RobertR

That should be All Star quality relief pitcher. In general I agree with the principle, but the Brewers weren't resigning Lee and there's a pretty good argument to be made that 1.5 years of Cordero was worth more to a team trying to make the playoffs than 0.5 years of Lee. Heck, the supplementary pick they got for losing Cordero to free agency was Odorizzi which obviously was a key part of the Grienke deal. Yeah, they would have got supplementary picks for Lee as well, but they nailed that pick. I agree that the stuff surrounding the Lee/Francisco part of the swap turned out terrible for the Brewers. The centerpiece of the swap turned out exactly how they envisioned. I think the Doug Davis, Dana Eveland, and David Krynzel for Johnny Estrada, Claudio Vargas, and Greg Aquino trade was Melvin's worst. Doug Davis had some effective years left in him and nobody coming back performed much above replacement level. I guess that Melvin knew more about Eveland's attitude and work ethic than we did at the time, but that could have really blown up in the Brewers faces if he had turned out. Robert

Correlation doesn't equal causation. The 2006 Cardinals also only won 83 games during the regular season. 83 wins will get a team squat this year. Robert

Yeah, I'm on the Promethius bandwagon as well. I've probably been on it since I saw the trailer to Alien in the theater in 1979. And, of course, The Dark Knight Rises. I saw The Avengers and enjoyed it a great deal. I'm hoping to get into a screening of Moonrise Kingdom this week. And Brave's on my radar. I don't know if there's anything else I'm really psyched for, but those are the big ones I'm looking forward to. Robert

I tend to think that you can swap Brooks Conrad in place of Tim Dillard and the same basic principle applies. Much of what ails the Brewers this year falls directly on Doug Melvin. Not getting Hairston signed, for instance. Robert

I'm not convinced that I'd take Mark Loretta over Jose Valentin. Certainly they were different types of players, but overall value points towards Valentin in a number of aspects. In any event, Mark Loretta's 17.0 WAR (according to Baseball Reference) in 15 seasons really should knock him out of any discussion of "great" ballplayers in any shape or form. 2003 and 2004 were Loretta's only truly valuable years. Robert

Peter Rose, the baseball player, is in the record books and has many of his accomplishments celebrated in the actual Hall of Fame. He just doesn't have a plaque on the wall. It's obvious to me that Pete Rose's gambling is more important to him than being in the Hall of Fame. When his lack of control over his gambling gets him banned from his career and all the honors that go along with it, it's obvious to me that he has a problem. And he's done nothing to show that he's dealing with that problem. He's never joined Gambler's Anonymous or such. Heck, the last time there was talk about getting his punishment shortened he used the occasion to pimp a book during Hall of Fame announcement week and make appearances in casinos. Why anyone would want Pete Rose's punishment changed when there's no evidence that he's changed and learned anything beyond "don't get caught" is beyond me. And, yeah, he only bet on his team to win is a pretty lame excuse. What does that say about the games when he didn't bet on his team to win? Hell, even if he bet on all the games, what if he was wagering $1000 on one game and $10 on another? If you were a fan, would you like the team's chances better on a game when Rose bet or when he didn't place a bet, knowing nothing else about the game? Frankly, baseball doesn't need Pete Rose in any capacity as he is now. Sure, he knows something about hitting mechanics, etc., but so do a lot of players and they don't bring the potential problems and ego driven decision making of Rose with them. Maybe if Rose demonstrated that he's a changed man, there would be a good reason to revisit the situation, but he hasn't. Ultimately, the only person keeping Pete Rose out of the Hall of Fame is Pete Rose. He's made it clear that he's never changing, so I don't see what the point is about arguing about any longer. Robert

I don't want to come off like a member of the Ishikawa fan club either. I expect some pretty significant regression before too much longer. That said, people getting up in arms because Roenicke picked a 28 year old with a 91 OPS+ over a slightly more versatile 32 year old with an 87 OPS+ kind of baffles me. Yeah I can see the arguments for versatility, but is it really surprising that a 28 year old mediocrity might have a better year than a 32 year old mediocrity? Especially if the 28 year old may have a better work ethic? If I'm critiquing Roenicke it's because of how he's used Veras and perhaps in how he hasn't found ABs for Aoki, along with running the team out of runs. Although none of that may matter until Weeks and Ramirez start hitting and Gallardo, KRod, and Wolf start pitching much better. Robert

Community being renewed, but with Dan Harmon being fired. What's the point of renewing a series with a unique creative voice and firing the creator? This is truly the darkest timeline. Robert

No offense, but Ishikawa who entered today with an .850 OPS and a positive WAR according to Fangraphs, isn't one of the problems with the Brewers on the year to date. He may turn into a liability before too much more time passes, but assessing the problems of the Brewers for the year to date excludes Ishikawa from the list of culprits. That is if we're being objective. Robert

I think the worst case is what happens if Gonzalez has a nagging injury that may require a few games off, but not necessitate a trip to the DL. Coupled with normal days off and I think there's a reasonable case to be made that there's a case for a backup SS on the roster. And yeah, Izturis and Ishikawa are bad players. I happen to think that Conrad is a bad player as well with a decent split against LHP posted in such few ABs to not mean all that much (and with the realization that he'd face his share of RHP anyways). Heck, for all I know Conrad might have come in with a bad attitude, conditioning, etc. and setting a consistent standard might be good in the big picture. I think Roenicke has actually used Ishikawa and Izturis appropriately, i.e. infrequently, and that the problem is more in the lack of good options off the bench than anything. Still I don't think the last two spots bench has had more than a marginal impact to this point. Not compared to the struggles of Weeks, Ramirez, Morgan, Gallardo, Wolf, KRod, and Veras. I certainly think the Brewers can address the bench while waiting for their underperforming key players to come around, but ultimately they're only going to add another good glove, no hit middle infielder backup along with calling up Green at some point. Robert

Having read the article, I'll not a few inaccuracies. Mainly the claim that Shoeless Joe didn't accept any money. That's clearly not true. He accepted money and agreed with the ringleaders that he was in. Perhaps he had second thoughts in private, but as far as his teammates knew he was all in. Even moreso, I'd like to address the idea that it was "only" $5,000. $5,000 in 1920 could buy you a nice house. Hardly an inconsequential amount. While I'm willing to accept that the White Sox of 1919 were underpaid, it wasn't extravagantly so relative to the rest of the league. And it's not like baseball was booming at that particular time. WWI put a big hit on baseball and other industries of the time. In 1918-1919, America was also dealing with flu pandemics which further put a hit on baseball and public gatherings in general. Even though I do agree that Comiskey was cheap, it wasn't like the economics of baseball of the time warranted that the White Sox be paid extravagantly better. Robert

Because Ishikawa is "this year's version of Mark Kotsay." A guy who has no business being on a major league roster but yet still gets starts over younger, better players. Ishikawa has one start on the season. Which is completely normal for a reserve. I'm no fan of Ishikawa, but he's the 25th man on the roster and being treated as such by the manager. Robert

What court of law would that be? Shoeless Joe was brought before a grand jury, gave testimony (where he admitted accepting money as part of the fix), and then wasn't indicted. (See http://www.baseball-almanac.com/articles/joejackson.shtml ) Partly because it wasn't clear what law was broken. Please cite the statute that existed in 1920 which made throwing a game illegal. Robert

You're much more kind to Jackson than I am. He accepted money as part of a game-fixing operation. That's not inaction, that's being an active conspirator. Not to mention, people get distracted by his overall numbers in the series and fail to look at the context of his performance. In a game that was being thrown, Jackson did nothing when the game was close, basically padding his stats in "garbage time". I'd love to see Jackson's WPA in thrown games. I'm willing to accept that Comiskey was a cheapskate and unfair to his employees. These aren't the most evil baseball players that ever lived. And Shoeless Joe wasn't the ringleader. It doesn't change the fact that Shoeless Joe wasn't an imbecile with no concept of the ethics and morality of baseball. He broke the rules, knowingly, and then paid the price when Landis threw the book at everyone. Great ballplayer on a Hall of Fame path whose fame has outlasted his better contemporaries? Yes. Hall of Famer? No. Robert

Unfortunately he only used one when he should have used 2 many times. In my opinion he over managed the lineups and position players and under managed the bullpen. And there are plenty of managers that end up using 3 or 4 relievers when they only needed one. While I'm with you on the overuse and misuse of Loe for part of last year (although it must be pointed out Loe had a fine year), overall complaining about Roenicke's managing of the bullpen, when the Brewers had one of the most effective bullpens in the league, is reaching. The Brewers had a bullpen of effective relievers who could go one inning and Roenicke used those relievers effectively for one inning at a time. That's playing to the talents of the players. And to what the front office envisioned when they acquired those players. Frankly, identifying what the relief pitchers are capable of and not overusing them matters a lot more than how often he plays a matchup for the sake of playing a matchup. Especially when the lefties the Brewers had available were a thoroughly mediocre to poor bunch last year. Robert

In other words once there was an overabundance of good relief pitchers and anybody could have managed it, he did well. Sure, but that describes most managers. You give them good relief pitchers, they'll have a good bullpen. Was the problem with the Brewers bullpen in the first half last year that Roenicke didn't play matchups or that their good relievers, other than Axford, were hurt? Yeah, Loe wasn't good, but when he had good relievers, Roenicke didn't overmanage and use three pitchers when he only needed one. There's value in that too. And the Brewers plan was always to have good relievers to throw into those high leverage situation, not to mix and match with mediocrity. To an extent it's counterintuitive to claim that the Brewers would have had a better bullpen last year if they just had used their worst relief pitchers more. Robert

While I'm in total agreement on the mismanagement of Kotsay (CF? really?), McGehee, and Gomez (it was totally forseeable that he would have a bad OBP, although settling into a platoon was a good move), and the overuse of Loe, I'm willing to be lenient towards his use of Marcum in the playoffs. At least the first two games. And it's not like Narveson, the other option, pitched well in the last game. And there was nothing wrong with the bullpen once the Brewers acquired KRod and Hawkins and Saito were healthy. Playing matchups is overrated when the choices are between very good righties and marginal lefties. I fully agree that Loe was misused for the first half of the season, but I'd argue the bullpen problems stemmed from a lack of talent due to injuries and other issues rather than management issues. Robert

So we should give him the benefit of the doubt? When last year he repeatedly met our worst expectations of being clueless. i could see that making sense last year when we didn't know where actions related to words, but we have a full season plus of our worst fears often coming true to just etch-a-sketch away what he says. If Roenicke repeats what he did with Kotsay last season, he'll deserve all the criticism and more for not learning. I've heard nothing from Roenicke so far though that indicates he views Ishikawa as anything more than the 24th-25th man on the roster. RR specifically talked about Ishikawa in the context of double-switches, not in being a starter. Someone comparable to Josh Wilson. And if Roenicke uses him that way, we shouldn't have an issue. If Gamel hits I think Ishikawa being on the roster is a non-issue. Ishikawa isn't going to displace Hart or Braun, and if Gamel produces it will be obvious what the choice is. There is such a thing as reading too much into spring training comments. Robert

Get playing time in the OF or start in the OF? In late game situations, some situational substitution and positional flexibility might be tactically useful. I'd agree that I see little to no reason for Ishikawa ever to get a start, other than due to injuries, in the OF over other options, but I'm not about to get riled up about Roenicke over things he might do at this point. Robert

I'd argue that the first paragraph isn't that different from most zombie movies. But, yeah, I get the point. More to the point, I've heard how good The Governor and Michonne are for awhile. Season 3 better live up to the hype. I think the second half of Season 2 is the best the show has been since the pilot, but we've all given the show enough time to not excuse its shortcomings anymore. Robert

Yeah, I'm not a reader of the comic either, although I've picked up enough about Michonne and the Governor through general osmosis, and I wonder about the introduction of more comic booky characters such as a badass ninja/samurai and an outright villain into the mix. It could pay off, but I can also imagine a scenario like Kick Ass where the introduction of Hit Girl and Big Daddy was both the best and worst thing to happen to the narrative. I do think Season 3 is the make or break season for me. I'm only two episodes in, but I'm already invested much more in Downton Abbey than I am in the zombie apocalypse show because I actually like the characters and care what happens to them. Sherlock took less than 30 minutes to get me hooked and The Walking Dead has nobody operating close to the level of Benedict Cumberbatch as an actor. Game of Thrones took about 4 episodes before it started paying off my patience. I'm about 20 hours into The Walking Dead and there are more characters I find annoying than interesting, which is testing my patience despite my love of the premise. If I still feel this way in a year, I'm likely done. Finding good shows/movies to watch in this era is not a problem. Robert

Much better finale than season 1. I'm convinced that this writing crew still can't really write characters, but by resolving some issues and killing off some characters, they've moved the story forward. It may not always be organic, but the willingness to off major characters in horrific ways coupled with the always good zombie attack work, gives the series an edge. Sometimes that overcomes some headscratching writing. It may not be firing on all cylinders, but at least if fires on some cylinders and seems to be moving in a good direction now. There's still lots of work to be done though to live up to the potential. Like figuring out consistent character arcs. I swear that they pick Lori's reaction and actions through some random method involving dice and charts. Somebody will have to explain Hershel's arc to me as well, he's gone from "they're just sick people" to advocating killing prisoners and gunning down zombies without blinking an eye with seemingly no connection to the previous version. And I'd laugh like hell if T-Dog walks away from everything as the sole survivor. I'd complain that he's a bad character, but given that the writers have given him absolutely nothing to do, I think cipher is the more appropriate description. Carl apparently has the ability to disappear from a guarded house like Michael Meyers and the ability to track people down like Wolverine. The writing is still the biggest issue with the show even when it pays off with big moments. The connective tissue between those big moments really needs to become much stronger. Robert

I ended up seeing 8 of the Best Picture nominees, everyone except for Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close, and a good representative of the others. Frankly, this year was like trying to crown the world's tallest midget. Even films that I liked a lot, I was certainly aware of how offputting they could be to others. To steal a quote, Tree of Life may be pretentious twaddle, but it's the kind of pretentious twaddle I like. That said, A Separation is playing in Milwaukee currently. I strongly encourage people to see that one. Moreso than The Artist. The ceremony itself is like a big cruise ship, it's never nimble even under ideal circumstances. This ceremony didn't wreck itself, but it certainly wasn't even Billy Crystal at his best, although I give him credit for being a presence throughout the ceremony. To me it seems that there are some easy fixes that can make the ceremony better. Such as, if you're going to show a montage or talking heads segment, make sure there's a point beyond "We like movies. Generally." Also, if you're going to have montages, you should have at least one montage that represents the film year being honored. That's the place for Twilight, not in a montage with classics. Robert

Some random thoughts: Billy Crystal, although looking like he's had more plastic surgery than necessary, wasn't inspired but was dependable. That pretty much describes the show itself which was one of the shortest ones. I think Cirque de Soleil probably came across better in person than it did on screen, but I'll take them in place of the best song performances. Streep taking home her third Oscar and first in nearly 30 years probably is the upset of the night. At least this year's Oscars didn't suffer from cognitive dissonance. This was a nostalgia laced Oscars with Hugo and The Artist being the big winners and Crystal with his vaudeville schtick and the nostalgic montages fit right in. It wasn't trying to be the young, hip Oscars and that fit with the actual award winners. Not too good on my predictions with only 14 correct, which kind of does in the "most predictable Oscars ever" meme. The Artist might be better appreciated if it was never nominated. Now the knives are going to come out. The Academy got the Best Foreign Language Film right and I didn't have too many quibbles on the technical categories. So, neither the worst nor best year for the awards themselves. Robert

Yeah, I'd recommend renting a car for Milwaukee too. At least for days when you might want to get out of the city proper. If you start getting beyond Miller Park, the Zoo, and the downtown/lakefront, you'll find the public transportation options very limited. It's probably easier to get to Chicago via the Amtrak Hiawatha from downtown than to much of the suburbs and certainly beyond without a car. BTW, if you go to the Zoo set aside a sizable chunk of time. It's not something where you can see everything in an hour or so. Also, you might want to check out the Italian Community Center of Milwaukee's website. ( http://www.iccmilwaukee.com/main.html ) Robert