Panzerbear171

The A's are so much fun to watch.

You remember how bad Troy Percival used to own the Tigers? He did it to us as well. I don't think I've ever seen a Twins runner score on him, but iirc he was even more dominant against the Tigers.

I hear that, it's definitely getting to that point for me as well. Any tips for somebody looking to cutback/quit? I quit cold turkey. Honestly it didn't really have any impact on me, I felt the same the next day, and the day after I felt exceptional. I don't have any problems with it now, even though I think about smoking. I had a hit last night actually, and I didn't even get high, not sure if it was just weak shit or what. As far as cutting back, my plan was always to only smoke socially, or maybe you like smoking more when you're playing video games on your own or whatever.

You must not be listening to the right deathcore bands. If you like stuff like Obscura, there's plenty of technical deathcore that should appeal to you. Lastfm is a great tool for finding new music that you know nothing about. Search a random genre that you don't even know exists, but you think would sound cool if it did, and you'll probably find at least a handful of bands who fit the criteria. When I first started listening to deathcore all I knew about was that shit like Suicide Silence and Bring Me The Horizon, but there's a lot more. The Faceless, Fallujah, Spawn Of Possession, Fractals, Slice The Cake, The Contortionist, amongst others are all very good bands that don't get as much credit as some of the more popular bands. I guess that's kind of a rule for everything, since the most popular music is designed to sell more than anything else, and underground scenes are where popular recording artists steal most of their ideas from anyways.

Haven't smoked in a month, and rarely smoked before that. I used to sit on my ass all day, playing video games, smoking indica. Very relaxing, and I've had some of my best times on drugs, but it definitely isn't doing me any favors at this point. If I ever get back into pot, it'll be in the form of edibles. Ingestible weed is all sorts of awesome.

Storm Corrosion is sick. Anyone else into deathcore? I think it's kind of considered cool to make fun of it, kind of like it is/was cool to make fun of nu metal. I like a few bands though, and I can't say I've ever heard nu metal display the technical proficiency that some of these bands display.

Never said they were selling out, but rather that I suspect that they may be attempting to. On a more serious note, if Opeth wasn't trying to sell out, they would have made a side project to take advantage of these ambitions the same way that Devin Townshend did, and they would have progressed their sound through addition rather than subtraction. Their newest material has blatantly been softened to become more radio friendly. I mean, the next thing you know they'll be stripped down musicially. I think bands have the right to become more commercially, but they shouldn't pass it off as some sort of stroke of artistic maturity as some of their die-hard fanboys seem to actually believe.

I want Anthony Barr on the Vikings something awful. I can't imagine how awesome our front seven would be with him coming off the edge from the second level in a Von Miller type of role with our upgraded defensive line. He's pretty raw, and Mack is the more complete product right now, but when I see Mack I see a guy who has fulfilled his potential already. His frame is already filled out, while Barr looks like he could put on another 15-20 lbs of muscle, and still has plenty to learn. For a guy who just switched to defense for the first time 2 years ago, and has had over 20 sacks since, I think he's being seriously overlooked as a top prospect. 6'5, 255 lb OLBs with 4.5 speed that have shown as much production as Barr has don't come around too often, and it isn't often that they're talked about as only the 2nd best player at their position. I think he'll almost certainly be available at #8, but I wonder if we could coax a trade with Buffalo if a prospect they were interested in fell to #8, and get to double-digit draft picks. Maybe their #9, plus their 4th and 5th rounders for the #8 so they can nab a TE like Ebron to go with Johnson and Williams.

So who does everyone want their team to draft? I'm hoping the Vikings get a shot at Khalil Mack or Anthony Barr. Instantly, we'd have one of the best front sevens in the the league, and the secondary is already significantly improved from 2013 by adding Munnerlyn and upgrading the defensive line. It's up to Coach Zimmer and Spielman to figure out what the weakest link on the team is, but LB has to be one of the positions that they're looking at.

Yeah, they're a great band man. Really great. I definitely recommend their entire body of work, even Heritage is not that bad. I bash it because I can see what they're trying to do, and I've heard that kind of music before by bands that just do it much better than they do. We'll see about the next one, and I'm a little optimistic, but still very skeptical. They said it was going to have elements of Orchid (I'm guessing some black metal type of atmosphere) and Watershed, but sans the death growls. It could be good, but I'm always cautious about bands that say that they want their next album to be more "melodic".

Opeth is as complex as any band for sure, but they're gradually shedding the elements that made them so unique. The Metallica comparison is accurate in many ways. Metallica had a run of about 10 years where they were releasing a brand of heavy metal that no one had ever really heard up to that point. Epic songs (most of them well over 6 minutes) that mixed the heaviest brand of metal with beautiful melodies and clean passages. So there, you have the first traces of that heavy/beautiful dynamic that Opeth has used extensively since the beginning. Well, now they're purging their music of practically any and all elements of heavy metal and more or less becoming a rock band. Only difference at this point is that their brand of rock is simply prog rock, and there's nothing exceptional about it. Prog rock was mastered in the 70s and 80s by bands with significantly more talent, and Akerfeldt is essentially kicking the dead horse. Of course, the last album was the band's most commercially successful album to date, so it all works out fine for the band. Call it whatever you want, but when a band gradually eliminates heaviness, and becomes increasingly melodic, that signifies a band that's about ready to sell out. I personally don't really care, I'll always have that run from Orchid through Watershed to listen to. Their new music is just kind of "eh" inducing, and according to Akerfeldt the next album is set to be more melodic than anything they've done before. I'm sure they'll pass it off as some kind of artistic movement on their behalf, but in reality you just have to connect the dots. Most good art isn't really that popular. It gets a lot of critical praise, it's very complex, and it isn't intended to sell to the masses. Opeth wants to sell a lot of albums IMO, and you can hear it in their new sound. But don't get the impression I don't love Opeth, because they're just a really, really great band. I think they should have experimented by addition to their music, not by subtraction. I honestly can't see them ever releasing an album as good as BWP/SL/GR/Watershed ever again at the rate that their music is going, in addition to the fact that Akerfeldt has said he's done with the death metal thing. To me, that just means that they've killed their signature sound to create something that honestly isn't that unique at all. You'd have to listen to Heritage to know what I'm talking about.

They spent 10 years recording the same album. I really don't think their musicianship is all that technical, either. Very layered and complex stuff, but musically they aren't really all that different from the Gothenburg death metal bands from the mid-90s aside from that aspect. If you want technicality, Opeth really isn't the band for that sort of thing. I've always thought of Opeth as the Metallica of the 90s and 2000s. Appropriately, it seems like they're starting to trend towards a more marketable sound.

Haha, well I think in all fairness, picking them only means that I picked them. I don't pick teams to win it all based off of whether I like them or not, I try to pick somewhat objectively. Seattle isn't favored, but that's the beauty of it. I like to pick the odd team that might be overlooked, and I think Seattle has as much talent as any other team out there. They have the ace, they have so much pitching talent that they traded a top prospect in Michael Pineda to get more hitting talent, and now they've brought the fences in to help their offense. I think they've secretly got everything going on, and I think they're going to win the division this year. If I thought Boston was the most talented team again this year, I would have picked them to make it. My team is actually the Twins. I can't really justify making a prediction for them this year, because right now I see them as a 70-75 win team with potential to get lucky in a few games. Chicago, Detroit and Kansas City have probably all gotten better, and while we've also gotten better (significantly IMO), we aren't in any position to compete with the lineup we've got. We needed a difference-making bat in the lineup, and I think we might have lost that when Sano (#2 prospect in baseball behind Buxton) was lost for the season. I think 2015 could be a different story, though.

If it's your team that you're backing, why should you not? You care positively, why shouldn't you care about the negative aspects? I'm ready to move on from this debate if you are. You're obviously ready to move on from this debate, based off the fact that you've said as much. So stop clinging. It's as simple as not responding. Interesting, and how did you come to that conclusion? Yes actually. I made it before spring training. I suppose this is the first time I've officially said it to anyone outside of my personal family/friends. Why, who do you got?

Right, and no one said you negotiated it, or that you needed to care. You're ignoring the main point, which is that the contract is terrible. Money matters to everyone dude, get real. Believe me when Cabrera's 37 and pulling an A-Rod (getting hurt/being ineffective), he's going to want to get out of the contract. You pay employees to do a job, and when they aren't doing their job you fire them. In baseball you can't fire someone without buying out their contract or getting someone else to take it. Good luck getting someone to take a 37 year old's contract when he's making 30M a year, btw. The fact that you're ignoring all of those things is essentially the epitome of "sticking your head in the sand". If you don't want to keep talking about something, then just move on. It's not very difficult. With that said, I am also bored of the subject. I predicted earlier this year that the Mariners and Dodgers would meet in the WS. It's early but they both look like they're going to be tough.

Check these guys out. I'm not usually much of a black metal fan, but these guys are exceptional.

It's a business man. You can stick your head in the sand about the contract all you want. Detroit probably does play the moneyball game. I think Justin Verlander's deal is a pretty decent one, but like I said about the Red Sox earlier. Their FO plays the moneyball game as well, but that doesn't mean that Carl Crawford's contract wasn't absolutely terrible from the beginning.

I think you're just complicating it in your head.

I could definitely justify Trout/Kershaw getting 10 year deals. You can't factor in the chance that they get injured, because that's really just random. Elite talents 27 or younger definitely have a good shot at earning their money, especially when they're like Trout. Have you seen some of the values this guy has been getting? He blows Cabrera out of the water. I think he was worth around $100M the last 2 years combined, because he plays a premium position, is an elite defender and an elite offensive talent. I wouldn't write off 10 year deals for generational talent like that.

Even some of the teams you've been listing have applied moneyball principles to their spending. For example Boston built their teams to compete in the AL East while consistently developing more of their prospects, and paying less for FA talent than the Yankees. As for the Cano contract that the Yankees offered, 7 years at 160M is a lot less time, for a player playing a more difficult position, more competently, who as I said had proven himself worth the money per year he was offered more than Cabrera. Miggy can barely play 1st base as it is, and it's only going to get worse as he gets older. Aside from DH (assuming you even consider DH a position), 1B is the least valuable position in baseball. Lots of teams have played the moneyball game to success. Tampa, Oakland, Arizona, Minnesota, Milwaukee, and regardless of their recent willingness to spend big Seattle was also a big moneyball franchise in the 2000s. Spending big on a few players doesn't make you not a moneyball team. In fact, the moneyball concept is based off of building through the farm and supplementing by getting value through FA. This deal with Miggy is a very bad deal because the Tigers are virtually guaranteed to lose value. I realize that you can't put a price on success, but it doesn't mean you should overpay for anything. But like what has been said, it isn't my money so I really don't care. I'm just saying that this is one of the worst contracts in the history of baseball. No, I didn't say that at all. He doesn't deserve the payday that he's going to be getting now is what I said. 30M a year for 10 years is too much for anyone who's in their 30s. I've laid out the reasons for this. If you can't grasp my entire argument at this point, I honestly don't know what to tell you. Whether or not a kid will dethrone him (and he will be dethroned, if he hasn't already been dethroned by Trout) soon or not isn't consequential to my argument. I just said that it will give you perspective on why his contract isn't worth it. Trout's making less and is worth significantly more wins than Cabrera, and is significantly younger. I'm not trying to tell you that the Tigers aren't going to be successful or anything, just that the money is kind of poorly spent. I expect him to give the Tigers are least 4-5 really good years. Heck, I'm not even saying he couldn't end up making his money dude. He could be one of those guys who's still good when he's 40. As I've said previously, you don't necessarily need to spend low to be a moneyball team. Moneyball, in a nutshell, is getting the most value out of a budget to maximize your chances of winning with said budget. It's math driven, and the amount of money you actually spend doesn't really factor into it.

You know the saying: "Beer is an acquired taste." Well, IPAs, strong ales, and stouts have very rich flavor profiles compared to other styles. They're really acquired-taste styles, even for beer-drinkers. Especially if you're partial to lighter/sweeter styles like lagers and wheats. I dont feel a lot of people "acquire" that taste, i think they mostly want to be seen as drinking some unknown expensive trendy beer. I drunk some ipa from "wormtown brewers" called "red headed bitch" that was supposedly really good. Tasted like a herpes infested vajayjay Easy there stud. Wouldn't you say that if someone enjoys a beer, that they've acquired the taste? I know, that's some pretty complicated stuff. I can't attest to the flavor of "red-headed bitch", or your personal preferences. All I know is that I like a good IPA, but I could see how an unseasoned/casual drinker wouldn't. Hops can be a tough thing to get used to, but once you've "acquired the taste", you can really taste which ones are better, fresher, earthier, more piney, etc.

7 years at 160M USD is significantly less than 10 years at 290M USD. Cabrera's contract is as follows: 1. For a 1st baseman. 2. Who is 30. 3. Until they are age 40. 4. For over 29M/yr. Cano's deal is for less, he's had a larger sample size of years where he's attained the value of the contract (4 such times according to FanGraphs), and would only have been until age 38. Letting other teams overpay is a part of every sport. Smart teams let go of older guys who want the big pay day and work towards rebuilding. You can't avoid rebuilding, because no matter how much money you spend, there's always going to be a cheaper, younger team that's on the rise and ready to pass you up. Watch and see, some kid making significantly less will crack the big leagues and dethrone Miggy. You'll get some perspective from it too, that he isn't worth that kind of money, and that he isn't that much better than anyone else.

So are you saying that because someone else was going to overpay for a top-shelf 1st baseman, that the Tigers should have? I really don't understand that logic. No team is beyond a budget. Even the Yankees, the most marketable, successful, and highest grossing franchise in American sports, are not above budgeting themselves. Moneyball is the future of all sports, and pretty soon these teams that are paying through the nose to keep aging one-dimensional talent are going to be left in the dust in terms of the consistent value they're getting out of their teams. There's nothing that says big market teams can't play the moneyball game. In fact, they're at a significant advantage with the resources they have.

No one said it wasn't affordable to your team or anything like that, I'm a newbie to guitar and I can afford to buy a good one. Does that mean I should spend my money on a custom guitar, all modded out. It'll cost $18,000 but what the hell, I can afford it! Now, imagine that principle applied to recurring payments over 10 years, and significantly higher increments. I realize the Tigers can spend, and that money can be the answer to your problems. It doesn't make the contract not a bad one. It's like saying that because the government can spend our money, that it's good for us and totally justified. I remember that one time when the Tigers first tried to start spending, after they were initially successful. They had that big offseason where they got Cabrera and Willis, and then they had an awful year. I think they lost 80+ games. They could have used the resources on other things that aren't going to become a DH in a few years.