paul253

I hear that. After reading everybody else's choices, i kept finding myself saying "oh man, i forgot about ____." Yeah you could really have no problem listing 15 guys here. I'm really excited to following the progress of Scarpetta and Peralta to see how they do in A+.

May be a little early for this, but why not start it again for the 2010 season? Top 5 I would love to see succeed in 2010 1) Taylor Green - Injury ravaged season pretty much hampered any development, but he still had good strike zone discipline. 2) Lorenzo Cain - Needs a big year to regain his elite prospect status within the organization. He'd be an ideal replacement for Corey Hart in 2011. 3) Mark Rogers - I'd love to see him have back to back injury free years. Also love to see fewer walks. 4) Brett Lawrie - It would be nice to see him absolutely dominate opposing pitchers and shoot up those prospect top 100 lists. I think the Brewers need to start him in A+ 5) Eric Arnett - Always good to have a first rounder succeed, but we really need these pitching prospects to start advancing and advancing fast.

I know I am in the minority but I think those blue jerseys would look awesome with white hats (white hat/blue brim). In the past teams have tried the white hats and it's looked stupid, but those were all weird because they didn't really fit. I am no good at computer images/pictures. Would someone be able to take a current Brewers hat and make it white and put it next to a blue jersey so we could see what it would look like?

So is this replacing their old one that says Brewers, or is it a 4th jersey? They should have changed it on the actual road jersey, not the alternative one (especially since I have a now out of date blue one)!

When is the last time an elite free agent pitcher signed a contract with the Milwaukee Brewers? When is the last time the Brewers offered an elite pitcher a competitive contract? They offered CC Sabathia a very nice deal but he didn't take it because he knew he could do better, which he obviously did. I doubt anyone would avoid signing in Milwaukee if the money was right. Ben Sheets resigned a few years ago when he didn't have to. Even trading Fielder doesn't guarantee that the crop of incoming A-ball pitchers from the trade would be better than our current A-ball pitchers, or better than the following draft's pitchers. If they trade him, it will not be for A-Ball pitchers. At the very lowest, it would be for people who have had success in AA. At least I would certainly hope so. however signing an elite pitcher will likely cost a similar amount of money as it will cost to sign Fielder. So if they're not committed to signing Fielder long term I doubt they'll want to pony up what it'll take to get an elite pitcher. That's true, but think about it. You could either sign Fielder at whatever it costs, or you could trade him for high ceiling prospects then sign a pitcher for close to that $20 million a year you'd have given Fielder. So you have Fielder, or for the same price you have a good FA pitcher PLUS the prospects you got for trading Fielder. I think you'd come out ahead with the second option. Beside. Prince is only 2 years from free agency and he doesn't even seem interested in considering a contract extension with Milwaukee. Don't you think if he really wanted to stay in Milwaukee he'd at least consider an offer? After this past season when his value was highest, he could have gone to Milwaukee and stated his demands, but he didn't. He is going to go to free agency, at which point Milwaukee will not be able to resign him. Milwaukee's offer will be similar to it's offer with Sabathia. Higher than they could realistically afford but lower than what someone else will give him. Extend Braun - 3 years, $54 million. Isn't Braun under contract for like 6 or 7 more years? Why would we need to extend him for that much money right now?

I was just pointing to the fact that Oklahoma was mentioned without even considering academics...like I've said multiple times...Texas has a strong academic program. Oklahoma was mentioned along with the fact that I didn't know anything about their academics and that was followed by a question about whether they were Big 10 material, academic wise. Academics was considered, in other words.

The more I think about it the more I think they need to trade Fielder. Yes it will leave a huge hole on offense, but the fact is we have no pitching. There are guys on the way, but they are by no means sure things. Guys like Arnett, Heckathorn, Rivas, Anundson, Rogers, Peralta, Scarpetta, Butler...they all give me hope, but I don't want to risk the future on them, not after seeing the likes of Hendrickson, Eveland, Luis Martinez, and even Manny Parra to an extent more or less fail once they hit the majors. By trading Fielder, you accomplish two things...one you restock your farm system with at least 2 elite players (hopefully pitchers) and one or two more mid to high level prospects. With first base, you can either fill it internally with Mat Gamel. Or the free agent list isn't too bad. Lyle Overbay would be a nice one or two year replacement. Derek Lee? Maybe Brett Lawrie could shift to first base. Who knows. But by trading Fielder before his huge raise next offseason, on top of expiring contracts to Bill Hall, Jeff Suppan, David Riske, the likely retirement of Trevor Hoffman....thats close to $40 million right there. You could trade Hart and save an addition $5 million. Letting Bush go would save another $5 million. Meanwhile, the core of the team is really still in tact with Braun, Gomez, McGehee, Escobar, Weeks, Gallardo, Wolf, and Parra. You have Lucroy, Gamel, and probably Zach Braddock coming in. Possibly Mike Jones could help in the bullpen. That leaves a lot of money to fill the holes we'll have and maybe even allow you to sign an elite pitcher like Lee or Cain (if they become available) I just think $120-$150 million dollars is too much for Fielder, as much as I like him and as much as I recognize how much of an offensive force he has become.

Good win for the US mens hockey team. If they beat Norway they are pretty much assured that they are advancing, but that game Sunday against Canada sure is going to be fun to watch.

If they are going to do that they should go for the gold and shoot for Oklahoma instead of Missouri. I don't know anything about Oklahoma's academics though. Are they Big 10 material? Athletics wise they'd be a better get than Missouri, and I can't imagine they'd want to stay in the Big 12 if Texas and Nebraska leave. If they could get Texas and Nebraska or Texas and Oklahoma I'd go up to Notre Dame and say, "Look, we just got two of the biggest and most elite programs in the country. We opened up our TV market to a huge new market and if you join you'd make tons of money. You're not going to get another shot." Notre Dame, Texas, and Nebraska/Oklahoma and I don't know if there would be anything any other conference could do to top that.

What about Ben Hendrickson? The guy absolutely dominated AAA but for some reason got lit up in the majors. Also Brad Nelson. I had such high hopes for him.

Miggs I read that too. Buster Posey, Madison Bumgarner, and Matt Cain, for Prince Fielder. Does the Journal just pick these letters out of a hat to print them? Maybe I should come up with the most ridiculous suggestion I can think of so I can get my name in the newspaper. Sheesh. That being said, I do the Giants would be a good trading partner because of their pitching. They kind of layed an egg with upgrading their offense this season and once again will have to rely heavily on pitching to win. I don't know whether they'd include Bumgarner in a trade, but Prince Fielder is an elite offensive player who won't come cheap. I would not trade Fielder for Bumgarner straight up but if we could get another prospect out of them I'd go for it. Even without Bumgarner, I think something could be worked out.

I am stuck in the middle about what to do here. While Prince is an elite talent and absolute dominate hitter, if we get a Mark Textiera (sp?) type haul we'd be foolish not to trade him. While we do have a lot of arms coming up, not a whole lot of them, if any, seem to be elite can't miss talent like Sheets and Gallardo were. If we can get two high ceiling pitchers plus a high ceiling position player, I say take it. The future of this team is now Braun, Escobar and Gamel and will be supplemented with guys like Lucroy, Schaefer, Cain, and Lawrie. Fielder doesn't seem to have much interest in working out a contract now, which to me says all he is doing is trying to drive his price up. If he will sign something under a 6 year deal for no more than $20 million a year, I say go for it. Otherwise, it's just not worth it, in my opinion.

A sweep next week against St. Cloud would be huge.

Ok well I suppose getting back to topic a little, Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker recently questioned where the money was going to come from to pay for the annual operating costs of the new train. The proponents of the train bashed him for it of course. A spokesperson for Doyle said "By his logic, Scott Walker would prefer to send the $823million grant and the associated jobs to California or Ohio or Florida. Walker's criticism is similar to opponents of the interstate highway system" I wasn't around during the interstate debate and I don't know what the arguments against it were, but assumption was it had nothing to do with people not using it. My argument against the rail is use, not necessarily cost (basically that the use won't justify the cost). As far as the first part of the quote, that's more or less like saying well if we didn't spend the money someone else would have, which, while true, isn't an overly reasonable argument for it and continues to make me shake my head at how government money is thrown around. Also, while people may bash opponents of it for questioning the new train, nobody has come up with an answer yet as to where the money will come from to pay for the annual costs. I think it's a given it will come from taxes or fees, but who is going to admit that now? Anyway here is a link to the article: http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/84198582.html

I absolutely love Olympic Hockey.

Yeah they are, unfortunately for me they are way too far north to do me any good. Like I said, when going west to east or vice versa in the city of Milwaukee in the late afternoon, it's basically a pick your poison between North, Center, Locust, Burleigh, Capitol, or Hampton. They are all packed and all basically one/one and a half lanes. Silver Spring isn't as bad because it dips under quite a few intersections. Location wise Silver Spring would be perfect for a east/west freeway but as we all know, too little too late. I know a place like Mequon would never go for it, but that would be a good place for a bypass now. A lot of farmland and open space.

I just don't think there are too many schools in the Big 10 that would year in and year out compete with Texas. I think Ohio St and Penn St could compete with them year in and year out. Not necessarily beat them every year, but compete with them. Heck Ohio St beat them a few years ago in Austin and probably should have beat them in Columbus a year later. And recruiting classes are more or less meaningless. Can you guess what Boise St and TCU have been ranked the past few years? Plus the Big 10 has a winning record vs the SEC recently, which is supposed to have all these great teams, which nobody in the South wants to mention, despite the majority of the games being played in the South. That shows Big 10 teams can compete against solid non conference opponents. As far as why they would join? My assumption is money. The Big 10 has its own channel and as far as I know the Big 12 doesn't so they would get some more money out of that. Football wise it would put the Big 10 either near or very likely at the top of the football world, ahead of the SEC. Just think, last year compare the two conferences top five with Texas in the Big 10 Texas-Alabama (they played but UT was of course without its QB) Ohio St.-Florida (Florida played three teams that could be considered good, got hammered by the best one, and beat the other two) Iowa-LSU Penn St-Ole Miss??? (Big drop off after LSU) Wisconsin-Auburn??? Arkansas??? I think the Big 10 could easily win the last three and could arguably win all five. Basketball wise they'd still be a notch below the Big East and maybe the ACC but it would definitely close the gap. I think it would be a good move for Texas, logistics aside.

Well yeah, its kind of too little too late now. There are so many businesses on Silver Spring, plus considering it runs through multiple jurisdictions you'd have to get cooperation. I mean, I'm sure it could be done, but at what cost? The other idea though, connecting the Hwy 41 (that's the stadium freeway you refer to right......that little 3 or 4 mile stretch of freeway directly north of the stadium?) to the Fondy Freeway would cause huge issues in Milwaukee. I know this isn't the political board so we won't get into details, but that freeway would go almost directly through the western portion of the inner city. Can you imagine how hard it would be to get that done? Also, it really wouldn't make any sense unless somehow either that or 45 is connected to 43 because the Fondy Freeway just meets up with 45.

I think the main reason the Big 10 got a second team in the BCS was money. They travel really well. Iowa could have very easily been kept out and maybe would have if Oklahoma St didnt lose right at the end of the season. I think if the Michigan-Ohio St game gets moved to the beginning of the season like Miami-Florida St did when those two teams were actually good it would benefit them both. But then again, with a conference championship game it wouldn't happen anyway that they'd ever meet in the BCS title game. Texas to the Big 10 is bad for the competitive balance IMO. Texas and OSU would dominate year in and year out. I don't think that is necessarily true. Those two have definitely been up the last few years, but things tend to cycle a bit. Penn St is always good and could easily give those two schools a loss. Michigan is on its way up (hopefully) and Wisconsin and Iowa are solid programs. Northwestern has even been surprisingly competitive. Beside, the competitive balance thing hasn't hurt the SEC. The last few years its been all Florida and Alabama. LSU was vastly overrated last year (they played four good teams and lost to all of them), as was Ole Miss. I think adding a good program like Texas can only help. I also don't get why Notre Dame would be the cream of the Big East...they've struggled a bit lately... They have, but they've always recruited well and will continue to do so. Now that they got rid of that dud Weis and picked up a coach who brought Cincinnati to the BCS back to back years, I think they're going to be ok again real soon. Beside the Big East doesn't really have any football juggernauts. West Virginia and Cincinnati are the two closest things. Popularity wise too though I was referring too. They have no real competitors as far as football history in the Big East whereas Michigan and Ohio St, and even Penn St, can compete with them in that category in the Big 10.

Thanks for the read godspeed. I've always found Milwaukee's freeway system a little curious. I couldn't for the life of me figure out what the point of Hwy 41 was considering it only goes north a few miles and then turns into Lisbon. I thought of this today as I was trying to drive eastbound from my house on the west side of Milwaukee to the east side around 4:00pm. No matter what street you take (North Ave, Center, Locust, even Capitol Dr and Hampton Ave) it is just a huge pain in the butt. Traffic is out of control from 3:00pm until 6ish and its stop and go because there is a traffic light every two blocks. Then you hit those stupid angle streets which make 6 way intersections instead of the usual 4 way. I wish there was a freeway that ran from 45 to 43 directly along Silver Spring Dr. I think the use would be well worth the cost. Silver Spring is already kind of set up like a freeway in that it goes under a few other streets.

The entire reason this is happening is because of the BCS. When the Big 10 football season is over the SEC, Big 12, and ACC still usually have two more weeks. This allows voters to see SEC teams two more times and obviously when an SEC (or ACC or Big 12) team wins a conference championship game it makes them look really good and people tend to forget about the Big 10. A perfect example of this is a few years ago when #2 Michigan went into Columbus to face #1 Ohio St the last game of the season and lost by a mere field goal. Well here comes big bad Florida who wins the SEC, then Coach Urban Whiner....I mean Meyer.....goes off saying how his team should be playing in the title game and Michigan should not be even though Michigan's loss was much more "impressive" than Florida's. Forget what happened in the actual title game because it's a moot point. Personally I think USC was the best team that year. Anyway, that and obviously money are the reasons the Big 10 wants to expand. I wish Notre Dame would get over themselves and join because it would benefit them on multiple levels, but Texas to me is the next best choice. It would rake in HUGE profits every year and put the Big 10 on even keel with the SEC (who is constantly overrated) in football and add another power team for basketball. Plus it opens up a huge recruiting base for football as the state of Texas is without a doubt one of the top three states in terms of high school football talent. I'd absolutely love to see Texas join the Big 10. As far as the other expansion goes, I hear Colorado may bolt for the Pac 10, which then would obviously add a second team, possibly Utah or Boise St. The Big 12's natural choice to replace them would be TCU, though depending on how many teams they lose they'd have to add another (Utah? Arkansas?) It'll definitely be an interesting next few years. Maybe Notre Dame should join the Big East. It would give the conference some legitimacy in football and Notre Dame would immediately be the cream of the conference. I'd also be curious if Villanova would join the Big East in a similar way UConn did. Villanova just won the 1AA title. Either way, whatever happens, I'll admit I am a homer and I hope the Big 10 comes out ahead.

Following Homer's line but again not to hijack this thread but you know what Milwaukee really needs is some sort of western/northern bypass basically the opposite of I894. Something that would take people who are going east on 94 and want to go north on 43 around downtown. Where exactly I have no idea.

I forgot about Ben Diggens. Who did we trade to get him again?

Chicago to Madison isn't available to rail either. Have you researched the report to find out what the travel time for Chicago to Madison would be? I did not see in the report how long the trip from Chicago to Madison would take though admittedly I didn't look excessively hard. The Madison to Milwaukee route is 1 hour and 9 minutes, and I imagine the Milwaukee to Chicago route would take roughly the same, so I don't know about 2 1/2 hours? I don't know how that compares to driving from Chicago to Madison because I've never done it. How long does it take about to drive, do you know?

This establishes service from Chicago to Madison. That is a major piece of the puzzle that everyone seems to overlook. I'm starting to think it's on purpose. Homer I don't think people are overlooking this. The reason we are focusing on the Milwaukee-Madison part is because that's the only part that isn't available to passenger rail yet. It's not a direct Madison to Chicago link and therefore the travel time would be much longer because Milwaukee isn't exactly on the way.