BillScottCanRake

The two best professional sporting events I have ever attended were Packer-49er games. I was at the Monday Night game in 1996 and the regular season game in 1998. Two highly entertaining, meaningful games full of HOFers and all-pros playing at a high level. The crowds at those two games, especially the Monday Night game, were electric. Those were fun times.

As of June 17, La Crosse County has 173 COVID-19 cases. On May 31, the county had 60 reported cases (with the first one being mid-March-ish). Between June 1-17 we have had 113, with 67 of those being in the past three days. If someone visited any one of six restaurants between June 5 and 7 they likely been exposed to COVID-19. I am not sure if statistically that is a spike, but it feels like one. What I have seen here in the La Crosse area from a fair number of residents is very binary response to COVID-19; OMG, total lockdown! or What COVID? It doesn't take much effort or change to really limit the spread. Wash your hands. Don't touch things. Limit your trips out. Make 1 trip to the store instead of 3. When you are out keep your distance. Be social, but responsible. Just because you aren't likely to get severely ill or die from COVID doesn't mean you shouldn't care about the consequences of it spreading. The last point is the one which really bugs me personally. My mom passed away on April 7, and the last time I was able to see her was when I drove her to the hospital to get her admitted. Because I was running a low-grade fever, I was not allowed to visit until I had a COVID test and it was negative. It took 5 days to get my results, which came in 10 minute after I got the phone call about my mom. My son-in-laws father and grandfather both also passed in April, and his family was in the same position as mine; no visitors. Go to work. Live life. Be social. And please be considerate. Because COVID does impact people beyond the number of people who have died.

The Brewers having more money to spend this year (or any year) based upon current revenue and payroll is your opinion, period. There isn't a single poster here qualified to make a definitive statement on the Brewers ability to add payroll of any specific dollar amount as FACT. Unless you work for the Brewers and have access to all the numbers (not just the public ones, and not just the ones you have posted, but ALL of them) and have access to their business model, their budget, etc, etc, you are guessing just like all of the rest of us. You might well be making a well educated one based upon the numbers available and some good guesstimates based on those not available, and your opinion might even align with the realities of what is going on in the Brewers front office, but at the end of the day it doesn't change the fact that you are guessing and offering opinions. Since EVERYONE here can only offer an opinion on this topic and NOBODY can speak on this topic factually, there is no reason for ANYONE to admit they are wrong. This is a discussion forum, not a whose right and whose wrong forum.

I think intent is really hard to judge, so I'll let others more comfortable making those types of determines come to their own conclusion. What does seem to be clear is the decision to go inside was unconventional and what got him in trouble even if it wasn't his intent to run Lucroy over. Has anyone seen a shot which might have down the Astro's on deck hitter trying to let Marisnick know where to slide? I haven't, but I do wonder if his decision was his alone or if he had any help. What is less clear to me is the timing on Marisnick's hard move towards the inside of the baseline compared to Lucroy's move up the first base line to catch the throw. I watched the GIF above, and I watched the play on Youtube and slowed to 1/4 speed to try to see when Marisnick made his cut inside. I then tried to go frame-by-frame as best I could to see when they both made their moves that made the collision inevitable. I don't expect to change any minds, but I do think it was close enough that people can have a different opinions on the subject without being told they are "blind" or categorically told they are wrong. When Marisnick plants his right foot to cut harder to the inside of the baseline, Lucroy is pretty stationary. At that point, right, wrong or otherwise Marisnick is committed to the path he is taking, and while he chose a path that was more likely to result in contact, I am not convinced that was his intent. Pretty simultaneous to or just fractions of a second after Marisnick plants his right foot Lucroy starts his move up the baseline to catch the throw. By the time Marisnick plants his left foot, a collision is going to happen. Looking at Marisnick's last step (or the stride off his left foot), I can see how someone would interpret that as not a forceful or purpose full stride to run over Lucroy. I am not sure I'd go so far as to say he "stumbled", but his foot hits the ground much further ahead of his body than a normal stride. It looks odd, and to me it doesn't look like a stride one would take if you want to run someone over. His intent could have still been to run him over, but he kinda botched it if that was his goal. Finally, when I look at the view from the third base side, Marisnick extends his arms and initiates contact with them rather than leading with his shoulder. Was Marisnick in the wrong? In my opinion, he was. His decision to go inside the baseline instead of outside was odd even if it isn't without precedence. I am not sure he intended to initiate contact or not, but his decision to take the path he did made it inevitable. Should he be suspended? Yeah, probably, because he did initiate contact with Lucroy by deviating from his path even if that wasn't his intent wasn't to run him over.

Is it possible the Bucks kept the players who wanted to continue playing with Milwaukee and lost those who did not? One of the guys they didn't retain voluntarily decided to play in another league. I have no idea what either player is thinking, but it wouldn't surprise me if maybe they just wanted to play somewhere else so the Bucks made the moves they did.

Per @albertnahmad If the Bucks (i) waive-and-stretch John Leuer, (ii) stretch George Hill’s $1.0M cap hit, and (iii) rescind Malcom Brogdon’s $3.0M qualifying offer, but keep his Non-Bird rights at $1.6M, to S&T him, they can create $9.2M of cap room. Which could result in 3/$29M for George Hill.

Frank Madden is assuming they stretched Leuer. Have to assume Leuer is being stretched to make this possible. Curious if it’s fully or partially guaranteed.

We are waiving you to sign And That to a mid level exception. Harsh! I feel you Hernan Perez!

As someone who is a much more causal NBA fan than baseball fan, I would REALLY love it if I could come to this thread as someone who is looking for some news and opinions instead of a BF.net moderator. I know the thought of being a moderator sounds like fun, but threads like this one make it suck. If it weren't for the pay, I'd have resigned long ago. I think we are all adults here. And being an adult isn't about winning every point or who is right the most. Can we put down the scorecards and please treat each other respectfully, no matter who is "right" and who is "wrong"? Please? If you can't do it because it is the right thing to do, do it for my family. We really can't afford to lose out on the money I am bringing home from here.

Remember when we all loved Bill Hall because we thought he'd be the next Babe Ruth (or Brooks Kieschnick)? Dreams of having an all star infielder and Cy Young pitcher kept our spirits up in those transitory days from Wendy Selig Prieb and Sal Bando to Mark A and Doug Melvin. Those were good times. Would it be too much to ask Keston to win 8 games in the second half as a starter as well as put up 3 WAR as a position player? If for nothing else than a little Brewerfan.com nostalgia?

While there are a lot of opinions in this thread, there are two that kinda jump out at me. They are hard for me to articulate, but I'll try. First, if you want results all you have to do is "try" harder. I put try in quotes because it isn't the right word, but I can't think of a more appropriate word so it will have to do. But it is a sentiment which was also very prevalent in the Kimbrel and Kuechel threads. If the Brewers wanted to win, they should sign of those guys. If they don't, it must mean they don't want to win. It is almost as if signing one or both of those players was like pre-paying for a World Series. I think Milwaukee's best chance to win a World Series is to make the playoffs as many times a possible, not by going "all in" at the expense of future years. The other opinion I see expressed a lot is "why are so many people satisfied with 'just making the playoffs'?" Almost as if being a playoff team is easy, and not being more is the result of being incompetent or lazy; a choice rather than an outcome. While winning your division or having your leagues best regular season record can make your path to a championship easier, it doesn't make it easy. History is littered with historically good teams failing to win championships because it is just plain old hard to do. As great as the Patriots have been since 2001, as hard as they have tried and as much as they have cared about winning, they have "only" won six championships. So if you went into each season with an expectation that only a championship season would be successful, as a fan you'd consider your team a failure 2/3 of the time. I am perfectly content with Milwaukee's current position in the standings. If they make the playoffs, I'll be content with that, too. I'd love to see them win the division, too. All the while hoping for a World Series without expecting one, and perfectly willing to consider the season a successful without a World Series title.

I believe the Brewers are likely in a place where there are very few moves available to them which will enhance their window and loads more which will shorten it. As such, I want them to be appropriately aggressive, and I am very happy to have them not do anything if that avoids a Suppan like move. As long as they don't spend money for the sake of thinking a higher payroll automatically means a more competitive team I will be happy.

I am hoping someone can help me out. What is it about trying to break up a no hitter, or bunting to do so, that is wrong? I thought baseball was a competitive endeavor where the defensive team attempts to prevent the offense from reaching base, while the offensive attempts to reach base and score as often as they can. The game only ends when one team has scored more than the other and the losing team has recorded at least 27 outs. If a pitcher (or team) has a no hitter after 24 outs, why should an offense a) not do anything they would normally do in the first 8 innings? and b) restrict themselves to only specific strategies? To be that seems to go against the whole competitive aspect of the game. The thing I dont get is why a bunt single in the third is OK but why it isn't in the 9th? Does this also mean a pull hitter who 27-hoppers one the opposite way is "just" trying to break up a no hitter? I understand realistically games are decided prior to the 9th inning, but given the lack of a clock in baseball and ts competitive nature, bunt away. Or lean into a pitch. It is up to the pitcher and the other 8 guys to earn a no hitter.

Here is a story about Dillard and his Twitter Account, among other things. https://www.tennessean.com/story/sports/2019/05/29/instagram-twitter-suspended-nashville-sounds-tim-dillard/3657117002/

You get 3 option years and they usually start after your 3rd year in the organization. Occasionally some players will get a 4th option year. Anytime a player is optioned to the minors they use one of their 3 options. Keep in mind once a player is optioned during a year they can bounce back and forth without using an additional options. Hiura should have 2 options left, the same as Shaw, as he was on a rehab assignment and wasn't optioned.

I see what he (and you) meant. I don't have a good counter to your position other than Stearns thought Hiura would probably out perform Saladino. This allowed the Brewers to get Hiura some exposure before recalling him permanently later. I am willing to admit that's highly speculative and could well be wrong, but I also dont think it is X-Files out there.

I don't know about that. Why not just call up Saladino as Shaw's injury replacement then? I think the optics of the move are better if this is indeed about service time if they recall Shaw. I am not saying I would do that, or it's the right move, but if you want to avoid Super 2 and have plausible deniability I think you need to recall Shaw and not Salandino.

Thanks TPlush. I think this is largely about making sure Hiura isn't a Super-2 and Shaw is just the excuse so Stearns can plausibly lie about it, and those numbers seem to make the service time theory realistic. EDIT: I think 7 million by itself isn't a big deal by itself, but the addition of 7 million to a future payroll may be. Historically the Brewers have not been good enough often enough to spend to whatever limit their revenue sets, so when they played this game they did so because they were cheap. Now that they are competitive and hoping to stay that way, having an extra 5-10 million to spend could be huge. It may not pay an entire years salary for a player, but it could mean the ability to spend 20 million for a player instead of 10 or 15.

Is there anything that quantifies the salary difference between non-Super 2s and Super-2s in a players 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th seasons?

Maybe Aguilar can wear a hazmat suit so the others are more at ease being around him?

I think, and I am sure he will correct me if I am wrong, but I think sveumrules was using sarcasm to make a point. I think that point was it is very hard to tell the difference between an unexpected result because that's sports and someone choking.

Thanks Homer. I admit I am curious to see how this plays out. And may have my hopes a bit too high.

There are three big reasons I tend to downplay the clutch/anti-clutch angle with players. 1. There are plenty of examples of players exhibiting what some call clutch and anti-clutch characteristics, sometimes in the same game, and often during the same season. If a player goes 2-14 in the first 47 minutes of game 7 but shot 15 is a 30-footer to win, what are they? Anti-clutch? Clutch? Both, neither? If a player goes off for 45 in an elimination game 6 and carries his team to victory but scores 12 with 8 turnovers in a game 7 loss, was he clutch in game six and not in game seven? 2. Often times clutch and anti-clutch performances mirror other performances by that player in less stressful situations. Could we find a 4 game stretch in the regular season similar to the one Bledsoe has put up against the Raptors? If so, is he anti-clutch or just having an off series? 3. The sample sizes are almost always so small that unless someone does something wildly uncharacteristic it is hard to make any statistical conclusions. The 13 games they have played this far is a just more than 15% of the number of games they played during the regular season. Most people wouldn't consider that a significant anough sample to go by. Could Bledsoe's performance in this series be the result of the pressure getting to him? It is entirely possible it is, but I also think it is entirely possible it is just one of those stretches where a good player is playing poorly because the game is hard. I am not comfortable there is enough evidence for me to say with any degree of certainty these games have been too big for him. I guess I understand why people may believe that is the case, and they may even be right. I am not convinced.

Homer, what percent chance is there of an announcement today? I'm prepared to come back later if you have a specific time you need to break the news.

One can be a fan, excited by the news of the call-up and he long-term implications, and believe there will be an adjustment period all at the same time. There isn't anything about those things which are mutually exclusive. I'm excited; I think he's got a very good chance to be a very good offensive player. I'm very excited to see what he can do now that he's up, but I'm still more excited for what he's going to become down the road. I think he's got a chance to be very good for a long time, and combined with what they have in place, I'm pumped. I've also been a fan long enough to know not every prospect turns into what we think they will, and some take longer to get going than others. So while I'm excited, I've got tempered expectations for him for this year. I hope like heck he hits like Ryan Braun 2007- I'll be excited as anyone if he does- but I won't be surprised if he ends up more like 2005 Corey Hart.