strawbossisevil

Or, a person could simply turn on their cruise control, as nearly every single vehicle on the road has those now-a-days. Then you can be doing all of those things and still maintain a legal speed.

Oh come on, "extortion fee"? Can you be any more dramatic? If you don´t want to have to pay a ticket, don´t go more than 5 over the posted limit. Simple as that. If you are going to go at speeds above that, even if others are doing it, you should know that you are running the risk of facing the consequence of paying a ticket, and thereby lose the right (at least in my opinion) for these ridiculous dramatics. If you don´t have the money to pay the consequence of driving that fast, then don´t drive that fast. And as far as your story of being "pulled over while going the speed limit". I don´t believe that for a second, unless it was a too fast for conditions ticket or something of that nature.

Mexico is in big, big trouble with Uruguay putting up 3 goals on South Africa. Despite France looking somewhat sloppy, I still thing Les Blues are likely to beat Mexico tomorrow. Probably 1-0 or 2-1. If that happens, Mexico would have to beat Uruguay by 2 goals in order to advance (assuming a France win vs South Africa). That is an extremely tall order. And if they lose by 2 goals to France, they will need to beat Uruguay by 3.

Cheering for a draw this morning between Slovania and Algeria. We'd have to do very poorly not to advance if that happens. You have to figure that neither Algeria or Slovenia will collect any points from England. Which means we'd get through to the next round even if we played to a draw against both teams. I would be shocked if we didn't win at least one of the two though. Edit: TLB, that is hilarious!

First, I was not impressed with Michael Bradley today. He was sloppy with the ball and needs to do better. I really question whether he should be starting over Torres. I don't agree that the US should take this as a 1-0 loss though. I think the second half would have been played differently by the US if they were down a goal. It seemed that, with the game tied, we were more content to play defense in the second half and go on counter attacks. That's exactly what worked so well for us versus Spain and Brazil. I expect our team to be more aggressive on attack versus Slovania and Algeria. And as bad as the US was with possession, with a few minutes to go near the end, ABC had the possession showing: England 52% US 48%. Versus England, I'll take that. And with Altidore's attempt near the end there almost sneaking in, I feel really positive about the game. We almost snuck out of there with the win while facing one of the best sides in the world.

I think what we saw today was Mexico and South Africa both having struggling defenses and less technical play, which made for more "fun" football to watch as the ball was flying all over the place. What we saw in the second game was the exact opposite, two teams that are much more highly technical and stronger defensively. Which, while not nearly as exciting, a game like that can be neat to see too, if you like the intricacies of the game. Just watching Forlan create his opportunities was fun, even though he wasn't able to sneak one by the keeper this time.

This group will be a lot of fun if all four teams enter the second game with 1 point. Who do you think has the advantage in that situation? I think it benefits Uruguay and France. As South Africa is probably the weakest team in the group. I think it hurts Mexico the most, as even though they are tied, they have two top 20 teams to contend with in their last two games, while the other two have a game that they should win.

I think Mexico is lucky they didn't get called for a penalty when the SA player was dragged down in the box. Mexico clearly has the superior talent on offense, but their defense looked horrible giving up the shots that they did. If they play like that the rest of the cup, they aren't going to make it past the first round. And as davemakovec said, offsides was the correct call (although I don't think you'll find anyone in Mexico who agrees :-P)

I think Mexico is lucky they didn't get called for a penalty when the SA player was dragged down in the box. Mexico clearly has the superior talent on offense, but their defense looked horrible giving up the shots that they did. If they play like that the rest of the cup, they aren't going to make it past the first round. And as davemakovec said, offsides was the correct call (although I don't think you'll find anyone in Mexico who agrees :-P)

This thread just shows why it's important to be patient with a prospect like Escobar. Rushing him up last season (as a certain poster continues to harp on) would not have been a wise move for the team, or for Escobar. And for all the talk about Escobar being an offensive downgrade, to this point that hasn't been the truth: At this point of the season: Hardy: OPS .633 (last year's OPS .659) Escobar: OPS .681 (last year's OPS .701) Hardy's defense is currently at +2.7, so he has been slightly better in the field. But the difference hasn't really been that dramatic. Let's not forget that Hardy is making 9 times as much as Escobar is this season.

The official song for the World Cup, sung by Shakira: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEXOSDcT3H0&feature=related

I don't see this. He won the Sexson trade, the Franklin for Villanueva trade, the future considerations for Branyan trade, the Podsednik for Lee trade, the Koskie trade, the Shouse trade and the Sabathia trade (although you could probably put this in the to be determined category depending on what LaPorta, Bryson, Brantley and our picks do) and the Torres trade. He's lost the JDLR for Graffanino trade, the Lee/Cordero trade, the Davis/Estrada trade, the McClung/Balfour trade and the Lopez trade.

Let's put it another way: Be honest. Going into the season would you have taken the over or the under on the following statistics. Hoffman. Over or under 4.50 ERA Hawkins. Over or under 4.50 ERA Davis. Over or under 5.50 ERA Wolf. Over or under 4.25 ERA Bush. Over or under 5.50 ERA I would have taken the under on every single one of those. And I think just about everyone, being honest, would have done the same going into the season. The fact that some of our pitchers have double the ERA that we took the under on, suggests just how surprising their fall has been. I don't think anyone could have anticipated that these players would fall so far. People with ERAs in the 2s, typically don't follow that up with having an ERA in the 9s or 12s, even when you account for age. Typically a player doesn't go from pitching like an MLB all star to not being good enough to pitch in Indy ball in a six month span, even if you account for age.

Here's my problem. If you're not going to blame Melvin for this, you're really not going to blame him for anything. Okay, so you don't expect a 42 year old reliever to post a 12 ERA, a 37 year old reliever to post a 9 ERA or a 34 year old starter who throws about 86 on his best day to have a 7 ERA. The problem is are those guys good bets to be very good? Is it a good idea to give a 37 year old reliever a two year deal? Is it a good idea to give any reliever $8 million? Can we blame Melvin for the team having a terrible defense? Can we blame Melvin for continuing to spend a ton of money on the bullpen? Can we blame Melvin for having a rotation of Gallardo and a bunch of soft tossers? Can we blame Melvin for hiring Macha, a manager who pretty clearly seems to favor vets over young players? 1) I think Melvin is somewhat responsible for the defense being below average, sure. It hasn't helped that Gomez has been injured and that Escobar hasn't lived up to his defensive potential to this point,. It also didn't help that Jack Z during his time as draft guru targeted players that were more offensively gifted than defensively gifted. But one does have to recognize that on the flip side of this point, the Brewers emphasis on offense over defense has given them an offense that is consistently near the top of the league. Some of the worst contributors on defense, are some of the most productive contributer on offense (Braun, Fielder, McGehee). Would we be a better team with more defensive oriented players? 2) I have not been a huge fan of Melvin's spending in the bullpen. I stated as much when he signed Hawkins. But I don't think it's fair to take the current statistics of those players and say that Melvin should have seen those type of results coming. Could (and should) he have expected some regression from Hoffman and Hawkins, yes. But to say that he should have had some gut sense that they would become the two worst pitchers in the league is ridiculous IMO. 3) In regards to the rotation. I think Melvin was put in a tough spot. Jack Z (despite his reputation of being a good draft guru) didn't emphasis starting pitching, and the prospect arms he did draft stalled because of injury and suspension (and took longer to develop as they were mostly HS arms). This left Melvin in a tough spot of having to fill multiple slots in the rotation, but having a tight budget for doing so. It's tough having to successfully fill up to four rotation spots from outside of the organization and do so with any success on a tight budget. Add to that fact that Milwaukee isn't a desirable FA local, and I think Melvin has been stuck with limited options especially if the team wanted a shot at competing. I really thought at the time that signing Wolf was a good move. I just feel like Melvin was left with little other choice but to have to go with the middle of the road FA starter route as he didn't have the financial capacity of bringing in a guy like Sabathia. The only signing I actually felt was truly a bad move at the time of the signing was Suppan. All of the rest of the signings I felt at least represented a reasonable chance of decently filling in a rotation slot, even if later results showed that they didn't live up to that billing. I feel some of this also came about as the Brewers have had poor luck when it has come to prospect arms we've gotten in trades. JDLR, Capellan, and Jackson all failed miserably at coming anywhere near what most baseball experts saw as their ceilings. I don't believe there is anyway of knowing what prospects will succeed and which will flame out until they get to the majors, and unfortunately for the Brewers all of the ones that Melvin tried to bring in flamed out. 4) I am not happy with Melvin's signing of Macha, and I hope that Melvin moves him along soon. 5) I think when it comes to pitching and defense, I don't think your average GM would have produced more favorable results. I don't think he's done particularly well in those areas, but I don't think the overwhelming majority of the GMs in the league would have done better if put into Melvin's shoes/situation. 6) Where I think Melvin does stand out from the crowd is in three areas. A) His ability to win trades. The overwhelming majority of the time our team has benefited from the trades made by Melvin. He has been above average in this regard. B) Pick up solid contributers off of the scrap heap. Few GMs in the league do it as well as Melvin. Without some of these pickups, our team would be in far worse shape over the past decade. These are the areas that set him apart as an above average GM because I don't think the average GM when put in his shoes would have done as well in those areas as he has. C) He has done an above average job in regard to payroll flexibility. I don't think one can simply look at the record of a GM and say, well, so and so won only X percentage of games. Therefore he is good/bad. I think a lot of things have to be considered, especially the financial capacity of a team. The Brewers need a perfect storm of young players in order to compete because they can't bring in top level FA, and because they often can't hold on to their own top players without signing them to deals that pose significant long term risk to the organization. The Brewers have been an above average team the past few years despite being at a financial disadvantage. I think Melvin has set this team up to be have the potential to compete for a playoff spot every few years (with the next time, IMO, being in 2012). I think having that potential as a small market team is a fairly significant accomplishment. Clearly not all of you agree, but few of you have any realistic ideas of how the Brewers could have done it better without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.

Are you really saying your "random guess" as to what to expect record wise is more likely to be accurate than 100+ of statistical data? It's like guessing how many times heads is going to come up when I flip a coin 10 times. I could say "6" and I could be right. But in the long run, historical data and statistics suggest that if I flip the coin 10 times, the most likely occurrence is that heads will come up 5 times. It's common sense that objective statistics based on historical data will provide a more accurate result than me making a guess without the support of statistics.

It's because these people base their opinions on statistics. And they do a much better job at predicting a team's future success than a random poster who uses no statistical analysis whatsoever to arrive at his conclusions, but rather bases his entire prediction on gut feeling and emotion. If given the choice over who to trust to provide an accurate assessment of what to expect, I'll go with the statistically based experts every time.

If you think that the pitcher in Davis' slot is going to continue to put up a 7 ERA. I might agree with you that I'm being dishonest. If you think that Wolf is going to continue to have an ERA over 5 (where it was at before last night). I might agree with you...If you think that Hoffman or whoever pitches as the Brewers closer is going to put up an ERA over 12. I might agree with you....If you think that Hawkins or whoever pitches in his role is going to put up an ERA over 9. I might agree with you...If you think that Fielder is going to continue to OPS in the low .800s. I might agree with you that I'm being dishonest. But, when stat minded people like Russ are saying that .500 baseball going forward is not unrealistic, I tend to agree with him and the statistical thought he puts into his arguments over someone who makes his predictions on pure emotion. You could be right that they finish 5 games under .500 going forward. But most people with a statistical background in baseball figured the Brewers would be around a .500+ team going into the season. And I don't think that it is entirely unrealistic that they could meet that level going forward. If they trade Fielder at the deadline, however, I'll probably agree with you that they'll likely finish slightly below .500 going forward.

Just because we enjoy following a team doesn't mean we need to have blind optimism about what to expect from them. I am a fan of the team whether they are making a playoff run, or whether they are in the midst of a rebuild. I don't think it negates someone's "fanhood" if they approach the team with realistic expectations of what to expect in the future. That doesn't mean we don't want to see the team succeed, of course we do. We just aren't going to get all bent out of shape when they aren't able to compete on the same level as the Yankees every season. Approaching the team with the realistic approach that they likely will only make the playoffs once every 4 or 5 seasons, and may only make the World Series two or three times during my lifetime doesn't mean that I'm less of a fan. I still cheer for the team even if logically and realistically the deck is stacked against them.

I don't think it's out of the question that they play at/around .500 the rest of the way. I think that's where their true talent level falls. Fielder hasn't been hitting anywhere near his talent level. And I don't think our starting pitching will continue to put up below replacement level results. It's far more likely that many of their starters will at least come back to replacement level numbers. The Brewers had, what was it, a 6 game lead in the wild card going into the final month of the season in 2008. They almost chocked it away, but they were in the drivers seat as far as getting a playoff spot was concerned. Any time a team makes the playoffs, though, a bit of luck is going to be involved, but it was a talented team and to just wave away their playoff run as "luck" isn't being entirely fair to them. You are right though, that they wouldn't have made it without Sabathia, he was a huge pickup. You can't say they NEVER had the pitching to go with the offense. 2008 they had very great pitching, and they were a Ben Sheets injury away from having a stacked playoff rotation. Instead the Brewers started Suppan in the playoffs with the expected result. I think most people would agree with you, that this season and next are likely not going to be ones that the Brewers are going to field a playoff team (unless they really get a good deal for Fielder). Since the Brewers starting rotation began to collapse this season, I've been saying that 2012 is going to be the start of another run at the playoffs as that should be the year that our top pitching prospects start having an impact at the big league level. It is unrealistic to expect that a small market team like the Brewers will be able to make a playoff run every season, and unfortunately I think that is an expectation that many, like Sheethead, expect. I don't think it is ridiculous to point out where posters have unrealistic expectations of their team, their GM, and the players.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5fYJcdEeiM&feature=player_embedded Sportscenter commercial with Landon Donovan. This is great!

Of course he does. Just as he already knows that Hoffman will not be able to be an effective pitcher for the rest of the season. Sheethead, you really should start marketing that time machine technology, you could make a heap of money!

Lee was good, but no where near the talent of Fielder, plus wasn't Lee traded with only half a year left? That would diminish his value quite a bit (versus trading Fielder with a year and a half, or one year left). The Sexson trade happened at a different time for the Brewers, where they needed quantity. Despite that, in the trade they pulled in a #2 starter (Capuano) and a guy who projected to be a top of the rotation type pitcher (unfortunately JDLR took a number of years to reach that potential), a 2nd baseman who played in the All Star game the previous year, and a solid backup SS. If the Brewers get a #2 starter and a top of the rotation prospect out of the Fielder trade I think that would be an excellent return. And hopefully the Brewers would have better luck with the prospect this time around reaching his potential in a timely manner. I'm still surprised that you are bagging on the Hardy trade Paul. We weren't ever going to get a good pitching prospect for him, not after he tanked last year. But, despite that, we went out and got an elite fielding CF, who currently has an OPS over .800. When you look at how Hardy has done this year, it's looking like we clearly won that trade in a big way, and he is going to be a huge help to our pitching staff going forward with his incredible range in CF. The Overbay trade, I feel was somewhat of a disappointment in how it played out, but I liked it in theory. Bush was a solid #3/4, which is probably not a horrible return for a league average 1st baseman (Overbay is overrated by most Brewer fans). Zach Jackson was profiled as being a guy with a ceiling of a #2/3, he just never panned out. With Bush's injury and Jackson's ineffectiveness, the Brewers probably came out on the losing end of this one, but I don't think we could have gotten much more for Overbay as far as ceiling of players was concerned.