to have a good hitter there if you can. But down the line due to being fast and athletic couldn't LF be an option? I know Yelich is there now but as was just said he isn't exactly a world beater out there so maybe he can get moved to 1B in the next few years and for when he ages.

Yea if what i said wasn't clear the full option is a no go right away. But considering what we're able to get (as we saw this year) him at an in between number might be the better than what else they can dig up. Also, while he was hurt all year this year. Don't forget he did stay healthy pretty much all of 2019 with the normal maintenance days. With DH you have a chance to get a decent amount out of him, probably much better than what you go for your 5ish mil spent on Smoak. Without DH I think both parties should just walk away. Though I suppose the extra roster spot does help make it easier to carry a guy like him who needs regular days, previously it's a big roster construction issue to have to plan on his off days.

Based on the other hitters on the team though I'm not really sure you'd do better though. Probably pretty unarguable he was a top 3 hitter on the team this year, possibly higher when healthy.