strawbossisevil

Playoffs are a crap shoot. Once you have a seat at the final table, anything can happen. If that weren't the case, the Yankees would have been World Champions just about every year for the past decade. And adding on to that, the impact of a top of the rotation pitcher is greater in the playoffs. Adding a solid #2 therefore could have a huge impact on how things go for us were we to make the playoffs.

Clancy, this deal has no impact on our team's Shortstop for next season as Lowrie wouldn't ever play Shortstop. It may be a concern, but this deal has nothing to do with that concern. As far as Fielder is concerned, I think it depends if we are able to extend Marcum and Weeks. One of the reasons made why the Brewers made the trade for Marcum was his sign-ability. I think the Brewers might extend him a year or two beyond his arbitration years. Having both Gallardo and Marcum locked down long term would make going for it all this season less needful, and would free us to trade Fielder for the best players available, hopefully a solid #3 pitcher along with a high potential position prospect in the lower levels of the minors. Here is how I want the Brewers to operate the rest of the offseason: 1) Extend both Weeks and Marcum 2) Trade Fielder for solid #3 pitcher (pre-arby with ERA around 4.00, also a low level position prospect with very high ceiling - top prospect, but two years away) 3) Sign Derrick Lee to a 1-2 year deal 4) Trade either Gamel (less likely) or McGehee (more likely) along with Parra for low level high ceiling 1b prospect (to replace Derrick Lee in a year or two) and a solid #4 type pitcher, 4.25 ERA type (pre-arby). 5) Sign Russell Martin to split time with Lucroy - also back up 1b and 3b Pitching Staff for 2011: SP1: Gallardo SP2: Marcum SP3: Fielder Trade SP4: Wolf SP5: McGehee Trade AAA: Rogers (first one called up when there is an injury) AAA: Butler CL: Axford SU: Braddock SU: Hawkins MR: Loe LH: Stetter LR: Capuano LR: Naverson AAA: Jeffress (first one called up when there is an injury) AAA: McClendon AAA: Merklinger Postion Players: C: Lucroy/Martin/Kottaras 1B: Lee/Martin 2B: Weeks SS: Escobar/Counsell 3B: Gamel/Martin LF: Braun/Boggs CF: Cain/Dickerson or Gomez RF: Hart/Boggs

I don't think it's so terrible. Our rotation would have the potential to be amazing. This season: Lester Gallardo Buchholtz Wolf Jeffress/Rogers If Jeffress or Rogers pans out as a top of the rotation starter, we would likely have the top rotation in baseball. Plus our defense would likely improve with both Braun and Fielder moving on. Our offense wouldn't be that bad, and we would have significant money to spend on it. We'd still have (all who have the capacity of being above average for their position): Weeks Hart McGehee Lucroy should be fairly average offensively as a catcher. Cain should be fairly average offensively for a CF. Add to that: Gamel (LF) Lowrie (1B) The only player who would significantly below average in that offense would be Escobar, and there is still hope that he'll get better with experience.

I would make the deal. Filling in LF and 1B is not that difficult. Finding a SP the level of Lester is much more challenging. Add to the fact that we have a couple big offensive prospects in Gamel and Lowrie. And I think we will be fine offensively. Especially if we can lock down Weeks longterm. If we could learn anything from San Francisco, it is that above average pitching can carry a team into and through the playoffs.

My point has been simply this: Typically, in most cases, the phones that cost more are the phones that carry with them a certain amount of reliability, that is part of the reason why the are more expensive, they are well built and have gained a good reputation for being solid phones. Is it possible that in some cases a person can buy a cheaper phone/tv/car and everything works out just as well? Certainly. But, to an extent, it is a gamble. Sometimes the shottey piece of equipment will hold up just as well as the better engineered piece of equipment. But, as is usually the case you are more likely to have to deal with problems with the cheaply made knock off then the high quality respected brand. So, pointing to your car as proof that taking price over quality is a good modus operandi isn't a valid argument. Yes, in some cases I'll admit you may not get burned by going with the cheaper, less reputable option. Your car may be one example. But in the long run, if you continue to buy cheaper less reputable products, you are going to face more product failures than if you buy the slightly more expensive, more reputable brands. That's just common sense. As far as the Iphone having problems, I have the newest one and haven't had a single issue. It is a beautiful phone that I can be fairly certain will work for the next 2+ years as long as I take decent care of it (not dropping it on the ground, etc), because Apple is reputed as having quality craftsmanship in their phones. There has been some negative press given about the phone with call strength going down if the phone is held a certain way, but quite honestly I find the Iphone "death grip" nearly impossible to replicate, no one I know holds their phone that way, and that issue would never effect me as I keep my phone in a nice leather case (protecting my investment). As far as LG phones, I think the fact that I mentioned LG as a poorly designed brand before you even mentioned that your phone was an LG would suggest that I've done quite a bit of reading on the quality of the cell phones they produce. I did a lot of research on phones before I went ahead and bought my iphone, and I was very unimpressed with the reviews that LG phones were getting. The OS on their phones are not nearly as fine tuned as Apple's or Google's and can lead to all sorts of problems. To look at it another way, Apple spends a whole year designing their phone and testing it to make sure that it functions correctly. It's why the market isn't flooded with 20 different apple phones, they do one at a time, but they do it well. Now look at LG, they have a whole smörgåsbord of phones, it is clear that they have put no where near the same amount of thought into the engineering of their phones. And it shows in the quality and design of their phones. Keeping up to date on electronics is a hobby of mine, and I have never walked away from demoing an LG phone thinking that it was anything more than a poorly constructed piece of junk. I think the $50 price tag would only raise more suspicions that maybe, just maybe, this "smart" phone might not have the quality engineering that other more expensive phones might have. I do agree that price doesn't tell a person everything about a phone. There can be expensive junk phones as well. This is where a consumer has to do their homework. That said, paying $50 for a touchscreen phone would certainly raise a lot of red flags for me....the first question that would come to my mind would be, "how can they possibly offer me a technological feature (a touchscreen) that generally is very pricey, for such a small amount of money...hmmm......" By the way, the story about the Symphonic TV from Best Buy was something that happened to me in college a number of years ago. The TV stopped working about 11 months after I purchased it. Needless to say, I walked away from that TV with a lesson learned, namely, getting the 'cheap option' is probably not the wisest way to go, especially with electronics. I purchased another TV shortly thereafter, a more expensive, but reputable brand (Samsung), and haven't had a single problem in what has been nearly a decade now.

I don't think your illustration works well, Paul. Once again, you continue to try to shrug off all responsibility. As for someone who said that a $50 phone should last two years, well, as others have stated, a cell phone is essentially a computer...what kind of performance would you expect from a computer you bought for $50? This is common sense, if you choose to go cheap, especially for something as complicated as a touch screen, I think you lose quite a bit of your right to complain when it doesn't work right/last very long. I think a better illustration is this: If I go to Best Buy and purchase a Symphonic piece of junk TV for half the price of a Sony. Do I have the right to be upset with Best Buy when the Symphonic stops working a year in? After all, they chose to carry said crappy brand of TV on their shelves. And they put my TV in a Best Buy bag on my way out of the store. Down with Best Buy!!!! OR It was my responsibility to choose a reputable brand of electronics, one that has a track record of reliability and good product engineering, and not just buy whatever is cheapest because it exists on the Best Buy shelves. As others have pointed out along with me, there is not a single cell phone company that doesn't sell crappy phones. It is up to you, the consumer, to make a wise choice on the brand of phone you purchase. If you purchase a crap phone to go with AT&T's service, it isn't AT&T's fault, it is your own fault. Just as it would be my own fault for buying a crappy TV from Best Buy.

And you honestly think that AT&T is alone in selling crappy phones? Look at any other cell service provider, they are exactly the same. The responsibility is on the consumer to make wise product decisions. Read Consumer Reports, don't buy equipment from a company that doesn't have a reputable track record etc. It's like me blaming Best Buy because I bought a cheaply made Symphonic TV at their store, instead of buying a Sony. Do I have the right to be upset with Best Buy because I purchased a cheap, poorly made product? Should I be surprised if a cheaply made product doesn't last very long? I can understand being disappointed, and I can understand the frustration of not having a phone. But it seems you are eager to blame everyone else, when a great deal of the responsibility falls on your own shoulders for buying a cheap piece of equipment. You made a situation like this happening far more likely by trying to save a few bucks at the start. Sometimes that gamble pays off, it didn't, however, for you.

There is a reason you are getting a touch screen for $50. It's because it is made cheaply and cheap stuff is going to break easier. You have to do your homework with phones just as you would with any other consumer electronic. There is no guarantee that either will last for the whole two years, but I can almost guarantee you the more expensive reputable brand will be far more likely to last longer (it's part of the reason they are more expensive and more reputable - they have proven that they can provide a quality product). This is especially true with touch screens as there is a lot of things that could go wrong, so quality engineering is very important. This isn't an At&t issue, this is a cheaply made phone issue - something every single cell phone provider has. If you don't want/need internet then look into a good slider phone (aka, do your homework and don't buy the cheapest option). If you want a touch screen, you should get something like an Iphone/Blackberry. Anything less and you are probably asking for trouble. You said: "I think if they give you a phone that ends up being something that you can't even use, they should replace it for free". This would be nice, but you won't get this deal at Verizon, or Sprint, or T-Mobile, or US Cellular if your phone craps out on you there either. Your beef isn't with AT&T, it is with cell phone providers in general. It is also important to note, that AT&T does not make/design the phones, they provide service TO the phones. So, really, how is it AT&T's fault that you decided to tie their service with them to a crappy phone maker? The fault lies with LG (or whatever brand your phone is) not with AT&T, they just agreed to provide service to the equipment that you bought (which once again brings us back to the importance of purchasing equipment that is reputable). Finally, the people in these stores aren't cell phone technicians, they are cell phone salesmen. Therefore if there is a technological issue, they are going to send the phone back to the company that designed the phone, so that they can take care of the repairs or provide a replacement.

You get what you pay for. If you pony up for a good, quality phone you aren´t going to experience these problems. Spend the $200 and get an Iphone or Blackberry. Getting a cheap touchscreen is just asking for trouble no matter what cell phone company you purchase it from. Aside from that, what you describe sounds no different than any other major cell phone company. What were you expecting them to do? Void your contract for free? That isn't going to happen with any cell phone company. Give you a free replacement phone? That wouldn't happen with any company either. Basically, since you were still under contract with that current phone, you contractually have four options: 1) Continue using your current broken phone as is. 2) Get a $50 replacement via your warranty. 3) Buy a new phone and re-up with a new two year contract. 4) Pay the early termination fee. Since you purchased the phone in February 09 (which already by then was not viewed as a "money making phone"), I can't imagine that they'd have your phone on their sales floor (thus the need for the shipping of the phone and not being able to produce it instantly). I doubt that the sales reps "could care less" (although maybe you were dealing with one who had a bad day and wasn't very patient with you as the customer), I just don't know what else they could do (or what you could expect them to do that they weren't offering). If it was insensitivity of a certain rep, or a couple of reps, that hardly reflects on a whole company. Personally, all my dealings with the company have been great. That said, it sure seems like you weren't the easiest customer to deal with, unless I am misunderstanding the tone that you described in saying "told them in no short terms what I thought about that idea". I understand being frustrated, but taking out those frustrations on the sales clerks (most of whom are probably just college students who have nothing to do with the quality of phone you purchased) doesn't seem to be a good way of handling things.

I have no doubt that both Jeffress and Rogers should be appearing on BA's top 100 list. Both have elite fastballs and have put up solid numbers at AA. Arms like theirs don't grow on trees. Both have top of the rotation potential. If both of them meet that potential, you have to think that the future looks very bright for the Milwaukee pitching staff, especially if we add another plus arm when we trade Fielder this offseason.

What about Apple TV? Doesn't that offer Netflix in 1080? I believe the new updated version is only $99. Also, if you wait a bit, I'm sure the Google TV boxes will have it when they come out.

Perhaps this point has been made, but it would seem to make sense to me that if a team takes revenue sharing (whose purpose is to create a more even financial playing field amongst the clubs), then the league should just determine what type of profit these owners are allowed to take. It could be a condition of receiving revenue sharing. For example, if a team receives revenue sharing, the owners revenue must be capped at 5 million per year (or something like that). The rest of the money would then have to go toward improving the ballclub (either that year, or set aside for a future season if there is no immediate need for it in the current season). This would prohibit a group of owners like the ones in Pittsburgh, or Florida from giving themselves grossly inflated profits at the expense of the Yankees. And if you make it so that the funds need not be spent in a certain season, it removes the "Randy Wolf" argument. Teams would be able to use the money when they felt that it was in their best interests, rather than be forced to spend it whether such spending is needed or not. For example, the Brewers could save such money when a player like Prince Fielder is young and cheap, and then use the funds to make him a competitive offer when he approaches free agency. I do think, however, the owners should get some financial kick back (even the ones involved in revenue sharing), it is after all a financial risk to own a major league ball club. So they are entitled to a slice of the pie, but I don't think that it is right (if they are getting money from other organizations for the purpose of being competitive) for them to determine how big that slice of pie should be.

As some have pointed out, to call Lucroy "not good" offensively, isn't looking at the whole picture. He's putting up numbers that are pretty close to league average for catchers. He's young, as well, and we are very likely to see better things out of him both offensively and defensively going forward. I don't really understanding the reason for complaining. Lucroy was somewhat rushed to the majors. Expecting him to be an all star right off the bat was unrealistic. I assumed an OPS around .700, and so far that's basically what he's accomplished. Comparing his power to Kendell is ridiculous. He has 4 HR this season already. There were a number of seasons where Kendell would play every day and not reach that number. He definitely projects to be a guy who could put up double digit HR totals year in and year out. That is not something to sneeze at coming from the Catcher position.

If even the top statisticians claim that UZR is only 60% accurate in it's assessment of player's defensive ability, then I don't see how it is a very useful stat. At this point, there doesn't seem to be a way that genuinely provides an accurate picture of a player's defensive capabilities. I imagine a whole lot could be learned about a player's defensive ability from a good quality scout, then from any current defensive measurement. Currently there are just far too many aspects that UZR and other defensive measures can not account for. I think HiAndTight makes a good point. Where these statistics do have an impact is the perception of fans. If a fan buys into UZR which presents an unfavorable rating of a player they follow, the "eye test" of that fan is going to be skewed toward seeking out the player's defensive failings, because that is what they expect going in. I'm not saying Corey Hart is a good defender or anything like that. I just think that letting one's opinion on a player's defensive capabilities be regarded primarily on a statistic that is only 60% accurate is folly. A person's eyes can serve as a far better judge of defensive capability than that. Especially so, the more one watches baseball. And when posters state that we need 3 years of data to provide an even more accurate assessment of the player's defensive capablities, there are all sorts of problems with this. For example, let's imagine that in the first two years a player was battling with an injury that slowed them down significantly, but the third year they were finally healthy and able to run more freely. UZR would not provide a very accurate projection of that player's defensive ability. When you need a period of three years to provide accuracy, the problem becomes that a player can be completely different from year to year, depending on experience, health, the players around him etc. Normally, I am a big fan of the statistic crowd and I was a big defender of OPS. But these defensive statistics have more holes in them than swiss cheese, and it's going to be a long time before I think that they are at the level to where we can actually trust them to fairly represent a player's talent level.

I went there the last time there was a major tournament. For the majority of the time, I sat next to one of the par 3s. I found, like you said, that if you try to walk along with a golfer, that you just don't get a very good view. My advice would be, get there early, find a nice place on a par three right along the ropes, camp out and enjoy most of the tournament from there. That said, after most of the round is over, it can be kind of fun to walk around the course and take it all in (it is really a beautiful course). I wish I could remember what par 3 we were on, as it was neat in that there was a hill next to the green that many of the pros would aim for. If they landed on the hill, it would cause the ball to roll down toward the center of the green. It was really cool. It seemed almost like a minigolf shot, only infinitely more challenging.

Yes and no. What Lee would lack on offense, he'd likely make up defensively. Lee is one of the best scooping 1B in the league, and while he is slowing down a bit, he can still pick it at 1B. Berkman is also a better fielder than Fielder, and I think he could still potentially put up a high 800s OPS year. Also, Fielder hasn't been all that great offensively to this point. He's still OPSing under 900. It may be a bit of a drop going from Fielder to Berkman/Lee, but quite possibly not as big as one might first think. While I don't see Gamel putting up Hart like numbers, I think he could OPS in the mid 800s, with the OPS being much more heavily OBP oriented. Finally, I think Cain can out perform Gomez's production from this season. Next season we should also see some improvement out of Escobar from this season, and I think we'll see continued improvement from Lucroy as well. Plus, I think we'll see a better offensive season from Braun next year. Really, I think our offense would be just fine, quite likely upper half, and our defense should be a bit better at 1B, saving some of the errors that come from Fielder's subpar defense at 1B. You have to like our bullpen going into next season as well, especially if Hawkins comes back strong. Axford, Braddock, Loe, Hawkins, and Coffey is a pretty solid bullpen. If we go into the season with a team that has the talent to win on average 85 games, I think that gives us a decent shot. An 85 win talent team, with a little luck, can quite easily find themselves making the playoffs.

You honestly can't know whether the Brewers could/would get any more in the current "buyer's market" trade deadline then they will at season's end or at the next deadline. If they don't get offered any good prospects at any point, then you take the draft picks. Although, I could see a Fielder/Bumgarner type move being possible with other prospects being thrown in the mix on both sides to match team needs. Also if Hart keeps it up, I could see getting a #2/3 guy from a team like the Padres or Braves who are desperate for some offense. Hart plus a C rated prospect for a guy like Minor from the Braves would be another one I could see going down in the offseason. Then, I'd suggest the Brewers get Derrick Lee or Lance Berkman on a one or two year deal to fill in 1st base. Stick Gamel in Right (have him work on this in the Arizona Fall League). And I think that we would be in good shape. This Rotation would have some solid potential:GallardoBumgarnerWolfMinorParra Lineup:Weeks (gets an extension)GamelBraunBerkman/LeeMcGeheeCainLuCroyEscobar Any guesses as to how many games a team like that would win? If everything goes right, I could see them competing for a wildcard spot.

This is no different than what has been rumored all along. They want pitching that is major league ready or near major league ready if they are going to be inclined to move two of our top offensive players. They don't want to trade Fielder and Hart for someone who won't contribute to the team's success until 2 or 3 years from now. They want guys that they can potentially slot into the 2011 rotation. With pitching, and the high injury risk of prospect pitchers, that seems to make quite a bit of sense. If you get a guy who is ready for the majors, you know that you'll at least get some return for the trade at the ML level. However, if you were to trade Fielder or Hart for a low level guy, and he gets hurt in the next two to three seasons, that would be a disaster for our organization. The further away a prospect pitcher is, the greater risk that the pitcher will flame out prior to making it to the Majors. So, if we are going to trade a stud, we want more or less of a "sure thing" in return. From the sound of things, most organizations wanted to offer us lower level guys who were years away and that was just too great a risk for our front office to take. Here's to hoping the market is a bit better in the offseason. It might be, as teams in contention typically don't move ML ready pitching when they are in the thick of a playoff chase, but they would probably be more willing to do so in the offseason when they have greater roster flexibility due to free agency. Trading Fielder and Hart is not a "win now" kind of move. It's a move focused on next season and the future. And it would seem pretty clear to me that that is what Ash is referring to. I'm fairly certain he and Melvin understand that the likelihood of our making the playoffs this season is remote at best, and that trading Fielder or Hart at this point isn't likely to improve those chances. But if you want to continue to spin any quote that comes out of the FO in order to try to make them look incompetent, go ahead. I personally don't find your viewpoint all that compelling.

No, this is his first season, he has 5 more years before he's a free agent.

Right, I agree with most here that Axford shouldn't be traded. At least not yet. That said, the closer role is something extremely overvalued, and he is a bit of an older pitcher coming off of an arm injury. If he continues to pitch well for another season or two, he might carry some significant value in a trade, but not yet. If we can get a prospect with top of the rotation stuff, that to me is worth giving up a great relief pitcher for. The trouble is, Axford doesn't have the reputation yet to be able to invite other teams to overpay for his services. No team is going to give up their top SP prospects for someone who has had 2-3 months of success at the Major League level. In two years, if he continues to pitch like he has, then yes, an overpay becomes far more likely. Until then, we might as well ride his success until his value is more to some other team than it is to ours. I am disappointed that some think that just because someone brings up trading a young guy, that said person must have a "losers' mentality". My understanding of his point is that closers are overvalued, therefore, if Axford is being overvalued, and we have a player who is capable of filling his role, why not trade him for a greater team need (starting pitching). I agree with the sentiment, I just don't think Axford is currently at the point of being overvalued by others around the league.

You'll love it tigerbrew. It's amazing! If only there was a way to watch it though without wearing the nerdy glasses. If felt so weird as I was the only one at BW3 that was watching in 3D with the glasses.

Oh, thought I would add that I got to see yesterday's game in 3D. It was an incredible way to watch the game, on some of the shots you felt like you were actually there, sitting in the stands. I'd recommend it to anyone who is planning on watching any of the last games.

What is the over/under for how many buggers the German coach will eat today?

Casey beat me to it. They can use bluetooth keyboards, or the apple keyboard. Also, if you got one with a data plan they wouldn´t even have to worry about the whole wireless network hassle. (Assuming they live in an area that has 3G).

We´ll see Gobias. The numbers don´t lie though, they are objective where as our opinions based on watching a player play can lack that objectivity. If we want to objectively measure Gooden´s defensive talent, all the objective numbers suggest that he is league average, and far from "dreadful". Unless you somehow consider league average "dreadful". This is the reason I can´t stand Real GM´s boards as well. The reaction to players and deals usually is way overboard and heavy on the drama. Gooden to this point in his career has been an average defender and a slightly above average rebounder and offensive player. No one is claiming this guy is a superstar, but he should be an effective and welcome addition to the team, and a solid improvement at PF and backup C for the Bucks. And having a player like that at 6 M per season isn´t too bad. LRMAM may be better defensively (although, strangely enough, to this point in his career he and Gooden have the same defensive rating, giving up on average 104 points per 100 touches). But LRMAM does not have the offensive or rebounding ability of a Gooden. He could develop it, I suppose, but he better start doing it soon otherwise he´s going to have earned a spot at the end of the bench. Ilyasova actually rated better defensively, but his problem is also not providing enough rebounding from the PF position. He´s not a bad guy to have coming off your bench though. He just doesn´t have the talent, IMO, to be an average starting PF. Now, we could definitely argue that Gooden is going to be much worse by the end of his contract, and that might be fair. But calling him defensively "dreadful" is not being objective.