Raw Biz

I've always wondered what criteria exactly is used when judging a director. Isn't a lot of directing getting the best performance out of an actor which, aside from the actor's performance, isn't seen onscreen? I understand there is stuff like camera shots, pacing, and editing but isn't that the part of the DP and editor? I've been a huge movie fan my entire life but I've never been able to figure this out. To me, it just seems like if a movie is good, people think the director was good.

No offense but aren't you a little biased. If he's barely a top 100 senior according to some scouts, why would that merit a 1st round pick?

People have no right whatsoever to rag on Attanasio. I disagree. If the Brewers end up signing Lohse, I think it will be because of Attanasio. There's a few articles out there saying that he's pushing hard for him. Not only would they lose a 1st round pick but they'd also be stuck with a mid-30s, mediocre pitcher for most likely at least 8 mil/year. Sure Melvin could say no but I'm sure Attanasio has some pull.

Ah, I couldn't figure out what "itly" meant. I thought it said "it should be done rather quickly" and I didn't know what it was.

Are you the same one who said that Hart was sandbagging in the offseason too? Sometimes guys get hurt. Ben Sheets got hurt a lot. It happens. Everybody's body is different. Sometimes fluke things happen.

I don't know what this says. I hope I'm not the only one.

Couldn't tell ya, last one I got was I think 10.

It was pointless. Mitch Williams' big thought about replacing Hart/Gamel was "the Brewers just need somebody who can catch the ball. They don't need to hit. Just catch the ball." So I guess he agrees with Roenicke. Not even getting into whether or not it's a good idea, there really wasn't even any analysis given for his statement. I know defense can be important and they have a pretty good offense everywhere else but I don't think having converted SS playing 1B is the best idea. Sea Bass and Crosby might be fine backups at SS but they should not be starting 1B.

I just got done with RDR and have basically done everything possible. I think I'm at like a 97% completion or whatever, which means I've done all the challenges, found all the locations, got all the suits, captured all the bounties, etc. The only thing I have left is a couple final little things but I don't know if I'll actually finish everything cuz it seems kinda pointless if the main missions are all done. I still have Fallout 3 which I never finished and Fallout: New Vegas which I haven't started. And I have the original Bioshock which I've never played either. Right now I'm just enjoying FIFA.

I got home to the Falls at 3:30 and it was coming down pretty good sideways.

Wow. How does he have a job? That is ridiculous. Other than the last 2 years, Lohse has been a #4/5 starter his whole career. If he didn't play for the Cardinals I might be more willing. But for some reason, guys have monster years with the Cardinals and just can't repeat it anywhere else.

As I've said before, I wouldn't take him for the minimum if it means giving up that 1st round pick. He's not the missing piece so that 1st rounder has a lot more value.

The Brewers were 2nd in the NL in 2008 with an ERA of 3.85. And that's the entire season. 4th with giving up 4.25 runs/game. 4th with a 1.335 WHIP. In 2011, they were actually only 7th but a 3.63 ERA and 6th in runs/game at 3.94 and 3rd in WHIP at 1.24. So yes, the 2 times that the Brewers have made the playoffs since 1982 has been with great pitching. The 2011 staff was better on the season compared to 2008 but so was the rest of the NL. And we don't make the playoffs in 2008 without CC pitching on 3 days rest. More often than not, you need good to great pitching just to make the playoffs.

That isn't necessarily true. Look at the Brewers offenses when they had Braun, Fielder, Weeks, Hart, Hardy, etc. They were always near the top in offense but when they had average pitching, they didn't do much. The only times they made the playoffs was with great pitching (CC/Sheets, Greinke/Marcum/Yo). Great pitching will usually beat great hitting. You can't expect to win 7-6 every game. The focus should be on improving the pitching, even if that means the offense takes a little bit of a hit.

It's completely different IMO because we have never had an NHL. And they are the closest thing to us.

But who said you necessarily have to sacrifice the present? I don't think trading Hart last year or before this year would have been considered sacrificing the present. Last year, the team was basically out of it in July. Yeah they made a run at the end of the year but I don't think anyone really thought they were a strong enough team because the BP was so bad. Then they knew they were getting Gamel back this year (obviously that didn't work out but I don't think anyone saw that coming) so they could have traded Hart at the break since they were out of it or anytime during the offseason. The offense might have lost a bit of production from Hart to Gamel but it still would most likely be a top 5 offense in the league. I would much rather have a middle of the pack offense and top of the pack rotation than vice-versa. We've always had tons of offense and no pitching. It's time to reverse that trend. I don't think everyone is saying to just every youngish guy who has value. That wouldn't make sense. What does make sense, however, is when you have someone capable behind them (Hardy to Escobar, Hart to Gamel, Gomez to Schafer/Aoki), their contract is nearing the end, they probably wouldn't resign and/or be worth the money to resign, and the player would fit other teams' needs. I would love for everyone to be career Brewers but other than Braun, that most likely won't happen because players are always looking for top dollar and once you get into the 30s, players regress and aren't worth the money. The replacements don't always need to be as good as the player they are replacing because hopefully, there will be enough talent around them to make up for it. You don't want to be trading multiple guys like this every year but it's not bad to trade one a year. The progression of the other players on the team plus the return on the trade should make up for whatever slight downgrade you get from the replacement. Obviously all of this is "in a perfect world" but you have to take these risks at times, especially when they make sense. It made sense with Hardy (they just screwed up on the timing and target) and it made sense with Hart. I think it also made sense with Prince before they went out and got Marcum/Greinke. Hell, it might still have made sense then if they could have traded him for a young stud pitcher, which was definitely possible. Obviously the fans wouldn't have liked it but the potential pitcher and Gamel probably would have been worth more. TL;DR Version: Just because you trade someone away doesn't mean you are sacrificing the present. If you are mediocre and/or have a decent replacement and the return is solid, it makes sense to take the risk.

That's what I was saying. Technically he could still be suspended but if there was strong enough evidence to do so, it most likely would have come out already.

That's not necessarily true from what I've read. If they get some kind of evidence (other than just writing on a piece of paper) that Braun was using, they could still suspend him. I'm not sure if it would be the 50 game ban or something else but I'm almost positive I read somewhere that they could suspend him for something if they determined and had proof that he used. But I think if there was any proof (again other than a piece of paper), it would have come out by now. In order to have an arbitration award vacated, it is usually necessary to demonstrate at least one of the following in court: There was a serious conflict of interest on the part of a neutral arbitrator; the award was not final and thus failed to constitute a definitive end to the issue; or, the award covered an issue that was outside the scope of the arbitration agreement. Arbitrator fraud or misconduct claims are rare because actual evidence of arbitrator misconduct is hard to come by. When courts are faced with motions to vacate an arbitration award, they will generally only look at the procedural details of the arbitration, not the substantive details. This means that courts won’t look at the merits of the case unless the claim involves the award itself being unreasonable or unethical. Ultimately, fraud is very unlikely to be a winning argument in court unless there is definitive evidence. An arbitrator’s binding decision isn’t fraudulent just because it’s unfavorable. I'm not talking anything about the arbitration. That test and everything is over and done with. I'm talking about new evidence coming forward and using that to suspend him. Like I said, I don't know if it would be the 50 games because if the evidence isn't a failed drug test, I'm not sure how that's written in the CBA. But I'm sure I read somewhere that he could be suspended for something.

That's not necessarily true from what I've read. If they get some kind of evidence (other than just writing on a piece of paper) that Braun was using, they could still suspend him. I'm not sure if it would be the 50 game ban or something else but I'm almost positive I read somewhere that they could suspend him for something if they determined and had proof that he used. But I think if there was any proof (again other than a piece of paper), it would have come out by now.

But then they would just jack the prices up even more. The whole point of scalping is usually to make more money than what you paid for.

Yep. Ziggler should definitely have gotten his chance by now. I don't get it, the guy is an incredible worker and has tons of charisma. He really does remind me of a young Flair and HBK, and it's not just the blonde hair.

I would hate for a lot of you to be on any jury I'm involved with. I get that people are skeptical. Fine. But to say that you want to trade him and you could never cheer for him again, all because his name was written down on some piece of paper. That's just ridiculous and everything is complete speculation.

You must be joking. All this is is speculation. MLB really doesn't even have a case to suspend him yet, even if they wanted to. They are going to need more than just his name on a piece of paper.

That's why I get pissed when people say Braun got off on a technicality. I don't think enough people are aware of the Modahl case and how that "technicality" of not properly storing/treating Braun's sample could have a HUGE effect on the results. So yeah Braun technically got off because of a chain of custody thing. But that chain of custody thing could have directly caused the end result.

People have failed a test before and were clean. If it happened in this situation, we'll probably never know but it was definitely possible. "Modahl engaged lawyers to show that the laboratory in Lisbon had stored her urine sample on a table in a room heated at 35 degrees for three days, which caused bacterial degradation. She has always professed her innocence and was later cleared. She said: "I have declared my innocence, I have never taken any banned substance" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diane_Modahl http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/december/15/newsid_2559000/2559981.stm