strawbossisevil

Would you have said that to his face? He is after all, a human being. Just because one is on the internet doesn't give one free license to talk so disrespectfully at someone. That, in my book, is a great example of "being a tool". Just my opinion. I don't fault him at all for not putting up with such blatant lack of courtesy.

Ilikewisco, that's a video of Gonzalez, not Yuni. I think Gonzalez will be a major improvement in the field even in spite of what that video shows us.

Hamilton not only brings the bat, but he is a plus defender in LF, and average defender in CF. Both positions are higher on the defensive spectrum than Fielder. I think Hamilton is clearly the more valuable player. The question than becomes how much more valuable. How many games would he have to miss in order to even things out? I'll leave the answer to that question to the more stat minded members on the forum.

They are a very well run club in that they seem to make wise player additions that keep the team competetive. They have a high octane offense and are absolutely deadly on the counter. And have Oswaldo Sanchez as their goalkeeper. He's getting older, but still is probably one of the better goalkeepers playing in Mexico. Plus, the city of Torreón (where Santos Laguna play) is like a little Milwaukee. It´s home of one of the largest Corona factories in Mexico (thus the reason their stadium is called Estadio Corona), and the city is also known for being the chief milk and cheese producer in Mexico (home of the Lala milk/cheese company). Also home to the a John Deer tractor plant. The only difference is, of course, the weather as Torreón is located in the middle of the desert and has more dust storms than snowstorms.

I just can't get into it. It seems more boring than golf to me. Indoor soccer can be fun to watch. I'm not trying to pick a fight or blast fans of soccer, I'm just interested in what makes it fun to watch to the fans. I think it is the build up and anticipation of the play. As you watch more of it, you begin to see the play develop in front of you. Even if a goal isn't scored, the build up of a play can bring a lot of excitement as you see attack followed by counter attack. Think about when Landon Donovan scored to push the US on to the second round of the WC. The build up to the shot was exciting enough...and then when one goes in... pandemonium, ecstasy! Yes, the actual scoring is more limited, but every close call is exciting...you literally hold your breath hoping that shot is the difference maker. One mistake can be disaster. One other positive is that there are much fewer pauses in the action. There is no 5 second play followed by 30 seconds of standing around (american football). A break away or big save can happen at any moment with the right pass that is made at just the right moment.

Baseball: Brewers / Rays (I live near Tampa) Pro Football: Packers College Football: Wisconsin / Florida Soccer: Santos Laguna (Mexico Soccer) - They've been in the final a lot the past few years, but haven't won the title since I last lived in Mexico. Always runner up :/. Hockey: Tampa Bay Lighting College Basketball: Wisconsin

So it says "exclusively for season ticket holders" and then a bit later "no purchase necessary" and that you can enter the drawing via mail. Those two statements don't seem to jive so much, do they?

How do I know that those deals weren't available? 1) As TooLive pointed out, they weren't necessarily available as you indicated. Also, Melvin has come out time and time again about rumors to say that there is no validity to them. If you are going to base your entire argument on unsubstantiated rumor that time and time again has been proven to be false...then go right ahead...however if you do, don't expect me or anyone else to even consider your argument. 2) The going market for those type of pitchers at the time was much higher than what those "rumors" indicated. If the going rate for a Bucholtz (for example) was really as low as you indicate, there is no way that he wouldn't have been traded...if not to the Brewers to another team. More than likely, the rumors were wrong and the Red Sox/Rays/etc. were asking for a return that was very steep. Like has been said, young pitching prospects come with a huge price tag (per my point about the Garza trade). 3) I call them bogus because the going rate for prospect pitchers was much, much higher than the value of prospects like LaPorta or Brantley. You don't trade players who in a best case scenario become league average starters for top of the rotation pitching prospects. No team would make that kind of trade. Once again this is why I say that repeating over and over that those players could have been used to acquire prospect pitchers is bogus. The trade market overwhelmingly supports me on that. 4) The Kazmir trade is a once in a decade move. The Mets GM was a moron who became infatuated with a certain player whom he thought his team could turn into a star. It probably stands as the worst trade in the past decade. Expecting similar trades to be available as that one is being somewhat naive, IMO. There is a reason that GM (Phillips) doesn't have a job anymore. You don't make trades like that and remain employed as a GM.

He was BA's 2006 #1 prospect and Milb player of the year. To put it in 2011 perspective that would be trading Bryce Harper for Mike Montgomery. Yes, in the end it worked out for Tampa, but that is an extreme gamble. Garza wasn't a garbage prospect, but going from #1 prospect in the game to #21 is a pretty significant drop in talent. Even with the addition of a mediocre SS. Tampa Bay lucked out with Young never coming anywhere close to his immense potential, otherwise we would all be talking about how foolish Friedman's move for Garza was. Point remains, if you want a prospect pitcher in the top 20-30 range, the cost is going to be extremely high. It cost Tampa the top prospect in baseball to get Garza. The idea that the players included in the Sabathia or Grienke trades could have been used to acquire prospect pitchers like that is totally bogus. That was my chief point, and it is the point that you are refusing to address.

My point wasn't to compare it to the Sabathia trade. My point was if we want to talk about trading prospects for other prospects, it took the #1 prospect in all of baseball to get a prospect pitcher who peaked as a #2. They got lucky in that the #1 prospect amounted to nothing. Can you imagine if Melvin did the same thing? Trading a player like Fielder or Braun for a player like Garza? If those are the deals that are out there, the Brewers are best served keeping their hitting prospects or trading them for more difference making starters like Sabathia or Greinke. If anything, right now with the shift toward developing prospect pitching the pendulum has swung to where the best way to upgrade a pitching staff is by trading for players with a couple of years left on their contract. Both Greinke and Sabathia were absolute steals for the Brewers. To say they could have used the players in those deals to get a prospect the likes of Garza is naive...as I pointed out above, that would take a #1 prospect type players. Neither of those trades included players of that calibre.

The Rays traded the number #1 ranked prospect in all of baseball for Matt Garza. It's easy to forget that. If Delmon Young had turned out to be a Ryan Braun or Prince Fielder type player as he was being billed, that trade would have looked much worse. Garza was/is a solid pitcher, a solid #2. He is not, however, in the class of a C.C. Sabathia or the top pitchers in baseball. He has a career ERA a hair under 4 and his strike out to walk ratio is only about 2-1. In retrospect it looks good for the Rays because Young never panned out. They got a #2 for an average MLB outfielder.

Melvin isn't as good as Freidman. Neither are the other 28 GMs in baseball. Melvin is, however, a top 10 GM. Very few prospect pitchers are traded, it simply doesn't happen often. Almost every GM knows that cost effective pitching is one of the most valuable things that a team can have, so that is why all this call for the Brewers to trade for "high ceiling prospect pitchers" is absolutely bogus. You don't see trades like that often, you simply don't, especially for unproven offensive prospects. No one was ever going to trade a Clay Bucholtz caliber pitching prospect for a Matt Laporta or Alcides Escobar or Lorenzo Cain, even if you bundled some of them together. The market has recently undervalued stud pitchers entering their last season(s), and Melvin has taken advantage by trading prospects that were good (but not great...with the exception of Lawrie) in order to get great production. And look what has happened, it has gotten our team to the playoffs twice in the past few years. You discount the playoffs. I don't. The whole purpose of the Farm System is to build the MLB team so that it can make the playoffs. And, once again, Melvin has the team looking like a playoff contender going into 2012. And once again the big league club should have an attendance of 3 million +, which is due in large part to the moves Melvin has made. As far as Melvin not extending his players...he did so with Braun, Weeks, Gallardo, and Hart. He tried to do the same with Fielder, but if the player doesn't want a deal, you can't force a deal on him. Weeks extension had to wait due to health issues, but the extension was team friendly, as was Hart's and Gallardo's and Braun's. He's done a great job locking up much of the core of our team for the long term. Has every move that Melvin made paid off? No. But then again he is certainly above average compared to the majority of GMs in baseball. I'm content with above average...you apparently aren't content unless he is Freidman (aka the top GM in baseball). Good luck with that. You are setting yourself up for disappointment. It's like being disappointed that we had Prince Fielder as our 1 baseman, because the Cardinals had Albert Pujols. Yes, Pujols is better. But in comparison to the rest of the league...most envied us.

Seriously?Oh he is serious. Logan has never liked Braun. He likes a couple Brewers. Pretty sure that Betancourt was his favorite and that he spent the other night weeping into his pillow when he heard the Brewers went in another direction. But that is just hear-say. Can't wait for his new nickname for Braun that no one else will use. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

I look at it this way. I don't mind spending this kind of money on K-rod as long as there aren't better options available for us to use that money to improve our team. It probably isn't the most efficient use of our money, but I guess I don't see a player that can vastly improve our team available in Free Agency. If the question is whether I'd rather have AmRam or K-Rod...I'd gladly take K-Rod on a one year deal, versus spending big bucks on a guy who is likely going to get paid significantly more than he is worth over multiple years. The same is the case for Rollins. Signing those players for what they would like would hurt the Brewers in the long run. K-Rod is a short term budget hit. Another poster mentioned getting both Saito, Hawkins and Hairston for the same price. However, I think expecting both of those pitchers to remain healthy and effective is a roll of the dice (as we've seen the past couple of years). K-Rod is the more dependable pitcher at this point because he is nearly a decade younger. Hairston would have required a major overpay and a two year contract to keep him from going out west. I don't think that would have been a wise use of our money either as he also is an ageing player. At this point, I don't think there are any really good options for using K-Rod's allocated contract dollars to make a significant improvement to the team. Perhaps there is one available via trade...and its even possible that K-Rod could be used in such a trade. In the end, the only way this is a bad deal is if it prevents the Brewers organization from signing a player who will truly help make us better (not only this year but long term). So, I won't complain about it until it becomes clear that is the case. In fact, the contract may help us avoid making moves that would really serve as negatives to our club's ability to compete in the long term. It will also encourage our team to focus on making use of the prospects that we currently have at positions like 3b and 1b, which I applaud. It's time to give Gamel and Green their shot. I don't think there are many better options than those two on the Free Agent market anyway, and especially not any worth spending significant money on.

Does Android have a patent for the notification bar? If they do, then yes, it would be stealing. If Android does not, then Apple is free to copy the notification bar.

I would say you are interpreting their actions in a way that may not be entirely fair to Apple. If Apple has the patent for unlocking a phone via sliding, then HTC legally can't use that. There are plenty of other ways to unlock...clicking, facial recognition (as Android is offering in ice cream sandwich). HTC acted illegally, so should it be surprising that Apple holds them to it? Especially since they are a main opponent, of course Apple is goingto act this way. I'm sure that patent for Apple wasn't cheap, so I could see how a blatent disregard for the patent would push them to legal action. I think Apple is trying to keep Google from producing an equal product...I don't think it has anything to do with advancement. They don't want iphone clones everywhere because it devalues their product. I'm also not convinced that Apple is just going through the motions...the way they are pursuing the lawsuits, I think it is entirely possible that they could win a number of them. As for your tennis shoe analogy, if someone has the patent for shoe laces, then yes, that person legally needs to be paid for the right for the use of their product. And, the person owning that product legally has the right to deny the use of that product if he sees fit. That is how the system works. It ensures that those responsible for innovation receive a fair return for their ideas. To blatently disregard a patent is theft...and it is within the rights of the person owning the patent to sue and recoup damages. Edit: one more thought. I think HTC's blatent disregard for the patent shows a lack of desire to innovate. Instead of seeking to create something new or better, they took the shortcut of stealing the way it had always been done by their competition. That's not an innovative action, that is laziness and conformity.

Here's the issue, though. If Apple legally does own those patents, the other companies have no right to infringe on them. To infringe on those patents is tantamount to stealing. Your problem shouldn't be with Apple, it is simply acting as any smart company under capitalism would act to protect its own interests. The fact that other companies (Microsoft, for example) handle it in a different manner (legal settlements) is entirely up to the determination and rights of the one who owns the patent. Your problem should be with those who are granting the patents to Apple. If it really isn't in the true spirit of how patents are intended to work, Apple shouldn't be able to receive them, or their lawsuits shouldn't hold any legal power in court. But apparently those who issue those patents see no problem with Apple, and the courts seem to favor the idea that their rights are being infringed upon. I'd be interested in hearing from you what you believe to be the purpose that patents serve...my understanding is that patents are primarily meant to protect those who innovate from others copying and ripping off their ideas/inventions. Am I incorrect in that understanding? Some might say that Apple being a multi-billion dollar company has no right to patents like that, but I don't see why dollars and cents should or ever has determined whether one rightfully is entitled to a patent or not. Also, talk to text has been on IOS too, for quite some time (Dragon etc). The innovation behind Siri isn't that it merely turns talk into text, but that it is a significant step forward in improving the use of voice commands. What it does could be done before on Android through memorized commands, but not quite with the simplicity of Siri. If you're honest, you have to admit that Siri is a step beyond the voice input found in the Android system (although I'm sure Android is going to be working hard to catch up in the near future).

I agree that we most likely wont see eye to eye on this. I don't agree that I view Jobs frustration as unintelligible and I don't want to give off that impression. I would never use the word unintelligible to describe anything about Jobs. Instead I view it as narcissistic and juvenile. Regardless, Jobs' frustration isn't really what bothers me. Its the revisionist history that most of his faithful exhibit when they typically have little to no experience with the Android OS. Sure, the same could be said about a lot of Android adopters. Personally, I have used Android a lot more than iOS, but I have used iOS enough to understand its advances and shortcomings. I wish iPhone users would do the same with Android before assuming their phones are unique just because Apple tells them they are. I resent the assumption that I am some apple fanboy who simply repeats apple slogans. I recognize that apple products have their strengths and weaknesses just as Android does. I don't view my viewpoint as revisionist...I think anyone with any sort of honesty would admit that google borrowed heavily from apple. That isn't revisionist history, that is fact. I guess due to the content of your post I'm not surprised that you are an Android user. I've met a number of android users who feel like they have to constantly defend their operating system and set straight those who find the Ios environment superior. Honestly, if you like your Android better, fine, enjoy your product. You don't need to justify your purchase to Ios users any more than IOS users have to justify their purchase to you. For both groups the best advice is "enjoy your device and shut your mouth". At least in my opinion.

I don't view Jobs frustration as unintelligible. You apparently disagree. I don't think we'll ever see eye to eye on this discussion. I think all who dismiss the advance that was made with the introduction of iphone 1 are understating its impact on the development of the modern day cell phone. Just my $.02.

http://www.guinnessworldr...ports-stadium-(indoors)/ Go Milwaukee!!!

I don't understand how Jobs refined products but everyone else copied him. Have you seen iOS5? Nearly every new feature is a copy or refinement of something Android brought to market. Because Android brought a notification bar to market first does that mean Microsoft and Apple phones can't have notification bars? You can't have it both ways. I think this goes back to the original iphone...the first iphone comes out and google bends over backwards to make quick use of the idea to pattern their OS and phones off of the original iphone. Time and effort spent by google in R and D was nothing compared to that of Apple. Now, not having spent the time led Android to being a bit half-baked at the start, but you have to admit it was an effort at mimicking the OS found in the original iphone. Iphone was completely different from anything that had been out previously. We aren't talking about features or notification bars....it was a completely new interface...and Google/HTC swiped the idea without having put the R and D that the Apple company did. It would be like this...imagine you spend 10 years designing a motor that runs on water...you pour money into developing it, refining it etc. When you get the motor to market, suddenly...within a few weeks another person has taken your specs and made what amounts to essentially a copy of the moter you spent so much time, money, and effort developing. The fact that they didn't have to spend the time and money, also allows this new competitor to offer the product you invented at a cheaper price, significantly slashing your expected income from your hard work. That would suck, and I think that was the sentiment expressed by Steve Jobs. He could certainly been a bit more gracious, however. As for the comment about crying into his $100 bills. I guess I don't see how the amount of money involved makes a difference. If we as a country want to encourage imagination, invention and inovation, one of the worst ways to do that is for allow for the stealing of intellectual property.

How would you feel if you spent, perhaps years of your life working to refine a product, only to have some one copy you shortly thereafter. And not only copy your hard creative work, but then to set it up as a direct competitor to your product. I'm not saying that he is entitled to mouth off like that to the Android and HTC did that, but I could see how that might be frustrating. Others reaping the benefits from your hard work.

It isn't semantics. Is Craig Counsell a SS. Yes. As are a bunch of the part time scrubs who were incapable of being a full time SS because they simply weren't good enough. I agreed that he was among the worst starting SS. If the point umpherey was trying to make is that he is the worst amongst full season starting SS, I'll agree with him. You, on the other hand still need to get me that quote where I said Betancourt was close to average...or are you going to admit that you pulled that put of your you know where. You ignored my response, so I'll just assume the later. Craig Counsell is a utility player. I have been ignoring your responses because this is exactly the type of argument that drives people from this board. It is ugly because you agree overall that Yuni is a bad SS but you still feel the need to defend him and nitpick negative posts about him. I refuse to go any further into these types of discussions with you. /blue/ Wait a second...I agree Yuni is a bad SS? But you just said that I said that I've been saying that he has been close to average. Which is it now? /blue/. I think my point has been made. I'm willing to make this my last post on the subject, at least for a while.

That is really getting into semantics than actually arguing anything. Why would somebody include backups and bench players when they talk about any specific position? Are you trying to argue Yuni was the best backup SS in baseball? I don't think you are. Yuni was a starting SS. It isn't semantics. Is Craig Counsell a SS. Yes. As are a bunch of the part time scrubs who were incapable of being a full time SS because they simply weren't good enough. I agreed that he was among the worst starting SS. If the point umpherey was trying to make is that he is the worst amongst full season starting SS, I'll agree with him. You, on the other hand still need to get me that quote where I said Betancourt was close to average...or are you going to admit that you pulled that put of your you know where. You ignored my response, so I'll just assume the later.

And, yet, he magically finished the year above replacement level. He was bad...but let's not continue the tired over exaggeration of his badness either. Replacement level players are part time players and backups. Yuni had a good year for him and was still the worst full time SS in baseball, this is what people have always been saying and at no point has it been exaggeration. No other team gave a full season of playtime to a SS as bad as Yuni, the closest was the Indians giving the corpse of Orlando Cabrera full time AB for so long. Yuni was the worst regular SS in baseball this year and has been by far the worst full time SS over the past 4 seasons, at some point very very soon he is going to become a utility man and not a starter. Right, I agree...with the qualification that we are talking about FULL TIME SS...yes, he was among the worst. That wasn't what he wrote though. He wrote "least valuable SS in all of baseball". That isn't the case. That's overstatement because there are certainly many part time SS who would be at or below replacement value. Also, I do already understand what replacement level is...and didn't need the lecture.