paul253

I'm starting to think more and more that Mark Rogers will be the #5 starter in Milwaukee, maybe the #4 to separate him and Gallardo. And then the rest of the rotation will be filled with either 3 lefties out of Parra, Narveson, Wolf and Capuano, or two of them plus someone that Fielder is traded for. The problem there is that there is no number two and a few borderline number threes in there.

Does a package of Lawrie, Jeffress, Peralta and Gomez get us close? I'm not sure I would do that trade to be honest, not unless Greinke agrees to an extension. Lawrie and Jeffress are both so close, and I think both have a chance to be real special players. Jeffress is one of the few guys who has a chance to be a real #1 that we have in the system. I just have such a horrible feeling the Brewers are going to switch him to relief. I'd say if they intend to switch him, I'd include him in a trade. If they intend to use him as a starter, I'd hold onto him. Starting in 2012, we could have three years with a rotation including Gallardo, Rogers, and Jeffress, with players like Scarpetta, Rivas, and Peralta competing for spots, and Heckathorn and Odorizzi not far behind. I know I'm the one who started this whole thread, but the emergence of Rogers and Jeffress has really gotten me to change my opinion. Unless Greinke signs an extension, I'm not sure I'd want to give up the future now that the future is so close. I am ready to punt on 2011 if it means if all the pitching prospects continue to progress like they have been. And in 2012, with a rotation full of homegrown pitchers and plenty of offensive talent still in the lineup, this team could not only start winning, but they could do it year in and year out. Getting Greinke will help you for 2 years then you are back where you started.

I live in Madison, but even out here, it's common "knowledge" that Milwaukee cops only care about parking tickets and jaywalking. So either that's true, or MPD is bad at public relations. Either way, it's their own fault, not the general public's. Hating people for having an opinion isn't cool. Apparently it's not common "knowledge" then that "jaywalking" (which just by my own definition means crossing the street while not in the crosswalk, so correct me if your definition is something else) is not illegal in Milwaukee. There are plenty of related offenses that are illegal, such as walking down the street (as opposed to walking on the sidewalk), or not yielding the right of way to traffic at controlled intersections i.e. walking against a red light which causes traffic to have to stop for you. But simply "jaywalking" isn't a violation. Perhaps if you are in the Madison area you could pass that along to some of your buddies so that the common "knowledge" is more accurate. I think what he was getting at was that MPD spends too much time dealing with relatively unimportant things, and not issues that citizens care about. Not to sound like a jerk, but if you have no statistics or anything, how could you possibly know how much time they spend focusing on parking tickets? I won't make a comment on any other "unimportant" things because I'm not trying to be an MPD apologist here, but I will say that MPD has to respond to calls for police, no matter what they are. The response may be a phone call to take the report by phone, or it may be them showing up 5 hours after you call because that's the soonest they could get there, but it still requires a response. My parents have some friends who live in the UWM neighborhood. Apparently the friends were told by their little neighborhood association that if they call the police and demand a citation be issued for noise/parties, the cops have to issue one. That means if someone is playing their music too loudly, the cops have to show up, have to spend time trying to contact the resident, and have to spend time writing a ticket. It may be an "unimportant" call as far as the rest of the city is concerned but it is something they are apparently required to do. I'm not denying that MPD cops write parking tickets. All I am saying is that the vast majority of parking tickets are written by the parking checkers, who don't work for the police department. MPD does not assign squads for parking enforcement. It's mostly a discretionary thing. If they see a violation and want to write a ticket, they can. Take this with a grain of salt, but I was listening to Mark Belling the other day and he was talking about the parking issue. He said, and again no idea how accurate this is, that the parking checkers were moved from the PD because they were showing too much discretion and not writing enough tickets. It's not that they didn't catch the guy, they didn't even pretend to try to look for the guy. They never did an investigation. They never sent anybody over. They took the call over the phone, gave a report number, and they were done. When my car got broken into in Shorewood, they sent a squad. I think it was because I saw the guy and actually chased after him for a bit. Anyway, do you know what they did when they got there? They took my information and gave me a randomly generated report number. I never heard from them again. I haven't ever gotten a subpoena for a case so I assume they never caught the guy. Never talked to anyone in the Shorewood PD again (this happened about 5 years ago). I have no idea what, if anything, was done to look for the guy, just like you have no idea what, if anything was done to find your g/f's suspect. But as I said...no photographs, no fingerprints, no nothing by the Shorewood PD. My question to you is this. What difference would it make if I gave them my information and my story over the phone or in person? They didn't fix my windshield or replace my stereo. I was left in the same exact situation your g/f was. It's not an MPD thing...its a police thing. Four to five times a week there is a squad on the street of the workplace to watch for speeders And I bet because of that nobody in the immediate area is having their cars broken into? They may be watching for speeders but their presence in the area I'm sure has an overall positive affect on the crime rate in the direct area. Aren't you the poster who once saw a bum near 6th street so you now think the walk from the Bradley Center to the train station after a night game is dangerous? If this were posted on "politifact", I'd give it a barely true. Yes, I did say that in the area of the downtown train station there are a lot of bums. To my recollection, though, I never said "dangerous". The extent of the statement was this. When talking about the train issue, someone from out of town asked if the BC was in walking distance from the train station. A poster said yes it was. I then agreed with him, and said yes it's a fairly short walk or very short cab ride. I then added something like this....however there are a lot of homeless people in the area who might give you some problems (there are, I hope you aren't denying that...see what I said about the doors to the actual train station being locked during certain hours to prevent homeless people from using the station as a shelter) so depending on who you are with, you might consider just taking a cab to avoid the possible conflict. I also said that I myself would have no problem walking the area, but I would not want my wife/girlfriend/daughter walking down there at that time of day. Implying that I suggested the area is dangerous because I saw a homeless guy once is grossly inaccurate. if MPD did a better job of simply acting like they care (as opposed to being the Big Lebowski cop), we might not be having this discussion I disagree. I don't want them to "act" like they care. I don't want them telling me "oh yeah we'll have someone out there looking night and day for these guys". I'm not 7. I want them to tell me the truth. I'd much rather have them say this: "Look we take about 2,000 of these calls a year. Occasionally we catch them but usually we don't. I'll do what I can but don't expect to get your car stereo back. As a matter of fact, unless you know what the serial number is or have some sort of personal identification mark, if we catch him with your property we can't even charge him with the crime because we need to prove that the stereo is actually yours." This is what insurance is for. You have it because you know the possibility of this happening is out there and the chances of your getting the suspect to cover the cost of repair and replacement are tiny. All I want for them to do is take my call seriously. File the report like you are supposed to so I can make my insurance claim. In this instance, I think his opinion tends to be fairly in line with the majority of the public. But that doesn't make any mention of whether or not it's actually true. Is it fair for the majority of the public to claim all the police n Milwaukee do is enforce jaywalking when jaywalking isn't even illegal? It seems like a dangerous precedent to imply it's ok to think that way just because the majority of the public thinks that way. If they went by facts and personal experience as opposed to "common knowledge" and exaggerated stories, the opinion probably wouldn't be where it is. I can tell you with a fair amount of certainty that the majority of the public has no real idea what being a police officer entails. I think that's mainly because of all the tv and "reality shows" like Cops. Cops always shows the big drug bust, but they never show the 8 hours of paperwork that follows, nor the constant court appearances over the next year. They also don't mention that the patrol cop who got into the high speed chase may never again in his 20 something year career get into another one. They also use terms like "jaywalking' and "breaking and entering" so people just blindly repeat those terms even though in Wisconsin there is no crime called "breaking and entering". My intent here is not to offend people or to sit here and say everyone is wrong. I just hate when people use blanket generalizations like "all they do is write parking tickets and stop speeders", especially when the person then tries to claim they have respect for the police. On the one hand they're saying "they don't do their jobs" or "they only focus on stuff that nobody cares about", then on the other they say "oh yeah but I still respect them". Its like me going up to a firefighter and saying "yeah you don't do anything other than get cats out of trees and go grocery shopping, but I really appreciate what you do". Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

I base this on every time I've had to report something to the MPD. So since you aren't satisfied with the way they handled your incident, you come to the conclusion that the reason they aren't doing more is because they are too busy writing parking and speeding tickets? This isn't based on anything personal though since you've never actually received one of those tickets, it's just a baseless assumption? I know that you don't really mean what you said, but then why say it? Other police districts that I've reported crimes to actually did work to try and help me. The local suburban PD did more work on my SO's debit card number being used out of state than the MPD did when one of my employee's windshield was bashed in and her stereo taken. You are upset they didn't find the person who stole her stereo? I hate to be blunt, but get over it. First off, do you have any idea how common that type of crime is? And second, do you know how difficult it is to catch and charge someone for doing it? What exactly did you expect MPD to do? Take fingerprints? I'd bet she probably has about 10 sets of fingerprints on her car at any given time. And even if the cops do pull a print, what does it prove? It proves that they touched the car, nothing more. You're comparing a big city department's reaction to a property crime to a suburban department's reaction to an ID theft. I don't think that's a very fair comparison. And for what it's worth, I had my car broken into in Shorewood a few years ago. They didn't take fingerprints. They didn't find the guy, as far a I know they didn't do anything. Reports for crimes like that are done more so so the victim can make an insurance claim. Does getting shot at a couple of times automatically make them good at their jobs or something? It makes it a dangerous job, sure, but we already know that. Anyway, its pretty harsh to "despise" people who have a negative perception of the police department. The perception is VERY widespread, and there's probably a good reason for it. Instead of telling all of these people that they're wrong, how about listening to the concerns and trying to fix the problems? I said shot, not shot at. 4 officers got shot. But you're right, it doesn't mean they are doing a good job. I never actually said they are doing a good job. All I said is that I hate people who say things like "all they do is write parking tickets". That perception may be widespread, but it couldn't be anymore wrong, which I backed by saying the DPW, not MPD, writes the majority of tickets. And the reason it is widespread is because people keep repeating it even though it's wrong. Other perceptions, like police violence, are widespread as well because of all the national headlines, like the Jude case. But when you look at the actual number, you're talking about less than 1% of Milwaukee cops that are doing anything wrong. So the reason I despise people who say crap like that is because it is such a broad, lazy, and wrong thing to complain about. How someone can say that and then claim they still respect cops is beyond me. "Oh yeah I respect them, just as long as they are doing what I want them to do."

Just don't expect the MPD to actually do anything, except write traffic and parking tickets. I'm guessing you've gotten a few parking tickets and traffic tickets before and now seem to think that that's all they do? If it makes you feel better, the DPW are the ones who write the vast majority of the parking tickets, not MPD. Of the top of my head, I can remember 4 MPD cops that have been shot in the past year +. I'm sorry but I just really despise people that say crap like this. You obviously have no idea what the job entails. Back on topic. Brewcrew I think there's a couple of things to consider here. You aren't getting your Ipod back, even if they catch the kid. You'll have to accept that. Depending on how badly you want to try to catch the kid, it may be better for you yourself to go down to South Division and find someone like the principal or AP or a school liason officer, explain your situation, and ask to see a yearbook. If you recognize the guy, you can go to MPD and say "this is the guy who did it". It pretty much means all they have to do is go find the kid. However, keep in mind that if he goes to South Division, he's probably a juvenile. Even IF he gets arrested and IF he gets convicted, which would probably be for nothing more than theft and/or disorderly conduct, you can expect punishment to be a slap on the wrist. I'm not trying to make it seem like it is a waste of time, but it may not be worth the effort.

I'd like to resign CV and use him in long relief. I have a terrrible, terrible feeling that Rogers and/or Jeffress is going to start the season in the bullpen to "protect" them even though it will mean their innings will actually go down instead of going up. A bullpen of Lowe, CV, Hawkins, Braddock, Stetter, Axford and Kintzler would be ok with me.

I don't see the point of a "Big Ten" conference if non-big ten teams are in there. Even with only 6 teams, you could play every team in a home and home series. That gives you 20 games. You'd have to add in a few extra non-conference games to complete the schedule, but I suppose it's doable. Maybe a holiday tournament every year with former WCHA schools to preserve some of the rivalries. I'd still like to see another Big 10 school or two to add varsity hockey though. Illinois currently has a club team that is in the same league as Penn State's club team, so I'd guess they'd be the best bet. Indiana I think has a club team too. I'd also guess that if there is an actual Big Ten hockey conference Illinois and Indiana would be more likely to field a D1 team.

Whats the deal with Evan Anundsen? I know he was hurt all year but are we not expecting him back for next season?

Are any other Big 10 schools looking to add hockey, or would it just be a 6 team conference?

http://www.uscho.com/news...ityProgramsontheWay.html Interesting article I read just now on uscho.com. It looks like Penn St is officially adding hockey as a varsity sport in 2012-13, and will play as an independent for two seasons before joining a conference. They didn't mention what conference they will join, but it mention that the Big 10 now has 6 schools with varsity hockey, which is the minimum number of schools required to start a conference. It's hard to imagine a conference with only six teams, but I think it would be awesome to see a Big 10 conference for hockey. I wonder how strongly, if at all, they are considering doing this. I suppose they could always allow a few other teams in, but really the only school I can imagine they'd even consider letting it would be Notre Dame.

Does anyone know if they giveaway bobbles to all fans or is it a certain number, like the first 5,000?

I didn't want to start a whole new thread on this. The Corey Hart retro is gone but I still have an extra Suppan. I'm not expecting much, maybe a mini from a few years ago, but if anyone is interested let me know.

I think if we trade Weeks and Fielder, we'd have to completely embrace the blowup. Not necessarily. While the offense would obviously take a hit, you'd be taking a hit from our strength. You'd also still have Hart, Braun, and McGehee as solid offensive contributors. Top that with the fact that the pitching staff would be better and I can't envision us doing much worse than we have this year. It may still take some time for players like Lucroy, Cain, Escobar, and Gamel to improve enough for us to compete regularly, but I feel much more confident in competing soon with the likes of Rogers, Rivas, and Jeffress, plus whoever we get in return for Weeks and Fielder, than I would with a above average offense and Bush, Narveson, Davis, and Suppan in the rotation. If any lesson needs to be learned from the past few years, it's that pitching, not offense, wins games.

At this point, I think I might be willing to trade both Weeks and Fielder. If you manage to trade them to the same team, you should be able to get at least two high ceiling pitching and one good positional prospect. If you trade them separately, you should still be able to get two good pitchers in return plus something else. You'd have to make arrangements to replace Fielder, which I'd say could easily be done by moving McGehee to first and Gamel to third. You'd also have to sign a one year stop gap to play second until Lawrie is ready (Felipe Lopez?). But I think it's a good way to improve the team in the long run without spending a ton of money on average players.

I could see some combination of him and Odorizzi being the centerpiece of the deal, but if you want to get a talent like Greinke, you need to pony up with top 100 prospects and high-ceiling players. You have done neither. Obviously you are welcome to your own opinion, but I think you are putting way too much stock in prospect rankings. Especially from Baseball America. If you look at our last top 10 list, Eric Arnett is number 4. The list before that included Cutter Dykstra at #7 and Cole Gillespie at #9. But if you want to look strictly at rankings I would tend to put more stock in the Power 50 list, actually, because the editors of that list have a lot more knowledge about this specific team. If you look at the latest list, the trade I proposed contained 3 of our top 10 prospects (#s 3, 8, and 10), and Amaury Rivas is in the top 10, unlike in the BA list. I also disagree that I have not included any high ceiling players. I think Rogers' ceiling is very high. Literally the only thing hold him back is control, and this was basically his first full year back after two major surgeries, so it is very possible that the control can improve. Jeffress's seemed to improved a lot this season. I also think someone like Rivas who could easily be a #4 pitcher does high a fairly high ceiling. Any trade that could net you 2/5 of your starting rotation as soon as 2012 is something to be looked at. It's very possible, maybe even probable that KC wouldn't accept that specific deal, but like Bruce said, I just don't think it's nearly as bad as you make it sound.

Stupid question, but do you think we could actually get more for Weeks than we could for Fielder? He'd be a ton cheaper to extend. He's got good speed, good power, good OBP. Defense isn't terrible, and second basemen with such offensive ability aren't as common as first basemen are.

Yeah and at the beginning of the year we'd all have laughed at the idea of trading Prince Fielder straight up for Daniel Hudson. I realize that pitchers tend to get more in return, but teams aren't willing to throw four top prospects at teams for one player anymore. Look at what the Padres got for Jake Peavy a few years ago. None of them profiled, at least according to BA, as a #1 or #2 starter. Plus, Greinke is having a bit of a down year, at least according to his standards. But anyway, I think you are underestimating both Rogers and Rivas. Rivas has had sustained success at all levels. Rogers has #1 potential as evidenced by strikeouts and hits against. He just needs to refine his command some. If he hadn't missed two consecutive seasons with injury, I'd be willing to guess he'd be a top 100 prospect. Beside, Jake Odorizzi isn't a top 100 prospect either, though I think he probably will be soon. Maybe you'd have to refine the offer to include both Rogers and Rivas along with Parra and Gamel. KC is an ideal place for Parra. He could be given a chance to start and stay in the rotation as they aren't really ready to compete now. But I think you missed my point, which is that I would not give up both Odorizzi and Lawrie to get two years of Greinke. I wouldn't want give up the farm to get one player, especially when the pitching prospects are finally so close.

Ha you're right. I don't know why I said blue. It is a pinstripe jersey.

I have an extra Corey Hart bobble with a blue jersey. I'm looking to trade it, basically, 1 for 1 for a bobble I don't have already. I have pretty much every one for the last two seasons, but if anyone has something I don't have, maybe a sausage bobble, I'd be interested. I'd also be willing to trade for some Milwaukee Bucks bobbleheads too (assuming they actually make them). I'm not looking to screw anyone over and get a bobble that's a lot more valuable than the one I have. Like I said, it's just an extra and I'd like to add to my collection. I also have an extra Suppan if anyone is interested in that. Let me know if you're interested.

I think Cain for Fielder would be a good trade for both teams. If I were Milwaukee, I'd look to extend him 2 years right away though. Cain and Gallardo for 3 more years would look really good, especially with Rivas and Rogers coming up.

Call me uninformed....but if there is ANY chance we could obtain Greinke, you do it....2-way, 3-way...Fielder, Rogers, Rivas, Lawrie, whoever it takes, you get it done. I disagree. It would be nice to have him, for sure. But if it takes trading Rivas, Rogers and Jeffress to get him I would pass. You need to improve the overall talent of your pitching staff. While Greinke would be a major upgrade, you also need to upgrade the rest of the rotation. You can't keep trotting out the likes of Suppan, Looper, Bush, and Davis. I'd be willing to include one of Rivas, Rogers, Jeffress or Odorizzi, but not more. Anything else would have to be position prospects and then maybe someone like Manny Parra. I just don't want to give up 6 years of two or more pitchers for two years of Greinke. My ideal trade would be something like this. Greinke for Parra, Rogers/Rivas, Green/Gindl, and Gamel.

You know what is a good show, I thought so at least, is Human Target. I think it starts a little later in the season than other shows, but it has replaced 24 as my new go to show. It combines action with a little bit of comedy and a good story line. Keep it in mind.

So just a quick vote here. In one sentence for each, what should be done with them next season? Rogers: Starting in Nashville Jeffress: Starting in Huntsville and if he is doing well after 6 or 7 starts promote him to Nashville.

Well I supposed getting a little back on topic Macha mentioned that Rogers will probably get a start in the Florida series. I don't know the reason for him doing so, but if it is to get people to watch, it worked with me. I'm excited to see him start a game, even if he only goes 2 or 3 innings. Hopefully its also a good sign about next season. I was also thinking about Macha's logic. "If you took those guys and you started them, their innings would probably pile up to a point where you would get to July and say, 'These guys have enough innings,'?" said Macha". If Rogers pitches out of the bullpen next season, won't his innings actually go down? How does that help his development?

He is getting help, and thats a rather cold thing to say. After getting help, he decided the sense of urgency of needing to be ready each day would help keep him clean. I think the Brewers should continue to respect his wishes a little longer. How is that a cold thing to say? I said that if his problem is so severe that he has to pitch in order to not smoke it then he should get help because that can't be normal for something that supposedly isn't physically addictive. There are different types of "help". I could go in and get "help" for drinking alcohol once a week, but it wouldn't be the same "help" as an alcoholic would get. Just because he's getting treatment now doesn't mean it is working. Good for him for determining what factors can help him stay clean. But again, if that's the only thing that can keep him clean then I just can't see that as being normal. The guy's career is on the line. He never went to college and it would be tough returning to a "normal life". It would literally cost him millions of dollars. If that's not enough to give up marijuana, he has issues. You can't see us getting a good pitcher for Fielder? You don't think we could deal a 2nd position player, like McGehee or Weeks, for a quality pitcher? I didn't say we couldn't get a good pitcher for him. I said I didn't think we could get someone who would make our rotation go from horrible to very good. Look what was offered to us for Fielder near the trade deadline. Daniel Hudson was probably the best pitcher we got offered (yes that's just speculation but if there was anyone better Melvin probably would have taken it). It's not that Hudson isn't a good pitcher, but I don't think if we insert him or someone like him into the rotation next season it's going to be a very good rotation. Better yes. Very good probably not. And finally, yes I suppose they could trade McGehee too. But then you take a major hit offensively losing both Fielder and McGehee.