JJ Hardy, Still A Cry Baby

Awww, poor JJ.

"Once I was told I got traded to the Twins, it was icing on the cake," Hardy said. "I wanted to get out of Milwaukee. When I got traded to the Twins, a good organization and a good team, I felt like it was the perfect fit."

Wah, I wanted out of Milwaukee, because one of the top prospects in baseball was in our farm system and played the same position as me, wah. I wanted out of Milwaukee because I couldn't hit myself out of a wet, paper bag, wah. I wanted out of Milwaukee, because I was the slowest human being on the planet, wah.

Good ridance, JJ. You were always a mental midget who folded when the chips were down, and apparently now blame others for your short-comings.

Hey Twins fans, have fun watching Hardy ground into inning-killing double plays, get thrown out on slow rollers, and wallow in depression if he's not hitting well.

Oh, and this was my favorite quote of his:

"Everyone was welcoming," Hardy said of the fans. "They were awesome. Everyone was really, really nice. It sounded like they were excited to have me here."

"It sounded like they were excited to have me here." Hahahahahahaha. You better not boo him, Twins fans. Ever.

Stop Me If You've Heard This Before...

Scott Favre is back...

Sheets Signs With Oakland's Disabled List

I'm mildly surprised he chose Oakland, over a team like the Rangers, Cubs or Mets, but I'm also guessing none of those came near the $10M price tag Oakland's disabled list offered.

Get Ready, Okland. He'll be dynamite for 12 of his 20 starts, crap for three and so-so, the other five. Unfortunately though, he'll spend most of his time hanging with Eric Chavez in the training room. Other than that, I really do wish Sheets the best of luck. Great pitcher, just unreliable.

Brewers Need To Move To NL West...

And fast...

Favre Fans Are Smart

Many readers had a problem with this week's Monday Morning Hangover, the BTB penned for the SportsBubbler.

Now, I'm really getting sick of trying, to no avail, to reason with these people, but I'll give it one last shot. Of all the comments the column received, one stuck out the most:

Ted's Still a Dope said:

Clever screen name, isn't it? You can sure tell this guy is partial. Anyway, lets look at his analysis of Favre, and the Packers situation, shall we?

There is exactly zero evidence that Ted Thompson's master plan is working, and that Green Bay is headed to a Super Bowl. Chalk this season up to an easy schedule, which the Packers won't have next year. And, by the way, as to choking down the stretch, what is it exactly that Rodgers did at the end of the game in Arizona?

Zero evidence. Right, because reaching the playoffs and having Rodgers play as well as he has (and as well as you banked on him playing) mean nothing. The Packers are as close to a Super Bowl as your hero, Brett Favre.

Chalking this season up to an easy schedule? Fine, I'll give you that. Then that was the same reason for Favre and the Vikings success, right? I mean after all, the two teams did essentially play the same schedule.

Oh and as for the last "choking" tidbit, if you're going to say Rodgers choked down the strech, I will give you that. But then you're willing to admit your hero did the same on Sunday. And in the '07 NFC Championship. And in the '04 playoffs against the Eagles...right?

The reason "this" keeps happening with Favre is that he is great enough to carry a good team a long way, but he can only carry a team so far. His teams overachieve to get where they end up, then come back down to earth when they reach as far as they can go. If that seems like it happens more with Favre, it's only because he has been in this position a lot more than other quarterbacks due to his success and his longevity.

Entirely laughable. You can't be serious, can you? So lets just get this straight, Favre has played on mediocre teams, his entire career? Each team was just average, but Favre carried them the entire year, until finally running out of gas in the playoffs? His teams "overachieve" each season? Really? Reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaally?

So, the Vikings were overachievers this season? The same Vikings, who won the division with a 10-6 record last season, with Gus Frerotte and T-Jack quarterbacking them, overachieved? You can't actually believe what you're writing, sir, can you?

As for the last part, I'll give you both those points. Favre has been sucessful, and has been around for a long time. But those are not the reasons for his playoff collapses. So, off that logic, you're telling me every quarterback who's played in as many playoff games as Favre has gone through that? I'll grant you that in terms of why he has the NFL record for post season interceptions (30), but sorry, thats where your contention runs out logic. If that is indeed the case, why hasn't Troy Aikman, Steve Young, Joe Montana or Tom Brady - to name a few - had the same number of playoff blowups? Oh, wait, I know...level of talent, right? I bet thats where you'd go...

As to the Vikings game, the two fumbles inside the red zone denied the Vikings critical points. Then, factor in the incredibly dumb time management of Childress on their last drive; he let 30+ seconds go off the clock twice, forcing Favre's last-ditch gamble.

Can you people just once, point a finger at Brett Favre? Why is it that everytime Favre's team wins, it was entirely because of him, yet anytime he loses, we find a laundry list of excuses?

Favre's last-ditch gamble? IT WAS AN UNECESSARY GAMBLE! So what if they fumbled 25 times and Childress was taking a nap, they still had a shot (all because of Brett, I'm sure) and Favre threw that away. yet once again, he's completely free of blame. Just admit it was a horrendous pass.

On that play, there was roughly 20 things you could have done, and ONE, one thing you couldn't do. Favre could have ran. Oh wait, he was hurt, right? Thats why Childress called a roll-out, but wait, I think I got it, Childress is just an idiot, right? He could have hit Bernard Berrian on the sidelines, five yards in front of him and uncovered, for a five yard gain. He could have thrown the ball away. He could have sailed it downfield, where only his receiver could get it, hoping for a touchdown. But what he absolutely could not do...was turn the ball over. Not his fault though, I get it. You sure know more about football than I do.

Two other points: Does anyone really think a 56 yard FG by Longwell was guaranteed? I don't; Longwell's barely hit above 50% in the playoffs for his career. Plus, something I've not seen brought up previously: why, oh why, do these coaches on the road not go for the win instead of the tie? A two-point conversion wins the game, 29-28. Till this game, I thought Packer coaches were the only ones dumb enough not to figure that out.

No one ever said it was "guaranteed" but I do think I'd rather have the chance to attempt a 56 yard field goal, with 7 seconds left, than throw an interception and give the Saints a hail mary try, wouldn't you agree? Wait, I bet not. I bet you're going to tell me it's stupid to try that field goal - for the win by the way - because the Saints could block it and run it back for improbable, game-winning touchdown, right?

As for your Longwell claim, well, he's actually 17-23 in the playoffs - 73.9%. But I guess that is "barely above 50%" right? Idiot.

I have no idea what you're getting at with your last point, but would assume it's headed down the same illogical path as your next argument. Go for 2? Huh? So you wanted the Vikings to go for two on their final score, so that way when they don't convert - on a likely Favre interception (OK, OK, I had to take that shot though) - you can call Childress an idiot (and rightfully so) for going for 2, down 1 with 7 minutes left. Excellent logic, sir.

If this mouth-breathing moron, Ted's Still a Dope, reads this by chance, and cares to refute any of this, or carry on in a civil debate, I'd more than welcome it. Send us an email, or leave a comment.

I'm eagerly awaiting it...

Rotation Takes Shape

Turns out, Doug Melvin wasn't done after all. The Brewers reached agreement with a left-handed starter on Wednesday, only it wasn't the one we all expected - Mark Mulder.

Bringing Doug Davis back on a (essentially) one year deal, means the Brewers rotation is finally taking shape. You now have six starting pitchers (well, five starters and Suppan), and likely Capuano and Mulder in the minors. We shouldn't expect much from Capuano, given the injury he's coming back from, and the fact that it's the second time he's suffered it, but it's better when where they were a season ago.

I think the likely scenario is Suppan begins the season as your fifth starter, with Dave Bush serving as long-man out of the pen.

Turning to Dave Bush, or (hopefully) healthy Mark Mulder, or maybe, just maybe, a healthy Chris Capuano, to fill in the back end of the rotation because of injuries or ineffectiveness, rather than the likes of Chris Narveson (don't forget about him either) or Mike Burns is a much, much, better feeling.

Stack's Debut

3 Points, 4 assists, 5 rebounds. Zero turnovers. Yup, what a selfish, me-first, turd. Bad signing.

What the Casual (Dumb) NBA Fan Doesn't Understand...

In looking at various blog posts, and comments on the Bucks signing of veteran swing-man, Jerry Stackhouse, I'm stunned. I'm stunned so many fans are against this move. Not only against, but whole-heartedly hate it.

They don't get it.

So, explain to me, what the issue is with signing Stackhouse for a minimal contract for the rest of the season.

One writer for example, is woefully off base.

Lets tackle his assertions here, shall we.

1) Waste Herb Kohl's money. Sure, Jerry should come cheap but a cheap player the Bucks don't need is still a waste of money. One would think that Hammond would have learned his lesson after his remarkably useless acquisitions of Francisco Elson, Malik Allen and Salim Stoudamire (last April), and the decision to keep sluggish 37-year-old Kurt Thomas for "veteran leadership" purposes.

Right, beacuse, it's always terrible to sign guys like Malik Allen (when you have no depth in the front court) and Salim Stoudamire (for virtually no money) to one year deals. That always comes back to kill you. And keeping Kurt Thomas, who's also on a one year deal, and hoping he plays well enough to either help you out and provide veteran leadership, or increases trade value when teams are looking for a big man in February, is also a majorly bad idea. John Hammond should have just outright released him and lost a potential asset. Good call.

2) Shoot poorly. Another great shooter would join the fold with the acquisition of Stackhouse, right, just as it did when the freakishly inconsistent Carlos Delfino joined the team? Not a chance. Check Stackhouse' career shooting. 30.6 percent from Downtown and 41 percent overall. With the Bucks all but dead last in the league in shooting and the Skiles offensive system dependent on a few good gunners (Ben Gordon, Kirk Hinrich), the last thing the Bucks need is another 30 percent three-baller.

I was unaware this move was made, only for sake of adding a three point shooter. I thought it was made because Michael Redd won't be back, and Delfino and Charlie Bell should not be starting in this league. My bad. You're right, they should have gone out there and signed one of the many 50%+ three point shooters there are, sitting unsigned. Oh, wait...

3) Keep rookie sharpshooter Jodie Meeks on the Bucks bench. Being young is what the Bucks should be all about in Brandon Jennings' rookie year. The tough defense and good three-point shooting of Charlie Bell is all the help the Bucks need from an age 30-plus player, and the addition of Stackhouse could well cut into Charlie's playing time, too. The Bucks need to shoot better and the Redd injury is the perfect opportunity to play Meeks, the Bucks deadliest long range shooter. Let the rookie play and learn on the go. And make shots. Play Jerry Stackhouse instead?

And here is the biggest problem with the arguement. For one, I find it humorous that the writer bashes Stackhouse and his shooting, while praising Charlie Bell and his "good three-point shooting" and labels Jodie Meeks a rookie sharpshooter. I hate to break it to you, guy, but Meeks is a 30% shooter from beyond the arc. You know, the same percentage you bashed Jerry Stackhouse for carrying. Oh and Charlie Bell and his 36% career three-point percentage is hardly what I would call "good." Nice try though.

As I said though, I could already see where he was taking this, and this was the biggest issue. Most fans just don't understand the NBA. While it's nice to say we should start Jennings and Meeks and trade all of our older players under contract for draft picks, thats not how it works. For one, you have no real commodities. Luke Ridnour and Dan Gadzuric are not netting you top 10 draft picks. Secondly, this team needs to make the playoffs, this year.

If there's one thing the average fan does not get, it's revenue. In the NBA, the playoff gate is HUGE. That is where you make all your money. Playing for the lottery, year in, year out, really gives you nothing. For one, lottery picks are hit or miss, unless there's a LeBron, D-Wade, Durant or Dwight Howard out there, and secondly, the Bucks are routinely caught in no man's land, where they're looking at the 7-10 pick. That doesn't help. In order for the Bucks to start to crawl out of this decade-long hole they're in, they need to make money. In order to make money, they need to make the playoffs.

4) Jack shots. The man they call Jackhouse was quite the chucker in Detroit, an astounding 24 shots per game 2000-2001 on a lousy team before Joe Dumars was hired as Pistons GM. Then came Dumars and new coach Rick Carlisle and a one-year experiment to see if Stack could work it out. Jerry shot less and the Pistons won 50 in 2002 but Stack was traded to the Wizards for Rip Hamilton, one in a series of shrewd moves by the Pistons that built the 2004 NBA championship team. John Hammond should remember all of this -- he was working for Dumars at the time, and he should remember well how the Piston added player after player around their defensive anchor, Big Ben Wallace. He should remember that Stackhouse was part of the problem, not the solution. And he should keep in mind that Stackhouse's fate in Detroit was the perfect script (minus the 50 wins part) for a certain me-first shooting guard, Michael Redd

OK, first off, the one thing he is correct on is that Michael Redd does not help this team. Not exactly reinventing the wheel there, or making a bold claim, but he is correct. Again though, I don't get comparing 28 year old Jerry Stackhouse, a starter in the NBA, who was putting up 22+ points a night, to the 35 year old, role-playing Jerry Stackhouse. Thats basically like criticizing Ted Thompson for signing Ahman Green to be a backup, and stunting the growth of Brandon Jackson. It's a real stretch.

Yes, John Hammond was the right-hand man in Detroit, when a very overrated Joe Dumars was the GM in Detroit during their Championship run. Yes, Joe Dumars was overrated, I said it (drafting Darko, trading Chauncey Billups for AI, then using the money he freed up to overpay Ben Gordon and Charlie V to long-term deals). What Hammond has done, is what every, for lack of a better term, mid-market NBA team needs to do to succeed:

1. Draft well
I'm not talking about taking guys like Brandon Jennings (although that helps), but rather, doing what they've done in the second round. Draft guys like Mbah a Moute and Meeks, guys who were good college players and played for winning teams in college, thus are accustomed to winning and are good chemistry guys to have around. Thats how you build a nucleus.

2. Poach the European market
You can say it wasn't much work because they already had him earlier in his career, but bringing in guys like Ersan Illyasova, and even, as much as I don't like him, Carlos Delfino (I realize it was a sign and trade, but he was staying in Europe unless Toronto moved him).

Thats how you crawl out of a hole if you're the Bucks, and thats what Hammond has done. Criticizing him over signing past their prime guys to be role players on one year deals (and make no mistake, Delfino is virtually on a one year deal, since the second year is partially guaranteed, and the third carries no guaranteed money) is ridiculous. Is Jerry Stackhouse taking away minutes from Charlie Bell or Delfino really a bad thing? I'd rather he not take minutes away from Meeks, but I dont' think he ends up burrying Meeks on the bench. I think, you'll see Stack play a lot more of the 3 than the 2.

So, again, someone explain to me how this is a bad move, or as it was horribly implied, another of the many bad moves made by Hammond.

The Bucks need to make the playoffs and start making money. The NBA is not the NFL or MLB, you don't just all of a sudden start to win by sacrificing seasons to develop young players. You need to strike a happy medium of developing guys, while treading water, which is what this move does.

It's good to be back, Milwaukee...