areacodes

Of course they could improve with Counsell but there are no guarantees they’ll all of a sudden start spending loads and loads more than they’ve done in the past. Hell, for all we know the Rickett’s hired Counsell because he’s done less with more and they want him to do the same in Chicago. Not likely but you never know.

It isn’t controversial for you to hope the Brewers didn’t just automatically non-tender Woodruff. The reason so many are disagreeing with you is because there is no indication the Brewers did anything you are suggesting and ample evidence that they tried to sign him to a multi year deal and didn’t just trade him somewhere he didn’t want to be… you know, treating him like more than just a piece of meat.

Of course opinions are allowed - that is the whole point. But typically when you have the following takes: People are expecting to see some type of reasoning/logic behind your opinion.

Besides Counsell, isn’t every other new hire so far been cheap? I don’t think you can look at the dollar value alone and assume this is some sign of a looming rebuild. What about Weeks makes you feel he won’t be “the guy for the future”?

I’ll say this with the caveat that I’m not sold on Griffin as the coach nor was I 100% on board with firing Bud but I think people are overreacting a bit to the record early on this year. Yes, the Bucks got off to a fast start a few times under Bud but also had some pretty meh starts too. ‘20-‘21: 6-4 ’21-‘22: 4-6 (wasn’t above .500 until winning game #17) I was always expecting it to take some time to gel with adding Dame and Giannis/Khris recovering from surgery in the offseason all with a new coach. If we are healthy and hovering around .500 when the calendar turns to 2024, I’d be much more concerned.

I wouldn’t say it rules out anybody externally but it has to rule out those with managerial experience (Kapler, Mattingly). I could see a rookie manager being okay with most of the staff already picked considering they’d be able to pick their bench coach.

I was going to say the same thing. What is considered offsides on an OL? They all look to have their helmets behind the center.

They called Nijman offsides. Unless I missed something on the replay, it sure didn’t look like anybody on the Packers line was in the neutral zone.

Do most Marquette students even consider themselves a Wisconsin school? It looks like 66-70% of students come from outside Wisconsin and kids from Illinois make up the largest percentage.

Once again, Professor, it has nothing to do with your conclusion. It has to do with how you came about your conclusion and this arrogance that you somehow had all of these facts you were using while the rest of us were just making assumptions. And if you are going to give somebody a definition of a word from a dictionary - it actually helps to provide the actual definition: Merriam-Webster - a: an assuming that something is true - b: a fact or statement taken for granted Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary - a belief or feeling that something is true or that something will happen, although there is no proof Neither of these definitions (one directly from your source - your definition was in relation to when premise is used as a synonym for assumption) are stating you are required to use something as a starting point when considering an assumption but rather a belief that something is true without fact. When this started, you specifically said, "I'm not making any assumptions. I am reading what has played out right in front of our eyes." and when asked for your facts you said, "As I said earlier the facts are the words used and the demeanor shown by Counsell and Woodruff in their comments to the press." Also notice, you did not use Woodruff's previous injury as part of your facts until later. You took some facts (Woodruff is injured and will miss at least the WC round), added in your interpretation of Woodruff/Counsell's comments and demeanor (not facts) and came to a conclusion. You made an assumption and it is fine to admit that.

Here you go: Your interpretation of somebody’s demeanor is not a fact. I don’t get why it is so hard for you to admit that you were making an assumption just like the rest of us - you’ve been the only one to claim that your conclusion is based only on facts and not assumptions.

It has nothing to do with the conclusion you drew as that is pretty much agreed upon by everybody. It is the arrogance of thinking you have facts and weren’t making assumptions like everybody else.

Any player in the organization by 8/31 is eligible for the post season roster. ETA: “A player . . . can still be added to a team’s roster in the postseason via petition to the commissioner’s office if the player was in the organization on Aug. 31 and is replacing someone who is on the injured list and has served the minimum amount of time required for activation.” https://www.mlb.com/glossary/transactions/postseason-roster-rules-eligibility

Here is the Wild Card round roster.

I think pretty much everybody has been in agreement on this one. It sucks for Woody and it looks like his year is done. Most of us are accepting that we are dealing with incomplete information and are making an assumption about the outcome. Others are doing essentially the same thing but are confusing their assumptions as facts and then are surprised when others might quibble with that.

The facts are that the Brewers announced he had an injury and will miss the Wild Card round. My assumption is that he’ll be out the rest of the playoffs and possibly longer if it requires surgery. The rest of what you mentioned aren’t facts, it is your interpretation of words and demeanor and making an assumption. It is okay that you were making an assumption like the rest of us about his status going forward.

What facts are you using to draw your conclusion?

I’m assuming the players likely had some knowledge this was a possibility, so hopefully they don’t come out flat. That GIF is exactly how I feel with the news… it’s like Ben Sheets not being available to pair with CC all over again.

What did other first year arby relievers get? Who got more than him?

If the Marlins and Mets game needs to be finished, what is the least amount of players the Mets need in order to play? Do they need the whole 28 man roster to show up at the park or can they just have enough put a team on the field if it goes to extras?

Hey now, that’s not fair… the Pirates were involved in that conversation for like a week or two too.

Yelich is back in the starting line up and leading off.

Connecting dots as to what might happen is different than going to happen as how I read your post and what Brewers888 was spewing.

To be fair, it was pretty much one poster just doing that ad nauseam.