RobertR

Yeah, I don't want to make excuses for Melvin as the lack of a MLB first baseman on the roster ultimately rests with him, but the calculus of making a move certainly changes if you know you're not getting Hart back in mid- to late-April. Heck, maybe you do take your lumps with Hunter Morris with the knowledge that he can at least field his position and the experience will be good long term. I don't know if anyone on the medical staff deserves to get fired, but the medical staff certainly deserves scrutiny for a blunder of this scale.

Going forward it may be change, but, to date, Carlos Gomez is absolutely one of the Brewers best players. And one of the best players in baseball in 2013. Sure, you can reasonably expect that he'll regress some. But, having one of the best players in baseball in 2013 to date on your team for an affordable contract is no kind of mistake whatsoever. Odds are, the Brewers would have gotten a lot less in value for him than what he's produced to date. More to the point, we should never assume that the Brewers were offered anything valuable for him in return. Certainly the fact that Gomez and his agent were willing to sign an extension suggests that there wasn't a huge market for him. Maybe the Brewers would have gotten a little more for Gomez than the Twins received for Denard Span, but I'm happy to have Gomez if that was the reasonable expected return. Especially, if you don't assume that Logan Schafer will be a particularly valuable player.

If the Brewers were to offer up Gomez for trade now, they'd get a lot more in return than they would have gotten over the offseason. I don't see how keeping one of their best players on an affordable contract is any kind of issue. If they had traded Gomez in the offseason for a solid, but unremarkable starter, we'd all be kicking Melvin for trading a budding star for a run of the mill player.

A week later and we still don't have a timetable on Hart. I know medical recovery is an inexact science, but the fact that nobody diagnosed up to a half season missed certainly played a part in the decision making going into the season. It certainly has to factor into the failure of the season.

At least Braun didn't lie under oath before Congress. One can argue that Selig can't claim that.

Michael Hunt should be tested for drugs. That, right there, is just cause.

Where does the idea that Gennett has proven himself "big league ready" come from? Frankly, at this point, I'd have a hard time saying he's much more than the poor man's Darwin Barney and overmatched at the big league level (small sample size / first impression caveats noted). The Brewers need to field a full roster after all. Yeah, some contracts have come back to bite them this year, but Hart has been a good deal overall, who knew he would get hurt? And that Gamel would get hurt the same year too? Weeks was an All Star in 2011, like Fielder, who knew then that he'd fall off so far? Really, the problem with the Brewers can be traced to starting pitching and the failure to develop it. Period. Signing Fielder to a big contract doesn't change that at all. Robert

You'll probably want to avoid Upstream Color.

John Buck: 9 hrs, 25 rbis

I look at it as performance vs. the result of that performance. I care if Rogers does or does not have good velocity, movement or location in a small amount of innings against mixed talent. I hardly care at all about the results of that performance because we KNOW that it is going to do a poor job of estimating performance. The more the innings, the more results = performance. Just to follow up, I agree. I couldn't care less what an individual pitcher's ERA, WHIP, W-L record, etc. is in Spring Training vs. questionable competition and with questionable teammates. But, velocity, location, command, health, etc. are things to keep an eye on. I agree that you shouldn't change your plans without a good reason because of a lousy or great spring training game or several, but, at the same time, how could anyone look at Rogers' performance in the spring and not say, "we better look at Plan B"? Adjusting to relevant data, with the idea that what is relevant isn't necessarily stats, is what I expect any smart organization to do.

I agree that you don't want to put too much emphasis on Spring training performance, but at the same time there's value even if it's just monitoring velocity. Rogers is an example of why Spring training performance means something, because he clearly wasn't ready to go to start the season. That said, I think the first base situation is different. Granted, at this point, the Brewers probably don't have anyone available to them that can hit like a first baseman. I don't like it, but I accept it. However, they do have options available to them that can field the position. The first base position probably hasn't cost them a game yet, but give it time, it will if it's allowed to fester like this for two months. The Brewers can't really fix their pitching staff or hitting to any extent through personnel moves. Players have to work through their issues and get healthy. However, the Brewers can fix their first base defense immediately. They just refuse to do so.

Maybe, Segura isn't left hanging out to dry if we have an experienced first baseman fielding the position. And then we have a bench player left in extra innings. I agree that Melvin should be criticized for the roster construction, but the fact that Axford has struggled, Gallardo got off to a slow start, Ramirez got hurt, and Braun had neck spasms, are the primary reasons for the struggles. Yeah, I'd bite the bullet and call up Morris or Halton, but I can't say that the record would be any better considering all that's gone wrong in the first week.

The series is really at a turning point. Does it track with the comic book or does it go in the direction that the events in the series are pointing towards? I agree that moving into Woodbury and starting to rebuild civilization, with scouting missions, people wandering into town, zombie threats, etc. seems like a more logical direction for the series. But, I understand that it's a drastic departure from the comics and I don't know how willing they are to go in that direction.

They're not pitching well either, which probably means that the lineup hasn't cost them a game yet, but certainly this is not the way to start the season. But, yeah, I don't want to ever see Yuni B at 1B again. Call up Halton or Morris and be done with it. At least they can play the position.

Since this is all fantasy, I hope we're not getting worked up about this. That's not my intention. But, since it's posted to a discussion board, I felt it worth chiming in on. I think cutting down on rain delays and rainouts is a noble goal. I just think you could approach it in a better way, with a scalpel instead of a sledgehammer. And I offered what I thought were constructive criticisms. I mean, really, you got worked up because I suggested that putting roofs up in places where it doesn't rain is a waste of money and that your proposed rule could be modified to take into account climate? The effect of putting Pete Rose in the Hall of Fame is debatable, but we can pretty much say how much it would cost and how many rainouts/delays would be prevented by putting a roof in California. The last rainout in Oakland was May 5, 1998, for instance. You can't measure "integrity", but you can measure delays, cost, and rainouts. This is a discussion board, after all. I get that this is all a game, but I don't see what's hard about taking feedback on an idea and modifying it either. We might as well close the topic after everyone has posted once, then. Instead of retrenching, you could have easily said "Good point. Teams which average less than 1 rainout a decade excluded." and moved on. First drafts aren't necessarily set in stone. But, hey, we'll agree to disagree on this topic and move on. I wish no hard feelings.

I really don't know if I have the patience for the show any more. Sometimes I think they'd all be better off if they just put Carl in charge.

If you don't want give and take and criticism, then why did you post it publicly? Silly me, for pointing out that a) Your plan doesn't put much of a dent in rainouts/delays in the short term and won't for at least 20 to 30 years (perhaps 50 years) since it comes after the current wave of building. b) Not every stadium without a roof has issues with rain delays. c) Roofs are expensive and not always aesthetically pleasing which can damage a team's bottom line. d) It's likely to penalize the A's which is the only team likely to build a stadium without a roof in the near future and they don't need a roof. Why single them out? Why not wait until after they build a stadium to implement changes? e) Since public money is always involved in these projects, it may make it more difficult to get these projects built and result in legislative pushback. I think that the idea of doing more to eliminate rainouts/delays is a good one, but, at best, I think your plan is premature by decades, and inefficient by not taking into account differing climates, needs, cost, etc. You want to rethink that plan or do you want to shoot the messenger? If I came off as too forceful in my criticism, I apologize as that wasn't my intention. But, I think those criticisms above are real problems with your proposal and why I think it needs to go back to the drawing board for revision. Heck, I'd suggest bringing a meteorologist on board in preparing teams schedules might accomplish more in the short term at a fraction of the cost.

Roger Ebert and Pauline Kael taught me to think critically and how to write about movies. Roger and Gene Siskel taught me how to disagree but not be disagreeable. Roger and Gene introduced me to Kurosawa. Here's to you, Roger. You never knew me, but you had a profound impact on me.

You fail economics then. It's not that the teams in California don't have a dire need for roofs, it's a fact that teams in California have NO need for roofs. So, you'd blow a billion or so dollars pointlessly. Guess what, you're fired as soon as you try to bring that up. With cause. Right around the same time Congress takes up legislation to strip MLB of its anti-trust exemption, introduced by California politicians who don't want to blow money on white elephants that serve no purpose. You want to encourage the next generation of stadiums, which should roll around in 2030 or so, to have roofs in climates where rain delays are an issue, go ahead. My guess is that you have much better things to do in the next 20 years than penalize the A's for no reason. When Minneapolis decided to put a stadium up without a roof, you pretty much guaranteed that any team of this generation can do what they want with their stadiums. Which is probably how it should be, since the individual owner and local community is putting up the money.

I'd like to see your math on that. Because, it makes absolutely no sense to put a roof on stadiums that don't have rain problems to begin with. Let me turn it around, why are you playing favorites and punishing teams economically by forcing them to build roofs on stadiums that don't require them? Roofs cost hundreds of millions of dollars and should only be built where they're a benefit. And it's not a benefit to build a roof in California. And there's a cost to a roof. Let's say the A's, which is the only team in the next 30 years likely to be affected by this "rule", find a great spot in San Jose with a great view. A view that makes the stadium as aesthetically pleasing as the Giants stadium. San Jose averages less than 3 inches of rain a year during the baseball season.Why should they be forced to obstruct that view and damage the experience of fans for 80 games a year as opposed to perhaps one game a year where a roof would benefit? It doesn't take much of a cost benefit analysis to think that's a drain on revenue which impacts the profit of the team and the salary of the players. You make a rule, you make a rule that holds up to common sense and is an economic benefit. There's no economic benefit to put a roof on a stadium to keep out rain when you're in a climate that averages less than, say, six inches of rain during the baseball season. Otherwise, you're throwing away money for no gain. And, honestly, it's much too late to enact such a rule. The A's are the only team likely to build a new stadium in the next 20 years where a roof probably won't be built. The time to institute a rule to have any effect, would have been before the stadium building boom of the 90s and 00s, not now when it won't make a difference. What's more, since stadiums are almost always a private / public partnership, it's probably an unenforceable rule. I'd love to see MLB's reasoning for telling California what they can or can't build. Robert

San Diego (average precipitation April - September is <1.2 inches) would beg to differ with that complete waste of money. The Angels, Dodgers, Giants, and A's too. Robert

1. Do whatever is necessary to get Jeff Loria out of the game. He's poison to whatever chance baseball has in South Florida.

Hulu Plus has the streaming rights to the Criterion Collection which is a jewel. I use Netflix for the physical discs. Give me that sweet, sweet Blu Ray experience. Making the choice for paying for Netflix streaming for a worse selection of movies or getting access to top of the line movies and recent releases was a no brainer. Yeah, it takes some advance planning, but it's not hard. Robert

Oh, I don't doubt it could work or that it's not a worthwhile idea, but I'm expecting that whatever form it takes, it's not going to go as smoothly as the domestic draft. I'm expecting that there will be a bunch of issues the first several years. Considering there are only 2 rounds to the NBA draft, I don't even think they're comparable. Still, it will undoubtedly even the playing field a little bit, but having boots on the ground and connections is still going to give big money teams an advantage.

The downside is that every player is not readily available for scouting, medical evaluation, etc. What do you do with the Cubans? Is it really reasonable to throw the Asian players and Latin players in the same pool? Etc.