RobertR

Well, so far, I'd say it's a long way from half as good as the original. Two big issues so far. The first being that Patrick McGoohan is truly missed. The original prisoner was a tiger in a cage. He may have had keepers, but they knew that he'd bite if they were careless. Jim Caviezel's a big nothing in comparison. He's a charisma vacuum and the writing doesn't even make him an interesting character. It's a pale rehash of the original as far as writing goes. I don't know exactly where it's going, but virual reality seems likely. Regardless, the original series featured strong central premises and clear plotting to offset the trippy ideas. This one gets plain messy and sometimes you can't tell what's reality and what's hallucination and what exactly is happening in the plot. And I get little sense that the ultimate payoff will be worth the frustration engendered. I'll probably stick it out, but seriously, the Prisoner episodes at AMC's site are more worth your time. Robert

I'm going to watch it. I'm a big fan of the original show. I don't have too high of expectations for the new version, but Ian McKellan should be good and I'm glad they're not trying to slavishly duplicate the original. FYI, you can watch the original series at AMC's website. Robert

I'd offer it to Cameron. He'll be starting, most likely in CF, for someone next year. Especially if he gets a Gold Glove. I see little chance on him actually accepting. And, if so, then trade Hart or be creative. I'd offer it to Lopez too. Someone will be interested. He can start in the league somewhere. I wouldn't offer it to anyone else. I'd worry that they'd accept. Yeah, I want Counsell back, but I want him at my price, not an arbiters. Robert

That's also taking out the fact that Gomez hasn't hit a lick at the major league level, while Hardy put up a couple of seasons that put him among the top 10 offensively at SS as well as a plus glove. (Not 2009 obviously.) If Gomez improves, then yeah it's a justifiable move, but if he stays bad then they just gave away talent. That's not a solid move. You want to move talent for talent in this specific circumstance. Shortstop is not a position where there's a glut of talent around the majors. For that matter, I don't like the idea that because there are multiple outcomes, each outcome is equally likely to happen. That's part of my rationale in not liking the deal. I think the most likely outcome is that Hardy bounces back to be valuable with the bat and glove and Gomez never becomes valuable with the bat. Robert

I don't necessarily fault Melvin for not talking to the Tigers, but by the same token, it displays a lack of creativity. Three team trades aren't that rare when you don't quite match up. Especially since you're so early in the offseason that many teams have holes to fill. Then again, it wouldn't be exactly surprising if a couple of assistants for the Tigers and Brewers talked and couldn't find common ground, before it went any higher. Robert

Just because, splits by position. C .242/.331/.317 1B .299/.412/.602 2B .303/.377/.474 (I had no idea that cumulatively the Brewers got so much out of 2B. They'll have a tough time matching that.) 3B .267/.330/.439 SS .247/.306/.355 (IMO, Escobar is no lock to be significantly better than that line) LF .309/.373/.530 CF .249/.329/.432 RF .270/.340/.425 I think of most concern is the hits they're taking to their OBP, which will mean less ABs for Fielder and Braun. Especially since they got an unexpectedly good year from Counsell which helped deal with the issues at 2B and SS. It's hard to see room for major improvement. Yeah, IF they could upgrade catcher that would help, but that doesn't appear all that likely. OTOH, Fielder could completely offset any gains at C by simply putting up a .950 OPS. The team, as presently constructed, is totally reliant on Fielder and Braun. Robert

I'm stunned by this trade. I think Gomez is flat out terrible offensively. Yeah, his defense is valuable, but he's a long ways below replacement level offensively and it will take a lot of improvement just to get there. And it's by no means certain he will given his underlying numbers and poor plate discipline. Maybe it was the best the Brewers could do for J. J. Hardy. But, I hardly think that two days after the World Series is the time to decide that they couldn't do any better. That's folding early. Robert

Yeah, my goof. .670 OPS. Not that young either. Low upside second basemen don't do a whole lot for me. Some nice SB numbers, but the Royals problems are much deeper than that. Robert

I don't think much of Josh Fields. Poor defender. Brutal OBP, .302 for his career and not showing any signs of progress. Not that young. Decent power but lots of trouble making contact and he doesn't make up for it in walks. A cheaper version of Mike Jacobs basically. Considering the Royals OBP problems, I can't see how this helps them. Getz is a little more interesting, but how valuable is a second baseman with a .670 OBP. Jayson Nix isn't that much better, but he's shown flashes of power so I could see a much bigger upside to Nix. Teahen's pretty much stagnated the last two years, but he's still a better player than Fields and Getz. I don't know what the plan is for him, but he's versatile enough. Maybe they could try him at 3B again, slide Beckham to SS, and Ramirez to 2B to shore up the infield some. Although, if you were going to shore up the defense, you'd probably have been better off with Iwamura than Teahen. Edit: I've seen elsewhere that the Sox could replace Dye with Teahen. With the defensive difference probably making it a net plus for the Sox. If nothing else, Teahen is versatile enough that the Sox don't have to focus on one free agent, but can negotiate with several that could fit into their team, RF, 3B, 2B, or DH. Considering that the White Sox want to contend next year, I think this move makes sense for them. I just don't see Fields or Getz being long term answers even if they are both pre-arby. Robert

It looks like Iwamura is worth more than he costs. Maybe the Rays see something in Chavez, but it looks like the Pirates upgraded their team at a reasonable price. Considering Young is supposed to be brutal defensively, by reputation, I don't see the issue with it as a stopgap move. I tend to believe it's helpful for young pitchers to have good defense around them, as it encourages good pitching habits and discourages nibbling. Heck, Craig Counsell started a year at SS for the Brewers during the rebuilding phase. I fully agree that the move doesn't move them any closer to a championship quality team. OTOH, they still have to play games in the meantime, they're still going to have a very small payroll, and if management wants to put a slightly better product on the field, perhaps at slightly less profit, I have a hard time arguing against that. Robert

Find me a good team that isn't interesting and I'll be convinced that there's something to this notion. Almost by defintion, there must be something interesting going on for a team to be good, whether in an individual or a system as a whole. Robert

I don't have a problem with giving Looper a little extra credit for durability. I'm even willing to defend the guy as a prototypical 5th starter. But, come on, guys that pitch like 5th starters are below average to begin with. A flat C would be generous. Sometimes I wonder if the Journal-Sentinel writers have any idea what average is. Or means. That B- for the offense just blows my mind as well. It's like they're grading on style. Robert

See, while I think it's a bad signing, I think you overstate how bad he's been. He's basically been a #5 starter. Hammonds had no business even starting, even when healthy. Plus inflation. I have to say that if they basically give Suppan an inning or two for statistical padding and then bring in Narveson to pitch 5 innings or so, no big deal in the grand scheme. Yeah, it's a gimmick to meet an arbitrary "milestone", but in the grand scheme of things it doesn't really matter. I have far bigger things to hold against Macha for September rather than Suppan getting 1 or 2 innings at the beginning of a meaningless game, likely at the expense of some middle reliever. Robert

How soon we forget Jeffrey Hammonds. Robert

Been awhile. So, backing up. La Strada I finally got around to this Fellini masterpiece. One of the most accessible things he ever did. Moving. Entertaining. Brilliantly shot. Great acting. It's an essential link between Italian Neo-Realism and Fellini's more avant garde works. Essential viewing. The Taking of Pelham One Two Three The original version. It's very much a 70s film and perhaps why a remake wasn't a totally bad idea, but I don't see what you could really translate beyond the general idea. Very New York. Robert Shaw is, of course, a terrific villain. Walter Matthau also makes a good foil and the last shot of the film is priceless. Perhaps not an unimpeachable masterpiece, but a good solid film that's aged fairly well. He's Just Not That Into You Sometimes when being married you make compromises. This was one. Even setting my standards low, this doesn't have much going for it. Maybe a nice little monologue by Drew Barrymore about the various ways technology complicates communications these days being the only saving grace. By the book, little insight, little laughs. Forgetting Sarah Marshall Now this was a much better comedy. I'm starting to think that Mila Kunis has a real chance of breaking out into the movies because she positively glows in this movie. She seems to have that undefinable "it" factor that translates to the big screen. Russell Brand is also endlessly entertaining. Jason Segel is also very good, although his character starts as more pathetic and unrelatable than he should be, but stuff like that puppet Dracula musical really elevates the film and makes it much less generic than it could have been. I sense that there's potential for a great comic musical for Segel. L'Avventura Finally got around to this classic. Although it's not one to get the blood pumping, I think it's status is deserved. There's some brillaint photography in there, especially with these self centered, uncaring people set before some utterly fantastic vistas of nature and architecture. They might not feel anything through their ennui, but I did. Hammer Films Classics I've been working 3rd shift lately. On my off nights, I've been running a sort of midnight movies marathon. Right now I'm burning through Hammer Films. The Mummy, The Curse of the Werewolf, and The Curse of Frankenstein to start. The Mummy holds up surprisingly well. It's definitely a remake of the Universal movies, and isn't as good as Karloff's IMO, but it's handsomely photographed, moves at a good pace, Christopher Lee is an imposing and raging mummy, Cushing is good, and it has a Hound of the Baskervilles type atmosphere going on. The reds and greens really pop out of this film. There's a fine conceit in the middle of the movie, Cushing is holed up in his study full well knowing that there's an undead creature out there that means to kill him and it's unlikely he can do much about it. The Curse of the Werewolf seems like it has more artful ambitions than most of Hammer's output. It really plays like more of a fairy tale. It's bogged down some by over 30 minutes of backstory and Oliver Reed doesn't show up until 45 minutes into a 90 minute movie. The werewolf itself doesn't appear until the last half hour. It's a good film overall, but is a bit short in B-movie thrills. The Curse of Frankenstein was an instant classic and still stands up well. Cushing is a great cad as Frankenstein. Christopher Lee doesn't have much to do, certainly Karloff had much more to work with, but there's a fine unveiling of the monster and Lee's movements are just offkilter enough to create a pathetic yet menacing monster. The film is efficiently directed with a wonderful pace, some gore and shocks, heaving bosoms, and set design that looks great on a limited budget. I don't think the script knows quite what to do with the so called hero of the piece, but it's a minor complaint in a fun little picture. Robert

Nice one Rev. He was really solid in Nashville. And surprising at the end. Robert

What I think it comes down to is that the Brewers simply didn't have another Ace-type pitcher in the rotation that could work deep into games and cover up the deficiencies of the back end. Probably more than the deficiencies/injuries of Bush, Suppan, and Looper, you have to add in the first half flop of Parra. Looking at Looper's contract in a vacuum, I have no problem with the price. $6.5 million doesn't buy you much for starting pitching and he's been productive enough and doesn't seem to have any injury warning signs. If he can figure a way to cut down on those HRs, he could even have a decent amount of upside for 2010. I won't say he's been a bargain, but it was a buyer's market and he certainly came cheaper than he would have in other years. But, it's too early to say that you can depend on Parra. And, Looper, Suppan, and Bush as a group is underwhelming with little upside. You really need to replace at least one of those 4 with some sort of horse. And Parra isn't going anywhere due to his contract status and upside. Frankly, I think Bush has the most trade value compared with his value to the team. Someone probably still thinks he's young with some upside and his 2009 was derailed by injuries and his 2008 and playoff win is closer to his true value. Package him with someone like Hart, Hardy, or even Gamel and I think you could get something of value in return. I don't think you can get the same return for Suppan or Looper. At least in terms of pitchers. You might be able to swap them for a Milton Bradley type that's already wore out his welcome. In any event, I expect Looper's option to be picked up. And for the Brewers to dangle Bush, Suppan, and Looper and see what deal makes the most sense for them. I just expect that to be one involving trading Bush and keeping Looper. Robert

See, I'm of the opinion that there's no use squandering opportunities. You have an opportunity to get Gamel some ABs against major league competition in a low pressure situation, why aren't you using them? Who knows how many ABs it will take Gamel to figure out MLB pitching? I don't, but I am interested in making sure that the transition takes as short a time as possible. A team with a window of contention needs to maximize its resources and make sure growing pains are as short as possible. Because for a contending team, even a single game can matter. A single game last year may have been the difference between Sabathia pitching on the last day of the season and Sabathia pitching on full rest to open the playoffs. Would it have made a difference? I can't say, but I'd have liked my chances better under the latter scenario. In any event, there's no reason that Gerut or Bourgeois should be getting ABs when Gamel is available. They're no better. Use them as pinch runners and defensive replacements if you have to, but not as pinch hitters. Robert

McGehee's been doing this long enough, that I'm at least curious to see if he's the real deal. Helps that he's versatile, not locked into a long term deal, and has defensive value. I wouldn't necessarily be against exploring trade possibilities with Gamel. I like what Eric Young Jr. has done in the minors and you could play him in CF and spend Cameron's money elsewhere, as an example of a creative deal. Having talent is never a bad thing. With that said, I'm not very pleased with Macha's handling of Gamel. You were playing a fellow non-contender, on the road, and you can't get a prospect like Gamel into a single game in a series? Is Macha so worried about this year's win total that he's willing to go into next year not knowing what he has and not giving Gamel a chance to get some big league experience? Robert

Kendall is going to finish the year somewhere around a win above replacement. Nothing to get excited about, but enough to keep a starting job as catcher in the major leagues. Couple that with durability, a good work ethic, and not being a complete anchor on the basepaths and he'll have a job next year. Probably as a starter. Certainly, he's better than the majority of backups. Around 100 guys will have donned the tools of ignorance this year at the major league level, Kendall probably still figures in the top 30, albeit towards the bottom of that and with no upside. If the Brewers want to pay Kendall 2 or 3 million and gamble that he has one more year left in him, I wouldn't complain too loudly. Likewise, I wouldn't complain if they cut ties and went with someone younger. Robert

Yeah, the Phillies make the most sense. Hoffman would be a real boost to winning the World Series again. I could see someone else doing it, if they have some blocked prospects and would like the draft picks or Hoffman for 2010, but I don't see much urgency out there. Robert

I'm can deal with Suppan as 5th starter until something better comes along. As long as management is honest with what he actually is and doesn't pull out the "veteran presence" propaganda. It's not like there's a lot of better alternatives out there. Heck, there are plenty of problems with the staff with no relation to Suppan. Parra has underachieved. Bush scuffled/was hurt. McClung, Villanueva, Burns, and Dillard didn't do anything with the opportunity. Looper has been inconsistent. Jeffres picked up another strike against a career. No one emerged at the upper levels. DM couldn't pull off a trade for help. Other than Gallardo, Hoffman and a couple of others, there's a lot of blame to go around. Robert

I stole the information from the following link, http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2007/10/stats-used-for.html , but relief pitchers are put into a group and ranked according to the following stats. Total games (total relief appearances + 2 * total starts), IP (weighted slightly less than other categories), Wins + Saves, IP/H ratio, K/BB, ERA Some things to consider. There are a ton of relief pitchers. How many guys come up for just a cup of coffee and go right back down in a season? And, given that holds isn't a category, if you close for any amount of time you're going to rank way up there in the Wins + Saves category. And we know that Wagner is a star based on those last 3 categories. It's not really surprising that Wagner ranks in the top 20% or so of relievers, or whatever % includes Type A compensation when you look at what stats are actually considered. Robert

I still watch. I enjoy baseball, period. That said, it's reached the point where I'm not ashamed to cut my losses and watch something else when the bad news Brewers show up. Robert

I didn't know it was best out of nine then. Shoeless was 0-4 in game 1 when they lost 9-1. Hmmm ? Game 2 Black Sox lost 4-2 and Shoeless was 3-4. Did he not get the memo? Game 4 loss 2-0 and Shoeless was 1-4 double and 3 PO's Game 5 loss 5-0 Shoeless 0-4 Game 8 loss 10-5 Shoeless was 2-5 3 RBI's HR and 2B So in the 5 losses Shoeless was 6-21 .286 12 TB No errors Series totals: .375/.294/..563/ .956 no errors which was better than his total for the season: .351/.422/.506/.928 That would have been great seeing Eddie Cicotte have two errors in one game and Schalk yell at the players throwing it. FYI, the White Sox were trying to win Game 8 after getting stiffed by the gamblers. They just happened to lose. Just for context. Game 1 First AB, Top of Second, Score 1 - 0 Reds, Shoeless Joe reaches on SS error to lead off inning. Eventually scores. Second AB, Top of 4th, Score 1 - 1, Shoeless Joe grounds out to SS with 1 out, no one on. Third AB, Top of 6th, Score 6 - 1 Reds, Shoeless Joe grounds out to 1B with runners on 1st and 2nd and 1 out. (Now 0 for 1 with RISP in thrown games.) Fourth AB, Top of 9th, Score 9 - 1 Reds, Shoeless Joe flies out to deep right. Game 2 First AB, Top of 2nd, Score 0 - 0, Shoeless Joe doubled to lead off and was left stranded out there, by his teammates who were in on the fix. Second AB, Top of 4th, Score 0 - 0, Shoeless Joe singled to left with Buck Weaver on first. His teammates left both of them stranded. Third AB, Top of 6th, Score 3 - 0 Reds, Shoeless Joe struck out looking with Buck Weaver on 2nd with one out. (Now 0 for 2 with RISP in thrown games.) Fourth AB, Top of 8th, Score 3 - 0 Reds, Shoeless Joe reached on infield single to 1B with 2 out, no one on. Game 4 First AB, Bottom of 2nd, Score 0 - 0, Shoeless Joe doubled to lead off and was left stranded out there, by his teammates who were in on the fix. Second AB, Bottom of 3rd, Score 0 - 0, Shoeless Joe reached on an error by the second baseman with a runner on 2nd and 2 outs. (Now 0 for 3 with RISP in thrown games.) Third AB, Bottom of 6th, Score 2 - 0 Reds, Shoeless Joe grounds out to SS to leadoff inning. Fourth AB, Bottom of 8th, Score 2 - 0 Reds, Shoeless Joe strikes out with 1 out, noone on. Game 5 First AB, Bottom of 1st, Score 0 - 0, Shoeless Joe pops out to 3B, with runner on 3B and 1 out. (Now 0 for 4 with RISP in thrown games.) Second AB, Bottom of 4th, Score 0 - 0, Shoeless Joe grounds out to Pitcher with 1 out, noone on. Third AB, Bottom of 7th, Score 4 - 0 Reds, Shoeless Joe grounds out to 2B to leadoff inning. Fourth AB, Bottom of 9th, Score 5 - 0 Reds, Shoeless Joe grounds out to 2B to end game with runner on 3B. (Finishes 0 for 5 with RISP in thrown games.) Obviously, we'll never know what was in Shoeless Joe's head, but in context there's nothing in the thrown games that suggests that he wasn't in on the fix. A couple of hits to keep it looking non-obvious and a lot of groundouts, isn't a particularly impressive showing. He didn't even hit the ball out of the infield with RISP in fixed games. Robert