Patrick425

Not really, power is usually the last thing that a hitter loses as they get older. They don't get the bat around as fast, but it is not as if a 40 year old slugger loses the ability to hit a ball 400+ ft. Yes, however, I don't think they hit them as often. Also, I'm not a physics expert, but isn't the distance the ball travels somewhat related to bat speed. I know for golf, this is the case. I never said or implied KGJ (or Frank Thomas) used steroids, rather that simply they were players that played in the "steroid era" that I think will have no problems being enshrined. I misread your original post...sorry. If it has to do with what MLB defines as illegal why is this a discussion? So, MLB has to implicitly spell out everything that they would consider a wrongful act? What if a HOF caliber hitter got hit by a pitch, then got so angry at the pitcher that after the game he tracked the pitcher down and shot him? There is nothing listed in MLB rules that states he can't do that. Or, what if a player some how sneaks into an opposing teams locker room (or pays someone else to do so) and somehow poisons there food before a game? Is that ok, because it's not spelled out in the rules that it's not? I'll say it again. These players knew what they were doing was wrong, otherwise they would not have been sneeking around in bathroom stalls in injecting each other, they would have just had the team trainer do it. They were cheating and imho did damage to the integrety of the game. I believe that's one of the criteria that HOF voters are supposed to look at when considering who they vote for.

FTJ, I'm not saying that you are implying this, however, I really hate the argument that players should not be banned from the HOF for using steroids because it was not "against the rules" when they were using it. That is such a weak argument. Steroids were illegal in general. If players didn't think they were doing anything wrong, they wouldn't have been hiding it. Does MLB need to add to their rules that Murder, rape, and theft is not allowed either?

People always say things like this. What is this based on? If it did start in the 60's, I'm sure it wasn't nearly as prevalent as it became in the late 80 through the early 2000's . All you have to do is watch some classic game from the 70's to see that these guys were not nearly as bulked up as they later became. I think a steroid era player will definitely get in... KGJ, Frank Thomas, etc... I think there is enough circumstantial evidence to state that guys like Bonds, Clemens, Sosa, and McGwire were using PEDs. However, I'm not sure about KGJ. What makes you say this other than the fact that he hit a lot of HRs during the steroid era? A lot of these other guys continued to hit high HR totals (or even seemed to get more powerful) as they got older, which to me, defies logic. Not to mention that most of them were implicated in different investigations and reports. Griffey has not hit the 40 HR mark since his late 20's early 30's (generally considered a players prime years), and I have never heard him implicated or mentioned as a steroid user in any investigation or otherwise. I would not be completely shocked if something came out years from now that indicated that Griffey used steroids, but until I see better evidence of that, I give him the benefit of the doubt.

I'm not sure why that would be such a big thing for him (other than possibly pay). If you never listened to Brewer games and didn't know anything about Ueck or Powell, after listening to a game, you would have no idea who had the "top job". It's not like one gets more air time than the other. In fact, I think that Powell gets more air time. The only thing that would possibly hint at the "top job" is that Uecker gets to call the 9th inning. Is this official? The last several posts on this thread make it sound like it's a done deal. I have not heard anything like that though.

That's a tough one though. Think about the unmentionable atrocities that could happen to you and your loved ones as chaos and anarchy breaks out. edit: I realize that this is all hypothetical. However, one of the problems with this hypothetical situation is that it would probably require a cooperative effort on the parts of all governments around the world in order to keep it from the public. I doubt that would be possible.

Now that you mention it...I think I recall hearing something like that. Giving it a little bump or somehow pulling it off course using some sort of gravitational pull.

I'm assuming it has somthing to do with intercepting it with a missle.

My wife was in Vegas in November with some friends and while its not really a show, they really enjoyed the dueling pianos at NY, NY.

I'm pretty sure cannibalism is a bit more difficult to explain to a child and more frightening. But maybe that is just me. Cannibalism?...The Burbs?....I guess the movie was over my head..didn't really get cannibalism out of it. It was some creepy new neighbors who were killing people, but I didn't get cannibalism out of it. As dark as that sounds. It was a comedic take on life in the Suburbs with what I thought were some pretty funny performances (if you can stomach Cory Feldman). It was rated PG.

Just wanted to touch back on this subject. Some of the movies we rented because of this thread (like I stated, many of the ones mentioned...we already watched together): The Princess Bride: I don't think my son could get past the title, so he had a bit of a closed mind about it. I think he enjoyed a little more than he would admit to. I found it semi-enjoyable too. Miracle: We really liked this one. Another movie I rented the other night that my son enjoyed was City Slickers. Although my wife and I forgot about some of the inappropriate parts (for a 10 year old) that were in it. Breaking Away was one that we watched on TV the other day as well. I did have to kind of explain the Cutters vs. rich college kids thing to him though. If anyone else has any thoughts, I would appreciate it. I appreciated the suggestions. Although some of them were a bit more kid oriented than what I am looking for. I'm looking for movies that are not necessarily slanted towards kids, but that are "kid safe". I don't mind some violence or an occasional swear word, but I would like to stear away from too much sexual content. Keep in mind, one of his favorite movies is "The Blues Brothers" (that's about the edge of what I would allow him to watch. Some harsh swear words, but I've seen it enough to know were most of them are and I'm pretty quick with the remote). He really like "Rocky" , "Field of Dreams", "The Rookie", and "We are Marshall" too. I also found a good site for parents and moves: www.kidsinmind.com I also found a site that edit's movies, but it looks you have to buy the movie. Might be interested if there was a movie rental site like that.

She was listening to Better By You, Better Than me by Judas Priest

Yount is definitly one of those guys that does not like to sign autographs unless it's for a kid. At ST a couple of years back, when he was Yost's bench coach, we were sitting along the first base line before the game at Maryvale. Yount was walking by and all these people were yelling trying to get his attention for an autograph. He never looked up. My son (who was 8 at the time) called out "Hey Robin". As soon as he heard the kid's voice he looked up and made his way over towards my son to give him an autograph. I remember my brother in law telling me about an encounter he had at County Stadium several years ago. This was when the Brewers were in the AL. The Yankees were in town and my brother-in-law and his son (my nephew) went down to county stadium hours before the game started to see if they could get any autographs. They are hanging around the front gates looking into the stadium and they notice some one skating around the corridors with a hockey stick and a ball. It turns out to be John Wetteland (when he was on the Yankees - obviously). They don't say any thing they are just watching him and this big slob comes up in a NY t-shirt comes up and with a NY accent calls out "Hey Wetteland". Wetteland kind of ignores him. Again.."Hey Wetteland, sign my ball". Wetteland ignores him. The guy keeps trying to call him over. Finally Wetteland comes over and signs an autograph for my nephew. Meanwhile the Yankee guy is yaking "About time..what are ya..deaf? I've been calling you over for the last 5 minutes!" Wetteland stops and gives the guy a big lecture about politeness and the proper way to ask for an autograph. When he's done, all the NY fan can say is "So, you going to sign my ball or what?" Wettland shakes his head and skates away.

How do they land?

We were in Cooperstown last summer and my son purchased one of the Classic HR derby's DVDs from the gift shop (I can't remember who's on it...I know Hank Aaron is one of them). He loves it. He gets a kick out of how stiff the announcers are.

I understand the concept and ok, maybe I can buy the argument of Dunn + pitcher is better than Fielder, but again, who is this pitcher? People keep bringing up guys like Matt Cain. Assuming Matt Cain provides as much to his team as Prince Fielder does, why would SF do this? Matt Cain is schedule to make 2.65M in 2009, 4.25M in 2010, and a club option of 6.25 in 2011. While Fielder will probably get $7M or more each of the next 3 years. Same with Ervin Santana. Why would the Angels to that trade? I sure hope that no one would be for trading Fielder for a "can't miss" prospect pitcher with little or no MLB experience.

Ok, I think I understand. The way Stevo worded it..it was kind of confusing. Ok so we acquire some young stud pitcher who is not arby eligible and that will be much cheaper than Fielder. Who? Are there a lot of those guys around that teams would be willing to give up for Fielder? Also, I would have to assume that this "stud" pitcher would be available for arby in the very near future. What then? Do we wring our hands again and go "Oh No", we better trade him before he lose him to free agency? Where does the cycle end? It seems like only a 3 or 4 years ago everyone was waiting anxiously for Weeks, Fielder and Co. to come. Finally the Brewers would be able to contend again. Now, they are here for 3 years and everyone wants to trade them away. Fielder has one year where he puts on some weight and takes a small step back in production and everyone is ready to throw in the towel. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Fielder is well aware of how his performance over the next 3 years will effect the potential mountain of gold that awaits him. I think he's going to have 3 very productive years. I'm not excited about trading that away for Dunn and some mystery pitcher.

I'm not sure I understand. If Dunn costs $10mil more than Fielder over the next 3 years...how do the Brewers use that money to pay a pitcher?

I don't think they do this anymore, but the Brewers use to hold open tryouts at County Stadium during the summer when I was in high school. By open..I mean OPEN. Basically if you could breath and walk, you were welcome to attend. My friends and I went a couple of times (I think some of us may have even wore cut off jeans - this was the early 80's) and made fools of ourselves. I remember having to make a throw from center field and barely being able to get it to the pitching mound.

Yeah, unless you feel the Brewers have no chance to make the playoffs for the next 3 years, I don't understand this urge to trade Fielder just because they won't be able to afford him 3 years from now. Is this the trend? Get a high draft pick. Let him mature in the minors for 3 years. Then, after 3 years in the majors, when he might be just about ready to hit his stride, trade him because we won't be able to afford him anyways? I don't know what Fielder will get in arbitration, but I'm guessing it would be less what he would go for on the open market (and without the risk of the LT contract). Teams like the Brewers need to seek value. Right now, overweight and all, Prince is value. Look at it another way. What if Prince were a free agent and we could sign him for $8 million (arby guess), with club options for 2010 and 2011. Wouldn't that sound pretty good? Yes, I realize that they could get something in return by trading Prince, but I don't think what we get in return will equal the value that Fielder will bring over the next 3 years. I also realize that they could a better deal now for Prince than they could 2 years from now, but again, to me, that's like giving up on this year and eventually, even if you get some young stud pitcher in return, that pitcher will become FA eligible at some point as well. Fielder, Braun, Hardy, Gallardo, Parra are guys that you build around and add pieces to during this window of opportunity for the Brewers, not guys you trade away just because you can't keep them forever.

Well, I say we might as well win the next two WS with him and see if we can take that question out of blue. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif Is there an option for 2010 or not? They kept talking about a 2010 option on XM this morning, but I thought it was reported by TH that there was not option for 2010.

Ok, Just kind of skimmed though this whole thread. As mentioned, adding Dunn would necessitate the trading of another player...most likely Cameron, Hart, or Fielder. Unless the Brewers can some how save money by adding Dunn and trading another player, to me going after Dunn would be like needing a new roof on your house, but going out and buying a big entertainment system instead. I'm not a huge Dunn fan. Just like I'm not a huge Branyan fan. I know ..*gasp*..how could anyone not like these sabermetric gods?? The people that come up with those stats are very smart people and probably know what they are talking about and are probably correct in their valuation of guys like that and that K's don't matter. Still, my frustration goes through the roof when it's the late innings of a tie or 1 run game..guy on second...and up comes the all or nothing guy taking wild hacks with nothing on his mind but hitting a HR. UUUGHHH!!! That's when I turn off the TV.

Howard had an MVP and ROY under his belt and was coming off a year where he hit 47 HRs with 136 rbis

Not to belabor the point about players not wanting to play in Milwaukee, but was looking at Cot's contracts to see if they listed no trade clauses. Most of them are just listed as full or partial or "can block trades to x number of teams". I found 3 that listed teams. Eric Chavez and Brian Giles have no trade clauses that include Milwaukee. T. Hunter had the teams listed as well, but they did not include Milwaukee. So, not a very big sample size. This might deserve it's own thread, but I ran across some interesting caveats in some of the contracts as I was skimming them. Matt Holliday - Can not play football until after 2010 Beltran - Requires the team purchase him one of those machines that throws tennis balls with numbers on them. Percival - Gets a Vintage Auto

Ahh, I was not accounting for the the fact that several of those players would not be on the opening day roster.

Speaking of.... Anyone have any idea how much we have left to spend not including Arby raises (obviously this directly affects how much we can spend on FAs)? If I'm not mistaken, not including Bush, Fielder, Hardy, Hart, McClung, and Weeks, this brings the total payroll to $56mil. I'm thinking the total payroll will cap out around $80mil. I'm terrible at estimating Arby settlements. However, it does not appear that there would be much room (assuming a $80mil payroll) to sign a starter (much less resign Sheets for about the $10 - $15 mil he will probably end up with).