JJHardy7

Would Braun even be eligible for free agency yet? I'm pretty sure he wouldn't be. And when you are calculating 'how much he left on the table' are you assuming he signs a free agent contract? I understand the thought of Braun leaving money on the table, but there also needs to be some type of calculation figuring how much $$$ he got with such little service time. Braun is set for life if he has a career ending injury...something you maybe can't say if he doesn't sign that contract. I guess if I were Braun the only concern I'd have with that contract is that it might be a few years too long. I believe he'll be around 33 if he plays out the life of the contract. Holliday was 30 when he signed his deal this off-season...if that deal was a few years shorter I think he'd have a chance to sign another huge deal.

I have had AT&T, US Cellular, and Sprint. I can't speak to every area since I had AT&T and US Cellular in WI and Sprint in TN. US Cellular is awesome in WI. Easily the best coverage I've had in a location. I really, really wish their coverage extended further. AT&T was awful. I'm sure it has improved some, but I had so many dropped calls in Milwaukee I don't think I'd ever consider their service again. I complained multiple times and for whatever reason they simply did not care. My plan with Sprint is pretty nice now. The 'Simply Everything' or whatever it is called is reasonable. The main thing is coverage. I would check with service providers and such and most plans give you 30 days or whatever. I really like Sprint, but even with Sprint there are a few 'dead' areas where I live. I really do think your location is the most important piece of the puzzle. My 'dead' spot is a small span on the highway in a rural area I driver through. To me, it is not a big deal, but if someone was on the phone all the time it would be a deal breaker.

Why didn't you think that you would be charged?

A prequel bringing back all of the original characters to detail the infamous/mysterious Drazen operation in Kosovo would be great. Too bad they're apparently not headed that route. I agree that would be great, but I just don't know if it would be appropriate for a movie audience. It might make for an interesting 'mini' 24 season on television. I still really like 24 and I'll admit it has ran its course. I do think however the biggest 'complaint' I've heard from people that don't like/haven't watched 24 is that they feel if they miss one show they've missed a lot. Now it is so far along in its life I doubt a lot of 'new' 24 fans jump on board. A movie makes a lot of sense (hopefully) for both 24 fans and non-24 fans if it is written the right way. To me, that means it can only carry so many aspects of the television show.

Why is all-star in quotes? Are they trying to go for sarcasm? It is because he's only been a 2-time all-star?

Agreed rluzinski and TLB. I guess that is the point I was getting at...it seems that Gamel maybe made some mistakes in the past and his 'maturity' was questioned...and now his work ethic or something of that nature is questioned because of some type of 'troubled' past. I guess I really don't get it. I've met Mat a few times and he's a great guy. I don't see him as a guy that is lazy or doesn't care. I hope this is more media based than anything, but still it doesn't paint a great picture of Mat for those that just read the JS.

They do it for every team to "prevent" late season tanking. The problem is that the reward of a top 3 pick is so much greater than trying to make that 35th win that you're a bad franchise if you don't start tanking if you have no shot at .500 and the playoffs. Oh I understand why they do it. I mean a team can still tank if they want to improve their chance. I just don't know that every non-playoff team really needs to be in the lottery. There no doubt would still be tanking and I don't know how to avoid that. I would just assume/guess in a perfect world the teams that are the last out of the playoffs are actually close to making it...of course that doesn't always happen. I don't know if there is a perfect fix, but I'd be interested in other alternatives.

Technically yes, but there's only a 2.9% chance the Bulls move into the top 3 even at 11. So while they could move into the top three, it's not very likely and under the current system the team to jump the highest was the 2008 Bulls who jumped from 9th to 1st during the lottery. What about the Magic a few years back? I think in 1993. I'm guessing the rules have changed since then? I understand the odds are slim...I just don't like the lottery. I really wish they would only do it for 5 - 10 teams instead of every team that misses the playoffs.

No matter where Chicago ends up(which won't be below 11th), we will trade picks, so we will get a lottery pick, AND make the playoffs this year. Hammond seems to be making all the right moves so far. Couldn't the lottery change all that? I don't think there is any type of guarantee the Bucks will be able to swap picks until the ping pong balls determine where the lottery teams are drafting. Great win by the Bucks. I guess it is possible to develop a team and win at the same time. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif It would be awesome for the Bucks to make the playoffs and be able to swap picks with Chicago...it really would be possible then to continue to grow and get some more young, cheap talent on the team.

This might have been discussed already, but did Gamel admit he didn't warm up properly? He very well may have, but I guess I just don't know if that directly is the cause of the injury. It could be, but players who do stretch properly get hurt too. As many know, I'm a pretty big Gamel fan. This is not good news. I guess I wouldn't be surprised at all if he gets traded during the season.

Because over 20 years, when you spend $1-2 million a year on 14th and 15th men who don't play, it ends up being a lot of money? That's $20-40 million wasted on scrubs who don't play. That $20-40 million could go towards a new arena. That $20-40 million could go towards buying picks and using those picks to get players who actually play. That's the problem. I don't know if the Bucks are worried about the next 20 years, but I guess that is not the point. I agree that you don't NEED 15 guys on the roster. I would hope that if they do sign a guy like this it really isn't a play for this year. If he does have a future in the league, it would prevent another team from signing him. No harm in signing him if you think he could make the roster next year.

I usually can crush using the power swing. The problem is I usually don't keep guys like Escobar or Gomez on my team since they lack power. My offense is pretty strong using the power swing with guys that can swing for power. I guess I should just use the contact for Escobar and Gomez and see what happens.

For The Show, how are people deciding to hit for power or contact? How much does it matter? I'm really struggling with Escobar right now.

Sorry, but I feel like you are really not getting it here. Your point is that ESPN likes getting a lot of viewers because thats how they make money? I don't think that could be more obvious. Fair enough. Like I've said, it's a business...I think you are forgetting that point. It isn't the end all for every sport, statistic, interview, etc. Again, check out ESPNews because that is what you want and they do offer exactly that.

I really think some people are underestimating Prince's value to the Brewers. The Brewers struggle for awhile (even in the early 2000s) was to have a player that on a national level that folks cared about. Comparing Hardy and Fielder isn't fair at all...Hardy might have been some Milwaukee heart throb or whatever, but on a national scale and baseball scale Fielder is much, much more important than some local heart throb. I think the Brewers should extend Fielder. The thing that is maybe getting missed is that the Brewers can't just buy pitching...even with Fielder's current salary they can't do that. The biggest issue IMO is that they need to be able to have an awesome farm system. The Brewers will never be 'buying' pitching in order to succeed. It just won't work that way IMO...

Random player comments: Gamel kind of got hosed on his ratings. I laughed when I saw they gave him epic plate discipline but zero plate vision. Counsell actually has his "new" stance. I couldn't find Jim Edmonds in the game anywhere, and unless I glossed over him Capuano isn't there, either. Manny Parra is listed as a reliever. I agree on Gamel. He did get the 'A' rating for potential though. I haven't gone across every player or team, but it seems like there are fewer and fewer 'A' potential players. I didn't see the two players you mentioned either. I don't get why Parra is a RP. This is my first year with The Show for PS3 (had all the previous ones on PS2). Are there roster updates that I will be able to download or how does that work? I know on NBA Live I can go in and update/download the rosters. Thanks in advance.

I know I have been the biggest Weeks fan, but I really hope he has a good season. The question I do have...what impact will last year's injury have on him this year? Will he be 100% like he was last year or will it take time for scar tissue to 'loosen' up or whatever.

I think judging based on number of viewers is a terrible way to estimate the quality of ESPNs broadcasting, which is really what we are talking about here. You seem to think ESPN has all the viewers they have because of their style of broadcasting and because they cater to the larger markets. I think they have all the viewers they have because they are ESPN and have been around forever. They are where the average sports fan goes for sports coverage and highlights because they don't know any better. Unlike you, I don't think this is at all an excuse for them to can get away with hour long commercials and crap reporting. Maybe we have to just agree to disagree, but you are going to have to live with ESPN bashing on any messageboard like this and I think its understandable to expect something better from them. Oh we can agree to disagree. I respect your opinion and others that feel that way. I do think though that number of viewers is everything for ESPN. That is a big part of how they make money. That has been my point the whole time. If you take national sports channels (not sure how many of them there are) I'd expect that ESPN is a pretty significant leader. Again, that doesn't mean they do everything perfect or that I think it is the best thing to watch. They simply have a large market share. Maybe they've done research and have decided that having an actor on a week before a movie comes out helps ratings? Again, I do agree with some of what you are saying. I just don't get too worked up about ESPN, their coverage, or constantly pointing out the negatives...it is a business. There are plenty of things they show that I watch that are live sporting events...I have complaints about the broadcasting and such, but imagine if ESPN just stopped tomorrow...we'd miss a lot of live sports. ESPN isn't a solution by any means for sports fans. It really is entertainment and it is what brings ESPN money. ESPN stands for Entertainment Sports Network. And like I said...ESPNews is really kind of what SportsCenter used to be in some regard. It is unfortunate you don't receive it, but that doesn't mean they don't offer a product that might suit your needs or others needs. I don't mean to sound like a jerk...but again I'd like to see some market share/ratings data. If ESPN is kicking butt, why change to serve what is likely a minority of sports fans? I fall in that minority and it makes complete sense to me why they don't. Like you said...we can agree to disagree. No problem. I'm just trying to point out what ESPN might be thinking....and my guess is they are rather successful at it. I will say though I'm not a fan of the Disney type stuff being involved on ESPN...but that is their call and I'm sure it makes financial sense.

So is figure skating geared towards those under 30? http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

I guess ESPN does have a channel like ESPNEWS if that is what you are looking for. I agree that some of the product placement stinks, but that is everywhere now unfortunately. I'm sure with all the coverage, personalities, and technological advancements ESPN has had it costs a lot more for them to operate. I don't like actors interviewed either...I guess it just comes with the territory and ESPN is a business. Again, I just ask how does ESPN compare to the competition in terms of viewers? I'd guess it dominates and that is why it works the way it does. I don't mean to offend you or have this personal at all...I just think that most bf.netters (maybe all of them) are much more sophisticated than the average fan. We expect things to be better and such. And that's fine. I just think we might be in the minority when it comes to an 'average sports fan'. I told someone at work how bad ESPN botched the Ben Sheets leaving in free agency this year thing and they had no clue why that was a big deal. I had to explain that big screw up...and this is a person that I probably would define as an average or above average sports fan. ESPN no doubt has room to improve or change, but they are serving markets much bigger than Milwaukee.

You just described Braun and to a lesser extent Prince (who had his name recognition), especially with all the fanfare on them in the minors (baseball's equivalent to college football). Players make the teams these days, especially those two. I think you are really underestimating pro football. This year's draft will be in prime time. The NFL and college football are two of the most popular sports. You can't say that about high school baseball, college baseball, or minor league baseball. As Brewers fans, we were all very excited and to a lesser extent nation wide. There just isn't a guarantee that putting up great numbers in the minors will mean anything in the majors. And I know the same can be true about football...it just covered a lot more than the little coverage that say college baseball has. Realistic or not, I think its safe to say that a lot of viewers are flocking to the sport specific networks for nightly highlights and in depth analysis. Your opinion seems to be that ESPN does what they do for a reason and that is to satisfy as many viewers as possible. I think this is actually working against them right now and expect them to adapt to the changing landscape of information demands their viewers have. I think this process is being greatly slowed by their parent company. Oh I agree. If you want the NFL, go to the NFL network. I'm not disagreeing. I would just ask...how would you realistically fix ESPN? I'm sure they have announcers that aren't that great or whatever so I don't know if that's an option. It seems like everyone that gets 'big' leaves or is asked to leave. I just think from a national view they do a decent job. And they do cover a lot of live sporting events which I do enjoy. I really don't care for some of the non-sports stuff they air, but they are trying to cover a huge and highly differentiated market. Like I said...for coverage like the Brewers there are a lot more options that are better than ESPN. For a high level national coverage, ESPN just isn't that bad IMO. It's not perfect, but I'd be interested in seeing some type of ratings for other pure sports channels...I think that would tell us what we need to know one way or another.

And from traveling around the country I disagree and think a lot of baseball fans are very interested in Prince/Braun and by extension the Brewers. Look at the NFL, everyone knows the up and coming players. Charles Woodson was a national story this year in the smallest market in all of professional sports. Why? Because coverage is a lot more equal and fans want knowledge, not just what is fed to them by ESPN. Baseballs may very well have some interest in Prince/Braun. What about the Brewers as whole? Again, Prince/Braun have only been in Milwaukee for a few years. I'm not saying they aren't good players...the just play in Milwaukee and that just doesn't excite a lot of national people. It is interesting you bring up the NFL. I think that is not a fair comparison. Woodson also had ton of fanfare in college and was a very high draft pick in a sport where the draft is actually followed by many fans. I hope that one day MLB can be like the NFL in many ways, but I'll try to stay on topic. You said you didn't get why people bash ESPN. I told you why I think its very reasonable and appropriate to bash them. I get your point, I just think its wrong. If you don't want to participate in some venting about ESPN then don't come in an ESPN venting thread and then tell posters in here you think they are the ones taking it personally. Im not trying to be a jerk or overreact myself, just trying to answer the questions you posed. I guess I just think that some people that bash ESPN have unreasonable expectations. I understand why, but it is a national network that is going to try (and I do mean try they aren't perfect) to present stories that most of their viewers are interested. Unfortunately that leaves teams like the Brewers on the outside. And I didn't say other people were taking it personally...you were taking it personally based on your comments directed at me. Again, I could care less who watches ESPN. I just think it does makes sense that they do things they we they do. And again, I agree it'd be nice to have better coverage for not only the Brewers, but I'm sure fans of other smaller markets would like the same. thebruce44...I'm not trying to attack you or anything like that. I'm just trying to somewhat portray the other side or what ESPN thinks. It's kind of like the Olympics showing figure skating all the time...there's plenty of people that don't like it that are real sports fans, but there is also a much larger part of the population that will watch figure skating almost every other thing. And again, back to the topic of the thread ESPN has had some major sexual harassment issues in the past that may have internally be swept under the rug. My guess is they want to avoid those situations now and in the future.

Yes, but you did say "Again, why in the world would they show a ton of Brewers stuff? Relatively speaking nobody cares about the Brewers on a national level." By extension you are saying nobody cares about those stud players I mentioned, which really isn't true. I enjoy watching a network that covers those players as well as the East Coast Teams. I enjoy trade speculation that doesn't start and end with every good player in middle America going to a coast. If SportsCenter refuses to do this, which they have for quite a while, then why chastise people for ripping on them? It seems pretty reasonable and logical to me. All that being said, I do agree that baseball tonight has gotten a little better recently. Coincidence that it happened when MLB Network started pulling viewers? I doubt it. My point is that over the course of time a team like the Brewers just isn't a major national draw. I love the Brewers and love Braun and Fielder. They'd have a ton more exposure in a bigger market...not because their hate would say Yankees or Red Sox...but because those teams have MAJOR national draws. The Brewers really don't. I think when the Brewers (or a small market team) are competitive and fighting for a playoff spot they get their fair share. The problem is big payroll teams are located in bigger markets and a little big more consistent in terms of wins year in and year out. Don't get me wrong...I wish ESPN and other major sports networks would cover the Brewers as much as possible. I just think that the average baseball fan that isn't a Brewers fan doesn't have a lot of interest in the Brewers. Does that make sense? I'm not saying WE should not care about them...I just don't know if people in California, Texas, New York, etc. care all that much about the Brewers and teams in that market. Obviously it hasn't hurt some of our studs when it comes to all-star games, but the team as a whole is likely not going to be a major national draw.

So by that logic, why should I care about Prince, Braun, or even Zack Greinke or other small market players? You think those guys don't sell? ESPN was worthwhile before Disney took control for the simple reason that there haven't been other national options. Now that we have NFL, NBA, MLB, Big 10, and hopefully some day a Big East network we finally don't have to watch what Michael Eisner/Bob Iger/Steve Jobs decides we will watch. I hope you do well with your overlords, but I plan to get information that is useful in my fantasy leagues and find out who is the best short stop in baseball is not named Derek Jeter. I didn't say that. My point is that it is a national show. It isn't a Midwest channel or anything like that. I think having more specific channels is a great thing. No doubt about it. ESPN is serving a very broad national based viewer. Also, I think you might be taking this a bit personal. I could care less about who watches ESPN, but there is a method to their madness. I barely watch it except for sporting events and SportsCenter. I don't use SportsCenter as the end all of knowledge...I think the Internet IMO has really become a path for become to look for good analysis on the topic they are interested in.

The thing that annoys me the most about ESPN is how they'll avoid covering sports if ABC or ESPN don't have broadcast rights. As far as covering Milwaukee teams, while I understand that nationally people don't care about the Brewers or Bucks, it's annoying when they're one of only a few games on a given night and the can't even seem to squeeze a mention in. Instead discussing what Favre might say next week or projecting whether the Celtics would be good Dance Dance Revolution players. I do agree. It is all about ratings. Whether you hate Favre or like Favre he makes ratings. I believe last year a day or two after the NCAA basketball championship some lame story came out that 'he might come back'. That is planned. That isn't news from the Favre camp or anything. I'd expect the same this year as well. It isn't Favre's fault IMO, but they will contact him when they need the ratings. Some ESPN personalities have even admitted that. It is difficult for Brewers baseball fans or smaller markets. They simply don't cover that like I wish they would. They do have their reason though. It seems like the only sport that can transcend that is maybe the NFL if it is a really good story/season(s).