paul253

This is all great information, especially the part about how places like Costco have "cheaper" in quality tvs, which I never would have noticed. I'm torn though. I like LCD's because they last longer and are better for the video games which I will eventually get again (my PS3 crapped out on me) but Plasmas tend to be cheaper and have better pictures. What's a tv buyer to do? The main thing that worries me about the plasma is the screen burn, but some posters make it sound like its not really an issue any more. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm!!!!!!!

So... No one else is concerned about the Yellowstone Super Volcano? That's another one of those things that is going to happen eventually...it's not a matter of if but a matter of when. I saw an episode of "Mega Disasters" on the History Channel where they talked about it. I have to admit, it's not going to be fun that thing goes off and a whole lot of people are going to die. I just think at this point and time nuclear weapons are a bigger threat, and I can only say that because if I'm not mistaken we can't predict when the Super Volcano is going to erupt so basically it's out of sight out of mind. Who knows, if the Yellowstone Super Volcano erupts tomorrow I'm going to feel pretty salty.

So in general a plasma will have a better picture but won't last as long? I plan on putting this one in the basement so glare is not a factor. I also plan on just setting it on a stand and not hanging it or anything so there will be no angles or anything. I have an LCD in my living room which is my "main" tv since my basement is so frigging cold in the winter and its also more convenient, but when I watch sports I'd prefer to watch it on a bigger one that has the surround sound....same with movies. I just basically want to make sure there isn't one huge factor that makes the quality of a plasma so much worse than an LCD. I know LED's are top of the line but I'm not willing to spend that much to get one. Blatz how long have you had your 42" Panasonic?

I would say the most likely to actually end[/u] the world, by far, is an asteroid. But even then, I figure we can take some brash ocean oil drillers, teach them to be astronauts in a few days, and have them drill to the center of the asteroid and blow it up before it hits Earth. Seems pretty easy. I believe we know how to deflect an asteroid, or at least have an idea to, as long as we have enough warning that its coming. That's why I've always been a little curious as to why we don't invest more money into locating these things. I don't mean to start a global warming debate, but needless to say its not a universally accepted hypothesis and look at the lengths we are already going through to try to prevent something we don't even know we can prevent. One sure thing though is that we will be hit by an asteroid again, its just a matter of when. Why not have the technology in place to prevent it from killing millions and millions of people? I think the most likely scenario to end humanity is nuclear war, not necessarily directly through actual bombs but through the consequences of the bombs, like starvation. I think the most likely way to actually destroy the Earth itself is a black hole.

I am looking to buy a new tv, and I don't really know much about plasmas. The plan all along was to buy an LCD, but I've noticed that plasma's tend to be a bit cheaper. I've also heard they last a little longer. I was wondering if anyone knew the major differences between the plasma and LCD and if the would or would not recommend buying a certain one. Size wise I am looking for something in the 46''-52'' range and I will be using it mainly to watch sports and movies on. Any info would be much appreciated.

Why do we have to trade one of them? I don't understand why Melvin is so opposed to moving Gamel to the outfield. Everyone speaks of thinking long term, well let's do that. Mike Cameron will be around one, possibly 2 more years. Corey Hart has consistently struggled with the bat and I don't think anyone considers him the rightfielder of the future. All of the best outfield prospects are no higher than AA (and two of them are capable of playing CF which Gamel will not get in the way of) meaning probably at least 2 years away. While Gamel's may have the ability to be a good fielder at third, so far he has been average at best. Braun was moved to the outfield. Hart was moved to the outfield. Why is Melvin so blatantly opposed to moving Gamel.? He can play the outfield all spring and he can get some time in AAA as well.

It comes down to the fact that whatever a team would offer for Fielder, it won't be enough to offset the loss of the the NL's 2nd best hitter for the next 2 years. True, but if you trade him next year you'll get even less, and if you let him walk the year after that at BEST you'll get a draft pick no higher than what, 16 plus maybe another one in the mid to late 30's, which is again even less. I used to be all about getting comp picks, then I've watched the Brewers get screwed over by the flaws in the system. Unless the Brewers have a significant upgrade in pitching next season, which I don't think you'll get from trading Hardy or Hart, the team is not going to be much better. You don't blow an opportunity to get a massive haul unless you are darn sure you're team is going somewhere in the next two years. I think Melvin needs to figure out early in the offseason if he can upgrade the pitching enough to make a run at the playoffs and if he doesn't think he can he needs to consider offers for Fielder. Obviously you don't trade him for the sake of trading him, but I don't think you can expect a team to give away their 2 and 3 starters to get him either. I would be willing to accept high ceiling, high level (AA or AAA) prospects for Fielder. The core of the offense, minus Fielder, is now Braun, Escobar, Gamel and McGehee, and all four will be around for awhile. Within the next 2 seasons you can expect players like Cain, Schafer, Green, Salome, Lucroy, and Lawrie to be around as well. If you can get some good, young pitchers to come up around the same time as those players, you are setting yourself up for a good couple of years. I just think its a bad idea to accept draft picks for Fielder. We don't even know if that compensation system will be around after the next CBA either do we?

It will be interesting to see what happens in Wisconsin. Arnett, Heckathorn, Odorizzi and Howell all, in my opinion, deserve to be fill time starters until they show otherwise. That leaves one spot, probably for Bucci. I suppose Lasker could start out in the bullpen or in Helena. Either way, it's nice to finally have some talent AND some depth even if most of it if still 2 years away. I'm interested to see how Anundson, Rogers and Rivas handle Huntsville. Hopefully Mike Jones returns as he could possibly be the first option if a pitcher goes down.

I would take a look at Ben Sheets. He'd be my number one option for a one year deal, I think.

My vote is for St. Louis. Boston is right up there, but they're payroll and financial flexibility certainly helps. The big difference between Boston and a team like, say, Milwaukee, is money. The reason I say that is because while Milwaukee drafts and develops guys like Braun, Sheets, Fielder, and Gallardo, they don't have the money to keep them all. If the Brewers could afford to resign Fielder and Gallardo like they did with Braun, they'd look a lot better than they no doubt will when they are forced to trade Fielder. If Sheets didn't get hurt, and the Brewers could have re-signed him, they would probably be in wild card contention again this year. With Sheets and Gallardo heading the rotation for another 3 or so years and a lineup built around Braun and Fielder for another 5, it's a lot easier to make your organization succeed. Anyway, my point is St Louis seems to do a lot more with a lot less than Boston does. Boston also has the east coast advantage and gets a lot more national exposure, which certainly doesn't hurt.

Making rash generalizations about his intelligence level because he smoked some weed is simply ridiculous. Plenty of successful people, even pop icons have been caught smoking weed. Aaron Sorkin was caught doing mushrooms. Although it did some damage to his reputation, no one denied that the guy was a genius screen-writer. I think you are missing the point. Its not just that he's smoking weed. Its that he is literally jeopardizing his entire career and the potential of millions of dollars to do it. I have no idea who Aaron Sorkin is, but my guess is that he doesn't have a "three strikes and you can't be a screen writer anymore" rule. The reason people are bashing Jeffress is because the kid is acting selfish and immature. You get caught once, fine, it happens. But for him to let it happen again, thats just foolish. When Jeffress signed that contract with the Brewers, he made a commitment to them. He has shown, however, that he is more interested in smoking weed than honoring that commitment. That's why people are bashing him. And I agree.

Say hello, Adam Heether. Thats a good point, but wouldn't we have to re-sign him? If I were Adam Heether, no way would I sign with Milwaukee. Not only did they completely blow him off this season by not promoting him, but with the way Escobar and Gamel are being treated by Macha, Heether would have to think he would never get an at bat. I'd love to have him as a utility guy next season, but if we have to sign him in order for that to happen I would not be optimistic.

The reason people want to trade him is because he has never produced like this before and are skeptical that he will do it again so they view it as a sell high oppurtunity. It's not just trading him for the sake of trading him. Yes, I have read the argument. For one, he's a rookie, so when you say he's never produced like this before you are talking about in his minor league career. I'm not saying the he's absolutely going to put up the same numbers next year, but its certainly not out the question. Even in he drops off to a .275 average, thats still not really that bad. Young hitters (I realize he is 26 but he's young in terms of experience) tend to get better with more experience. And my argument all along has been yeah you may be able to get a #5 or possibly a #4 pitcher for him, but our rotation is full of those type of pitchers. You most likely aren't going to get what you need for him so why not keep him. I think if you trade McGehee and rely on Gamel to play third base you're taking an awfully big risk considering what Gamel has done this season. He has a lot of potential but perhaps we should wait until he has had some success before we hand him an every day postion.

I think the best thing to do is promote Salome to Milwaukee with Ken Macha as the manager. What could possibly go wrong?

How do you get the same result? Hart has no trade value right now. He's had back to back crappy years. And why are we moving the young player from 3B to make room for the older one with knee issues? We should play Gamel at third base because he is younger? I don't get it. Haven't scouts made it known for years now they don't think Gamel can stay at third base? Plus, if the "older one with knee issues" is going to stay on the team, don't you think third base would be a better option because you don't need to have as much range at third base as you do in the outfield? The guy is in the running for ROY and everybody wants to move him to make room for a prospect that, quite honestly, has had a very underwhelming year both in the majors and in the minors. And by the same result, all I meant was that no matter if you trade Mcgehee and start Gamel at third or trade Hart and move Gamel to the outfield, the result will be the same in that you'll have a third baseman and an outfielder. I realize Hart has had a few down seasons, but he is still a 20-20 player (unless Macha is the manager). Its not like his value is zero. I don't think you'll get a significantly better pitcher for Mcgehee than you will for Hart, and I don't agree with trading Mcgehee just for the sake of trading him.

Our starting pitching is the worst in the league. The free agent market is weak, especially in starting pitching. We are going to have to trade from a deep position. If you trade Hart and move Gamel to the outfield you'd have the same end result.....an outfielder and a third basemen. But if you trade Hart you'd have 2 young guys you control for a number of years, both of whom are better offensively than Hart. Quite frankly, I don't think you're going to get anything more than a #4 or #5 for for McGehee, which we don't need, so you may as well keep him. If you can't get what you need pitching wise by trading Hart and Hardy, then you aren't going to get it with anything else we have other than Fielder and maybe Gamel.

Does anyone know what the chances of Adam Heether actually sticking around are? The guy earned a September promotion this season and we blew him off. If Ken Macha is retained, Heether knows even if he does make the opening day roster that they chances of him actually playing are minimal. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have him back as the super sub, but surely after seeing how Ken Macha runs things he is going to go somewhere else.

Casey McGehee= scotty po in terms of outlier seasons as rookies in the majors... I love casey and he's been great, but the odds are against him carrying an ops north of .760 next year... I have never understood this line of thinking. He had a good year so we are just going to assume he will fall back and be a below average player next season? Who cares what he has done in his past, maybe he just made improvements. The fact of the matter is he has earned third base and should be allowed to play it until he gives it away. What happens if we "sell high" with him and Mat Gamel hits .240 next season while McGehee has another season like he had this year? I personally don't think this offense is good enough to trade away one of the more consistent hitters in the lineup. Beside, if this season is just an outlier and he is likely to fall off next season, can we really expect any real pitching help in return for him?

I don't understand how the Brewer organization works. Right now they have Casey McGehee, Mat Gamel, and Taylor Green all playing third base. Green has gotten some playing time at 1B but really not all the much. What exactly do they plan on doing with everyone? Why not move Gamel to the outfield and let Casey McGehee, who has certainly earned it, play third base every day?

I've been there 4 times, and I have never had a problem with any Cubs fans, even afterwords at some of the bars. That being said, the stadium is a piece of crap. I actually got lost trying to find the bathroom the first time I went there. The beer vendors weren't around much either.

I wanted to bring back this thread now that the season is over. 2 of my original prospects I was hoping would have nice seasons, Brent Brewer and Yohannis Perez, well......not so much . Scarpetta, Lawrie and Odorizzi all had pretty decent years though. How did everyone else's picks do?

I would give him up to $7 million, plus maybe another 2 in incentives. While you certainly can't expect him to perform the way he did before the injury, he is still probably going to be better than anyone we can sign from the free agent market. If we could have Gallardo, Sheets, Bush, Parra, and Suppan, plus Jones, Butler, and whoever it is we get from a Hardy trade, we could probably get by without making a major changes to the offense.

I didnt want to start a new thread for this, but I've been thinking it over. I think the best way to handle the lineup next season is like this. Trade Hardy and Hart for pitching and just hope that its enough to get you a pitcher or two that will be enough to stay afloat. There should be a little more depth with Butler and hopefully Jones in AAA as well. But unless you trade Fielder, you're not going to get what we really need, which is a #2 pitcher to push everyone down a slot. I would then move Gamel to right field and play Casey Mcgehee at thirdbase. I guess let Lopez walk because theres really no need to have both him and Weeks on the team. Unless you trade Weeks, in which you'll get basically nothig in return, theres really no need to keep Lopez, plus you get a couple of picks if he signs elsewhere. As much as I dislike the type of offense Cameron brings, a one year deal for is probably the best option. So anyway, the lineup would be as follows: 1) Escobar SS 2) Weeks 2B 3) Braun LF 4) Fielder 1B 5) McGehee 3B 6) Gamel RF 7) Cameron CF 8) Rivera/Salome C The utility infielders would be, hopefully, Counsell and Heether (I'm still ticked off he didnt get called up and don't really expect him to be willing to resign with a team that refuses to give him an oppurtunity despite him more than earning one, but I can dream). That would leave you to find two backup outfielders, one of which can be Gerut.

You could stick Anderson in AA again and hope that halfway through the season he'd be ready to move up. He has had a terrible year, but based on what he's done it the past its hard to think he couldn't bounce back. Do all of us really think JJ Hardy is nothing better than a .230 hitter? We could maybe even use his bad year as leverage to getting more. At the very least it gives up an option for first base as early as 2011.

Well i dont think you can expect more than one "great" player. I think 4 good to really good players is going to have to equal a Fielder. One of these players is not going to be as good as Fielder, so you have to judge the package as a whole as opposed looking at each player individually. Bucholtz is pitching in the AL and would probably be a step up over anything we have no other than Gallardo and he still has room to get better, which Suppan, Looper, and maybe even Bush don't have. Elsbury would be a great addition to the lineup. Anderson may have just had a down year and may bounce back. So if you can get Haragone or Bowden, its certainly something you have to consider.