Patrick425

Went to spring training many years with my wife and son. Last time we went was a couple of years ago. Never really did the sports bar thing except for a maybe a meal. You will have a blast at the games though. Our preference was to usually sit out in the berm, especially at Maryvale (although it's a bit steep). Depending on who they are playing and the time of the month (early March games are usually not as crowded) it's never very crowded out there and there are several opportunities to get baseballs, especially if you get there during batting practice. Not only from bp home runs but many times players will throw balls up to the crowd (especially kids). One year Turnbow was shagging balls during batting practice and he must have thrown a dozen balls to people in the berm (pretty much one for everyone that was in rightfield berm). Everyone has different things they like. Some people like big crowds, others like a more relaxing atmosphere. For me, Cubs at Diamondbacks would not be the non-Brewer game I would choose to attend...but I'm not the type of person who likes crowds. In regards to Maryvale being a bad area. There has been a lot of discussion about that topic on this site. There are not any hotels near in Maryvale or near the park that I would choose to stay at, but I never really felt that I was in any danger driving to or from the park or any fear that our car would get broken into while we were at the game (and that includes a few night games that we attended at Maryvale). Most of the time we just took Hwy 10, got off on 51st Ave to get there and same route on the way back (it's less than 2 miles off the freeway).

Sounds interesting. Perhaps a team that it out of it by mid-season could give this theory a try. Trade away most of their starters before the deadline and go with the bullpen rotation for the rest of the season. Although, unless you have other starters in the waiting for next year or money to spend on FAs, you are pretty much stuck with this process the next season as well. One issue may be that if a pitcher throws his 2 or 3 innings and is just mowing down hitters and making them look silly, then the next guy comes in for his turn and gets lit up, there will be a lot of 2nd guessing after the game that perhaps the "hot" pitcher should have been allowed to pitch another inning or two. I could just see the fan outcry in this type of situation, especially in a crucial game during the pennant stretch. It seems like there would be a lot of temptation my managers to stick with the hot hand in any given game and throw out the game plan (or, as mentioned in another post, a lot of angry pitchers sitting on the bench watching the next pitcher fall apart and give the game away).

R.I.P. Mary

Bob McGinn's (Journal/Sentinel) 2016 ratings of the Packers was in the paper today. Overall he gave the team a 3.11 out of 5. A 3 rates as "so-so" on his scale. So, a team that makes it to the NFC championship is so-so? If they won the Super Bowl would that have bumped them "all the way up" to a 4 or "good"? Seems like some pretty tough grading. edit: He also gave Rodgers a rating of 3.45. So, a MVP candidate who pretty much carried the team on his back for an 8 game stretch is somewhere between so-so and good.

Sorry to drudge up this argument again, but I'll respectively disagree when it comes to Wang. People acted like he was the 2nd coming of Stephen Strasburg (and still do) and that there was no way we could afford to let him get away. He had no business tying up a roster spot, and I'll never buy the "every team has mop up guy in their bullpen" argument. Mop up pitchers don't have 10+ ERAs AND they are actually used in mop up situations. Teams usually have enough confidence in their "mop up" pitchers to let them pitch more than 14 innings in 3 months. Ok, yes, I'm an old man and I'm still bitter about this! Now you kids get off my lawn!

You mean like Wei-Chung Wang in 2014?

That term hipster for music today gets thrown around to loosely. Music today just gets delivered so much differently than the past. When i was in my early teens and really started getting into music, for myself and friends, new music out came via a few radio stations and then we'd buy the album/cassette and later CD's. I still remember being 12 and getting my first album, Dio's Holy Diver. We'd request songs on the radio. Now everything is so different. My kid is in her early 20's and she like most her age get much of their new music via a variety of different ways online. They rarely buy CD's. New music is spread word of mouth online. Younger people today also tend to have more diverse tastes than in the past. That's where i also find so much of the new music i like. It's incredible. Instead of being force fed what only a few stations play, there are so many different avenues outside of radio to experience any genre of music. It's dramatically expanded my musical horizons, while i also still can enjoy music from my youth. Many musicians don't make as much money though because young folks don't buy records or CD's. This is a great subject and I'm always interested in discussion about the differences in music now vs when I was a kid. Not necessarily the kind of music, but how today's generation enjoys music vs how people my age did when we were younger. So, sorry for the long post. I get your point, and yes, it's much easier to have a diversified library of music now. It's also unbelievable that you can listen to your music "collection" pretty much anywhere you happen to be. If you had told me 30 years ago about how music would be purchased and played in the future, I would have been very excited about that. I also agree that younger people tend to listen to a much wider "array" of music. My 18 year old son listens to a lot of music from my generation. I did not listen to a lot of music that my parents liked (big band, Ray Coniff singers, etc - although now that I'm older, I can appreciate some of the big band stuff). The gap in musical interests between generations when I was a kid was much greater than it is now. I think my parents stopped accepting any new music beyond 1950. So, music took on a bit more of a rebellious nature to me. While I don't completely recognize all of the new artists and music that is available today, I'm a lot more open to seeking out new music (mostly through the Spectrum on XM radio) than my parents were at my age (50). Having said that, my son and his friends were not nearly in to music going through middle school and high school as my friends and I were at their age. While the music may have been a bit "force fed" to us, there was always a lot of anticipation of new album releases. Buying an album and listening to it for the first time all the way through was great experience that today's generation does not experience. There were times when I would sit in my room and just basically listen to music and really get into it and think about the lyrics. When MTV first came out, I would watch music videos for hours. Music seemed like more of a soundtrack to our lives when I was a teenager. I had attended at several concerts while I was in high school (REO Speedwagon, Yes, The Kinks, The Police, Van Halen). My son is in his first year of college and went to his first concert just this last October. When he visited his girlfriend at U of Minnesota, she dragged him to a Ke$ha concert. Not one of his favorites...and it sounded like he did not really enjoy it that much. To give you an idea of the diversity of what younger people like, my son wanted to go with my wife and I to see Steely Dan this last summer, but was out of town the night of the concert. He and his friends are talking about going to see The Red Hot Chili Peppers this summer at Summerfest (although sounds like the show is sold out). When I was his age, I would have never wanted to go to a concert involving music that my parents enjoyed.

Good point! I do remember some chatter after the last episode of Breaking Bad. I guess I just miss the weekly anticipation and discussion about every episode the next day..."Hey, did you catch 'Friends' last night?...." Lol FVBrewerFan!

The Berman thread in the MLB forum and rants about ESPN got me lamenting about TV in general and missing the days of watching TV in real time. NBC had must see TV on Thursday nights. Most people I worked with watched it every week and we would talk about it the next day. Seinfeld was huge water cooler conversation. I still remember overhearing people talk about "The Contest" episode the next day on the elevator and cafeteria. You really don't get that now except for maybe some reality type shows (DWTS, The Bachelor, etc. and I don't think it's the same...not as broad of an audience). Now everyone just catches up on series they miss by watching it on Netflix or they DVR shows and watch when convenient. Most conversations go "What season are you on? Did you get to the part where...? Ok, I won't tell you what happens but...") Yes....I'm old.

Agreed. It's never going to match the excitement of when it was a new station. Not only was there not any internet, but the sports segment of the local news lasted 3 minutes. If they just showed highlights of all the games without any "fluff" I still don't think they would raise their ratings. People catch all there sports scores and highlights when it's convenient for them on the internet. I still remember how excited I was when you could see a box score of the game on the internet shortly after the game was over - didn't have to wait for the morning paper. I do enjoy the 30 for 30 series.

I never give anything but a money for a wedding gift. I'm sure David Stearns is doing fine financially, but even "cheap" weddings are expensive for the average person (and I think spending a lot of money on a wedding is a complete waste of money). I'm going to advise my son and his future bride to register at U.S Bank, Wells Fargo, and Chase when the time comes.

I find most traditional greetings, especially on work emails, to be silly. To me, addressing someone as "Dear" in a work environment is a bit over the top. What are we?...on the front lines of the Civil War?..."Dearest Elizabeth..". There are not a lot of people in this world, outside of my family , that I would consider to be dear to me (I would also feel silly addressing a family member as "Dear"..."Dear son"...ughh). Definitely not anyone that I would be communicating with for work purposes. While, yes, "Regards" and "Kind Regards" can be annoying, I don't think it's as bad as "Sincerely". Sincerely? Really? Is that supposed to assure the person that nothing you stated in your communication is a lie? I normally start my work emails with "Hello (name)" - at least for the first email in a string (repeating hello every time for the same subject matter is not necessary). I then close it with either "Thanks", if I'm asking for something or they have provided something, or maybe "Have a good weekend" if it's a Friday...or I just simply state my name without any type of "goodbye" phrase.

I voted for the middle one, but the "going, going, gone" shirt is also good. Everyone has different tastes, but to me the one with all the all the icons on it, like a disorganized computer desktop is not appealing at all. They had a similar t-shirt give away last year with Milwaukee icons scattered all over it. I donated that shirt to Goodwill. For me, when it comes to t-shirts, simple is better.

Everyone has things that annoy them. I have a lot of things that annoy me that other people could care less about. However, I've never really been that annoyed by specific announcers like many other sports fans seem to be. I do get a kick out of how much some announcers are hated (Buck, Morgan, Berman, etc). My son is a huge critic of sports announcers and he always has me laughing when we watch sports together about how annoyed he gets with comments that are made by the announcers (He absolutely can not stand Joe Buck). Some funny videos regarding hatred towards Joe Buck (Sorry, I know this is a Berman thread, but he's part of a group of "hated" announcers): ----- Moderator note: don't play the second video at work unless you have headphones.

I think labeling the stadium deal as a scam is a stretch. Unless you think there is no value in living in a city with a MLB team. As I stated in a previous post..Yes, Selig benefited, but so did the community. Brewers would not be here without a new stadium. Period. Very rarely do teams fully finance their own stadium and Selig did not sell the stadium, he sold the franchise which had a greater value because of the new stadium. He was going to sell the team regardless of the new stadium. If he had sold it without the stadium, they would have moved...or at the very least the new buyers would have demanded a new stadium (tax payer financed) before agreeing to keep the team here. I'll never understand all the ranting regarding Miller Park.

Brewcrewdue80 pulled up this old thread to talk about Jeffrey Loria stating that he's open to selling the Marlins and in the same post talked about how much he hated Selig...and it progressed from there.

People always say he was a terrible owner. Was he great? Probably not, but I really don't know if he was terrible. Perhaps that argument can be made for the last 7 or 8 years of his ownership, but the first 20-22 years were really not that bad (unless your expectation is that they should have been in contention every single year, which is not reasonable) The Brewers were an expansion team in 1969 (as the Pilots). This was in the era of true expansion, where it was pretty much unheard of for an expansion team to even think about competing for at least the first 5 or 6 years of existence. It took the Mets 8 years and look at the Expos. The Mariners and Blue Jays wallowed at the bottom of their divisions for their first 7 or 8 years after their expansion year of 1977. The Brewers first winning season was 1978 (9 years after expansion) and they won a very respectable 93 games that season. They continued to be one of the best teams in baseball through 1982 and still had 87 wins in 1983. They had 91 wins in 1987 and 92 wins in 1992. So, if you concede the fact that they were never going to compete (no matter who the owner was) in their first 6 or 7 years of expansion and you look at the 15 year period between 1977 and 1992, they had a contending record for about half of those years. The majority of those contending years they had over 90 wins. There were no wild card teams back then. If there were, they would most likely have been in the playoffs several of those years. Yes, from 1993 to 1998 they were horrible. However, these were pre-revenue sharing days and County Stadium was not exactly filling up, nor was it always a fan friendly environment in April and May. In addition, free agent contracts were spiraling higher and higher (again, with no revenue help for the small franchises). I have no idea what the Brewer finances were during this time period (and neither does anyone else on this board). Yes, Selig made a out well on his sale of the Brewers, but that doesn't mean the team had liquidity when he owned it. You can't sign big name FA's with equity in the Franchise unless you leverage yourself. Doing that is a risk..not one I think I would have taken either. Did the tax payers help build the stadium? Yes. Did Selig benefit from that? Yes. Would the Brewers be here without the new stadium? No. Does the community benefit from having a nice stadium and a Major League Franchise? I think so, but I know not all are in agreement with that. In regards to Molitor. I don't know why everyone always automatically assumes that the Brewers could afford to keep Molitor at that point. Even his agent at the time admitted that perhaps the Brewers finances were preventing them from making a competitive offer.

How can you be a brewer fan and despise Bud Selig? Doesn't make any sense. The irony of it is that if it were not for Bud Selig, this website would not exist. Speaking on behalf of brewcrewdude, he takes it all back then since if it weren't for Selig this site wouldn't exist. Selig is terrible. Has nothing to do with being a Brewers fan or not has everything to do with reality. He's awful and so was his daughter then he continued to be awful as Commissioner (you remember - the guy who turned a blind eye on an insane amount of players taking PEDs just to make the game popular again. Then once all the fans came back he slapped everyone across the face and cracked down on PEDs like no other, all while pretending he had no idea this was a problem to begin with and that Brady Anderson really was that good while jacking 50). That's just one example. Sorry, I wasn't aware of the whole PED thing. I take it back. Come on...you are going to blame Selig alone for "turning a blind eye"? How about the fans, the media, the other baseball execs and owners, and oh......I don't know..hmmm....maybe the players?! Give me a break. Also, it wasn't just baseball "turning a blind eye" and then, in some people's minds (not mine), over correcting and over reacting...football, cycling, Olympics, etc all did the same. As a life long Wisconsin resident and Brewer fan, I will always be forever grateful to Selig and all the baseball memories I have been able to enjoy in my life because of him and there are very few things he could do to make me use the word "terrible" to describe him.

How can you be a brewer fan and despise Bud Selig? Doesn't make any sense. The irony of it is that if it were not for Bud Selig, this website would not exist.

Couldn't he have gotten some kind of exception for that? You would think so, and sorry, I have to roll my eyes every time a MLB player gets caught using and they then come up with some medical excuse as to why they were using the substance. Maybe it was true for Jeffress, but wow, baseball players sure have a lot of medical issues that can be helped by weed or PEDs.

I've seen many companies do this. Especially service oriented companies.

How so? Mine has any purchase almost immediately available online for viewing. I think what he is saying is A) You are not going to overdraft your checking account if use a credit card. If you pay it off periodically (daily, weekly, monthly, etc), you can always check your account balance online before making the payment. and B) Many credit cards have an online feature that will break down your expenses for you if you are interested in keeping track of that kind of stuff.

Speaking of traffic....if anyone is familiar with Madison beltway? Is it a big speed trap stretch? Since my son started going to school in IA, I have had to use that stretch several times on my trips back and forth from visiting and taking him to and from school. Seems like 90% of the drivers are very cautious in that area in regards to speed. Most don't venture more than 5 mph above the limit. Completely different that what I experience on the freeways in the Milwaukee area.

I found this site to be helpful: https://www.nerdwallet.com/the-best-credit-cards

Well, again, there is a difference since my debit card does not give me any rewards and I like to accumulate miles/rewards on one credit card. Read some of the posts above including #881. Unless you are getting decent rewards from your debit card, I'm not sure why you would use it over a credit card.