paul253

You’re right. I misread his debut age as his currnt age.

Eric Thames also cooled off drastically in the second half. I think his numbers are skewed by his ridiculously hot start. Jose Abreu is a better hitter than Thames. I can understand people not wanting to use up resources on a position we don’t really need help at but I do think Abreu would be an upgrade for sure. I’m concerned about a pretty significant regression from Thames next season. His OBP was .005 points lower than Thames. And his career OBP is exactly the same as Thames OBP was this year. If he’s no good at getting on base then neither is Thames. Abreu is also 4 years younger than Thames.

All the better for us then. I’d hate to give up Harrison but with both Brinson and Phillips, along with Clark (Grisham?) and Ray who still have potential, CF is still a position of strength. Thames/Harrison/Ortiz/Medeiros?

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2017/11/looking-for-a-match-in-a-jose-abreu-trade.html MLBtradetumors has listed the Brewers as a possible suitor for Abreu. I know we made a big push for him when he came over. Would it make sense to go after him? He’d be a upgrade, a big one Id say, over Thames. But he’s cost a lot and I only controllable for two more years. The Sox would have to take Thames in return then I’d guess it starts with Brinson. So Thames, Brinson, and maybe Ray/Clark and a lesser prospect? Does that get it done? Should we pursue him to help our incredibly inconsistent offense? Plop him in the 4 spot between Braun and Santana.

Depends on who we acquire. I’d say nobody is untouchable but if we’re going to give up a Brinson or a Burnes it should be for a legitimate starting pitcher with more than two years control.

Anyone else think it’s a joke that with two weekends left in the regular season and Wisconsin playing Michigan (the week before Michigan gets Ohio St) and all other teams wrapping up conference play Alabama is playing Mercer? And Auburn is playing Lafayette? And Clemson is playing the Citadel? It’s bad enough the SEC and ACC refuse to go to 9 conference games like everyone else because that guarantees another loss for half of the conferences teams. But playing games against pitiful non conference opponents, some years team that aren’t even FBS teams, is a joke an Alabama should be embarrassed. Of course they aren’t because they do it every year, just like every year they avoid a true non conference road game and every year they just happen to have a bye before the LSU game. The SEC really knows how to take care of it’s teams.

I disagree. If a Boise St team clearly deserves to be in ahead of Alabama I think the fans of everybody but Alabama would scream bloody murder if Boise St didn’t get in. If Houston had run the table last year they would have been in because they had wins over Oklahoma and Louisville. Too bad they lost to some teams in their own conference. Also, they went to human I think because they can consider things computers can’t. That’s why Ohio St got in last year and Penn St didn’t (though that was probably a mistake).

Even though it won’t happen i think Oklahoma is the best team and should be number 1. Wins at Ohio St and Oklahoma St and vs TCU are all better than anything Alabama has done. Alabama should have lost last night. I don’t know MSU was thinking blitzing 8 guys when Bama had third and 15 at the end there. What I think SHOULD BE the top five: Oklahoma Alabama Clemson Miami Wisconsin What I think will be the top five is the same except flip flop Bama and Oklahoma.

If Wisconsin goes undefeated and Georgia loses in the SEC championship game it’ll be interesting to see how the committee handles it. Everyone talks about how weak the Big Ten West is but I’m looking at the top 25 and see three Big Ten West teams in there. You want to talk about weak let’s talk about the SEC East, where Georgia plays. That division is awful. Who is the second best team even? South Carolina? Kentucky? So would Georgia’s win over ND offset their loss to Alabama AND the fact that they may be playing in the weakest Power 5 division? You wouldn’t think so but this years rankings are baffling to me. And I can’t for the life of me figure out how Michigan isn’t ranked. They lost to two top 15 teams, one in a monsoon and both with their backup QB. There are 5 three loss teams ranked ahead of them.

These rankings seem a bit off to me. First off I despise Alabama but it’s a joke not to put them at 1. Georgia is 1 because, what, they beat ND by a point? Ok. Second, Oklahoma should be ahead of Clemson. Oklahoma won at Ohio St and lost to an Iowa State team that is much better than people thought. Clemson lost at Syracuse. Syracuse. As far as Wisconsin goes. Michigan SHOULD win their next two games, which would make them 8-2 and probably a top 20 team heading into their game at UW. If UW beats them and also beats a one loss Ohio St or Penn St team in the championship I don’t see how you can leave them out of the playoff. I get that scheduled counts. But winning all of your games should count for something too. There is no way, unless all hell breaks loose, that two SEC teams should be in the playoff, especially since it would likely result in a 1-4 rematch in the playoffs. The SEC East is just as weak as the Big Team West is. At this point I predict the SEC champion (Alabama) the Big Ten Champion (Ohio St) the Big 12 champion (Oklahoma) and then either Clemson or Notre Dame for the playoffs.

On that note I saw a “rumor” today on the internet, so obviously it has to be true, about Eric Bledsoe. Not sure who approached whom or if this is even legit but apparently Phoenix asked for Brogdon and Henson for Bledsoeand the Bucks responded by offering Henson and Delladova.

Can we please stop comparing ourselves to the Cubs? They can strategize differently than we can due to economics of baseball. They don’t need a consistently strong farm system as much as we do. I feel like posters here are trying to make themselves feel better about our lack of success by convincing themselves that our future is brighter. Back in the mid 2000s our future also looked much better and what did we get? Two playoff appearances and one division championship. And why did we get it, by the way? Because we traded the farm for one player on two separate occasions. The Cubs have made the NLCS three consecutive years and won a World Series in the process. I’d be absolutely fine with us using the same strategy if we could, but we can’t which, again, is why I think we should stop comparing ourselves to the Cubs.

I hate the idea of giving a franchise to a city who already lost a franchise due to lack of support. Do they really want a team or do they just miss having one? I’d prefer a team in Charlotte, San Antonio or even Las Vegas. Portland seems like a good choice though. Natural rivalry with Seattle. As far as Division setup I’d prefer 8 four team divisions. I don’t think the two NY teams or two Chicago teams, not to mention LAA and LAD or Oakland and SF would ever agree to be in the same division. But I also like the idea of eliminating the whole AL/NL thing. I’ve always believed the AL teams have a huge advantage in terms of franchise building plus you’ve seen so many serious injuries involving pitchers while they are either batting or running.

Wisconsin swept weekend games at Boston College and Merrimack this weekend. Still not sure how good this team is but they’re certainly off to a good start. It’s nice to see Wisconsin hockey winning some games again.

Are you talking about Mike Jones? Former first rounder? I’ll second Braddock and Gamel. I also thought Logan Schaefer would see success.

I only made it to one game and it was a game with one dollar hot dogs and sodas and I think four dollar nachos. The hot dog quality was poor but honestly I’d rather have four below average hot dogs for four dollars then one decent hot dog for whatever it is they charge now because at least it will fill me up. I have such a hard time justifying paying these ridiculous prices for food. I prefer just to get something on the way.

Corey Ray has absolutely no business being in the top 100. I have a hard time even putting him in the top 10 in our own system (I’d put Brinson, Burnes, Ortiz, Peralta, Phillips, Harrison, Hiura and Lutz ahead of him for sure, possibly Diaz and Erceg and definitely Woodruff if he’s still eligible). He may be young and he may be athletic but he’s done absolutely nothing as a pro. This is a college hitter and top 5 pick who can’t even hit A ball pitching. That’s not a good sign. Hopefully he figures things out and lives up to his potential but he has a long long way to go.

My wife and I are looking to have a family tree made for my parents for Christmas but I’m having a hard time getting my ideas down in the way that I have in mind. Essentially the chart would flow from top down with my parents in the middle. There’d be three generations above them and two below. I used Family Echo to make the chart the way I want but I’m struggling to figure out how to import it to a better program (or find a program where I can just remake it) where I can add a background picture. I’d like a nice big tree (preferably a picture of a real tree vs generic clip art) behind the chart along with random pictures of people in the family. I’d then like to take that whole thing and have in put on a nice print. Does anyone have any ideas? Any family tree software recommendations, free or paid?

I'm not denying that. I've never claimed that had we acquired Gray we for sure would have been in the playoffs. And no doubt Hader has been solid out of the bullpen. What I'm questioning is this assumption that all of our prospects are going to pan out and this absurd statement that two of them (I assume he's referring to Woodruff and Hader) are already more valuable than Gray. Hader has shown no ability to be a successful major league starter yet. He very well could and he'll no doubt get a chance but until he actually does I'm not willing to proclaim him a quality starting pitcher. And Woodruff tonight had his third bad outing out of his last four starts. I'm sure fatigue has been a factor but it still goes to show that he has a long way to go to match what Gray has become. I use Phillips and Hader as examples because it's what I think Oakland would have wanted based on what I was willing to give up. You're right there no guarantee they would have accepted Phillips over Brinson but I'd guess if Hader was involved something could have been worked out.

To be clear I would never have offered all three up in a deal for Gray. Not even close. I wouldn't have offered Brinson either. I made that clear the time. My package included one of the "Big 4" pitchers plus Phillips as the headliner. I think my stance could have better been described as "I think we are improving our team now without risking the future". Obviously I'm upset the Brewers didn't make the playoffs but I thought we had a real chance to obtain a TOR pitcher without completely gutting our farm system. Had a deal been centered around Hader and Phillips and, for arguments sake, Gatewood and Coulter, we definitely would have taken a hit in the system. But we still would have had plenty of prospects to help cover the losses. Well it's a good thing the games are actually played on the field and not decided by judges who has the more talented rosters. The Brewers went to LA and beat the Dodgers 2 of 3. They did the same to Washington. Talent wise they're not even but clearly they can win. And we all know pitching is key to winning. If we make the playoffs and Gray Anderson and/or Nelson all pitch how they've pitched most of the year we can certainly win a series or two. Yes and now Gray is an established major league starter whereas none of the others are. Jorge Lopez was once in AA pitching very well. How's his value nowadays? Same for Dana Eveland. Ben Hendrickson. Tyler Thornburg. All had awesome AA numbers. How good of major league league starters did they turn into? I get it. These guys have talent and upside and you want to keep them. But it doesn't seem like you're willing to acknowledge that sometimes prospects fail. I suggested trading one pitching prospect to acquire a TOR starter for 2 1/2 years. That I think is a chance we should have taken. Again I never suggested moving all three. Your combining the value of three and comparing it to the value of one is not fair here. And if you are saying a guy who has never pitched above AA isn't still a question mark at the major league level then your obsession with prospects has gotten the better of you. You cannot honestly believe the Corbin Burnes is a sure thing.

We were in first place at the time. How much more competitive do we need to be? Which 2 exactly? The one who is currently in AA? The one who has yet to make a major league start? Or the one who has all of seven major league starts under his wing and who is starting to come back to Earth after an incredibly hot start? I mean come on. This is ridiculous. Considering Gray would currently be the best starting pitcher on the staff I don't think he'd be blocking anyone. Burnes won't be ready to begin next year anyway. And who knows how well Hader can be as a starter. I'll take the sure thing over the question marks any day of the week. Beside, if Burnes or Hader forces their way into the rotation (I leave a Woodruff out because I assume he's already in) then they'll find a spot for them. and the guy they replace will be a lot less talented than Sonny Gray.

That's true but that's not really my point. It seems like a lot of people want to make this is either a "win now" or "build around the prospects". I'm saying it could have been both. We have both major league talent and high end prospects. Just because we trade a few prospects doesn't mean we're giving up from 2018-2021

People need to understand that it wasn't either "win now" or "continue the rebuild". We had enough young major league talent and enough prospects to do both. We had a surplus of quality outfielders and a decent number of starting pitching prospects. Trade one quality player from each position (I was ok with Phillips and Hader headlining a package for Gray, for instance) and we could get a big name player while still having plenty of minor league talent to build around.

You make it seem so easy. You just have to acquire a whole bunch of talented minor leaguers and then that will always automatically turn into a successful winning franchise. The problem is that's what we did in the late 2000s. We had two possible future Hall of Famers in the middle of our lineup plus three or four very good secondary pieces for a number of years. What did we win? One wild card birth and one division title three years later. And why did we even win that? Becuase we traded minor leaguers for big name talent. Without CC we don't make the playoffs in 08. Without Greinke and maybe even Marcum we don't make the playoffs in 11. I understand your love for prospects and I agree that a franchise like Milwaukee has to build from within. But there is absolutely a place for big name talent. Prospects fail like.....all the time. We cannot solely rely on our prospects and expect to win year in and year out. Gray was there for the having and we balked. It's understandable but now because of a series of unfortunate events not only are we unlikely to make the playoffs this season but we have a big hole to fill in our 2018 rotation.

Favorite is PNC in Pittsburgh. Great stadium great view. Worst is Wrigley. I haven't been there since before they started putting money into it but man what a dump.