FVBrewerFan

Yea, small shelf life for me. Heard it, I did get a big kick out of it, now I'm done. As for Hank, I get it....great marketing tool. I just have no interest whatsoever in anything Hank-related. As for a slow rebuild, I accept the fact it may be slow, and I've prepared myself. Yet I'm foolish enough to have faith it may not take as long as most think.

It's interesting hearing this. The family I have that was raised in Arizona versus the family that was raised in Wisconsin have totally different views on what is and is not close. The distances between Goodyear, Scottsdale, Glendale and Mesa are nothing to the family who grew up in Arizona as they are used to driving some distance daily. Whereas, the family that grew up in Wisconsin think it's an all day trip driving from Wauwatosa to St. Francis. Funny to see the difference in perspectives. It is interesting. When we go to ST, we often stay in Chandler/Gilbert area and drive to Maryvale or other parks each day. In fact, not uncommon for us to drive from Chandler to Maryvale, drive all the way back, then drive to Scottsdale or somewhere for dinner. Some people may think that's nuts, but it just doesn't seem like a big deal to drive all over the place each day.

You've been there, safe to say they're not going to run out of desert. But to your point, yea, there's no way the Phoenix metro can continue to grow at the same pace indefinitely.

I don't care where it is, but they need a new ST / Rookie league home, not to mention A+ and AAA.

Have seen The Martian and Bridge of Spies. Really liked both of them, and I can see how that actor won best supporting in BoS. I remember commenting on how good he was while we were watching it, unaware he was even nominated. Also saw Mad Max and I just don't see the appeal. Pretty shocked it was nominated for best picture. After watching parts of the Oscars, and hearing/reading various things, I do plan to see Spotlight and The Big Short. Also The Revenant, although I have a feeling that will just be "meh," but I want to see Leo's performance. Bottom line, probably more best picture nominees I'll see than any other year. And I'll include Star Wars and Sicario, which should have been nominated.

Even if they make it through ST without any injuries or trades, I honestly don't care what order they fall in the rotation. We know who the 5 are as of today, and if Garza is #1 or #5, really doesn't make any difference. (Not directed at you MVP, I'm just speaking for myself.)

I'm definitely old school, but I have no issue with this new slide rule. In fact, I think they could have really simplified things by leaving it up to the ump's decision on whether the sliding player "took it too far." Whenever MLB (or any sport) tries too hard to define the rule, it always seems to have a negative effect. Because so many things are not anticipated, and trying to define them precisely in the rule book is difficult at best. Just keep it simple. Definition of a catch in the NFL for example. As far as pace of play, I don't care how long the game lasts. Baseball has never been a game on the clock, and that's one of the things I like about it. Gives us, as fans, time to think about the situation between each pitch, each AB, etc. Every player has their own tempo, and if they're not comfortable it isn't going to make it a better game by speeding it up. Just start the games earlier, that would make a big difference. The feeling that it's 10:30 and the game is not over yet is the biggest problem. Also, replay takes way longer than it should. No reason all umps have to wander over to the dugout, talk while they're waiting, talk again, wander back out to their positions, etc. Some are very close calls, but many should be done almost immediately from the replay center. Call the crew chief, and keep playing. MLB's system isn't horrible, but it could be easily improved.

Easy way out is to say "too early to tell." But I'll agree Segura trade is the best. Put me down for Rogers trade being the "worst." Every single one of these deals could best be described as "fine." I'm not overly excited about any of them either way. I don't like giving up Rogers, Sneed, and Wagner. That's biggest issue I have with the trades as a whole. It's been said Wagner and Sneed both have ceilings as a #5 SP, as though that's a bad thing. When they're trying to compete again for the playoffs, it sure helps to have several guys capable of being the #5 guy, unless you believe they'll only use 5 SP in a 162 game+ season. As for Rogers, probably more personal than anything. I like to see guys that come up through our system get a shot. I think the guy can and will hit, and could have received a better return at the deadline.

"Pitchers and Catchers report" is a top 5 phrase of all time. By the way, it's also the polar opposite of hearing "Batting 6th...your centerfielder....Mark Kotsayyyyyy"

Never said he cares about winning this year. I said he isn't purposely trying to lose as many games as possible to get the #1 pick. Big difference there. The goal is to acquire and develop as much talent as possible for the future, it's really very simple. That will result in "x" number of wins/losses this year, which simply doesn't matter. No it isn't. He wants to lose and he wants to lose a lot. Publicly he cant say it but internally I will guarantee he and Montgomery talk about it all day every day. He wouldn't have traded cheap productive players and replaced them on the MLB roster with guys few if anyone one wanted if he didn't. Be as naive as you want, its a free country. The draft and international is every bit as important to his plan as the trades have been, and likely far more important. And I guarantee you they're not talking about it every day, or at all for that matter. They know perfectly well they will have a high draft pick, they don't need to talk about it and figure out how to lose as many games as possible. What cheap productive players have they traded? Davis is it. He was traded because he will be on the wrong side of 30 when they start winning again, and have a lot of other options in the OF moving forward. Everyone else had expiring contracts (KRod, Lind), or are just bad (Segura.) I'm not naïve. Frankly, you're just being a bit stubborn about this no matter how many people explain how throwing away a season just to maximize draft position makes no sense whatsoever. Sometimes you need to take it all in, think it over, and maybe you'll agree. If not, that's cool, I've been known to be a contrarian quite often.

I still have a feeling this is part of the problem. Here are two different posters, one talking about what Hammonds wants, one talking about what Kidd wants. Now add two majority Owners to the list, and two other Owners who have a significant stake. So who makes the final decision? I don't believe in consensus, and even if I did consensus usually ends with horrible decisions. As for Jabari, I'm not "giving up" on him yet. It's just that I don't see him as a major piece on a great team. If Giannis improves his shot, he can be a great player. He already brings a lot to the table. For Jabari to be a great player he has to improve his shot, rebounding, and defense. Sure, that COULD happen, but it's a lot to EXPECT to happen.

Never said he cares about winning this year. I said he isn't purposely trying to lose as many games as possible to get the #1 pick. Big difference there. The goal is to acquire and develop as much talent as possible for the future, it's really very simple. That will result in "x" number of wins/losses this year, which simply doesn't matter.

Thanks, must have looked at wrong column or something in looking all this stuff up, don't know where I got 3rd in runs!

Of course he is aware, who is saying he's not? But you still haven't answered my question. If Stearns had NO first round pick in the 2017 draft, what would he have done differently since he came to Milwaukee? See, I feel like this has become somewhat of a strawman argument. You are trying to prove the Brewers will benefit from a higher draft position, which nobody disputes. The only question is whether this is Stearns goal, or if it's simply the result of having a rebuilding year. What would he do differently if he didn't have a first round pick in 2017? He would be even more aggressive on trades in terms of high ceiling lower level guys than he has been because he understands the incredible loss the pick and the pool $$ would be. In fact, I think he knows how bad that loss would be that, assuming he had other GM offers, he might not even take the Brewer job. I'm not sure how he could be MORE aggressive? It's pretty clear he's anxious to trade Braun and Lucroy for high ceiling prospects. But he's not going to make a bad deal just because their value is seen as lower than what Stearns thinks they're worth. That's the way he should approach it. Stearns has and will trade anyone not in the plans for 2018 and beyond, to create a window to compete then. You really don't think he would be doing that no matter what pick or pool $ he had? Actually, if having the #1 pick the next two years was his goal, he WOULD have traded Lucroy by now. Braun too if there was any taker at all. Probably Peralta and Smith. He would have taken lessor deals just to maximize losses this year right?

I looked up some basic stats, and I was surprised to learn they were only in the middle of the pack in the AL for OBP. They were 7th, and 8th for slugging. I expected them to be at or near the top in OBP. Yet that resulted in being 3rd in the AL in runs. That can't be all about stolen bases, not even close. So I looked up the ever controversial BA/RISP. Yes, they were 2nd in the AL. So I figure that, along with speed on the basepaths, helped them score far more runs than they "should have." Finally, not sure what it means but very interesting they were LAST in the AL in both walks and strikeouts. Just guessing, but seems that has to be incredibly rare.

Of course he is aware, who is saying he's not? But you still haven't answered my question. If Stearns had NO first round pick in the 2017 draft, what would he have done differently since he came to Milwaukee? See, I feel like this has become somewhat of a strawman argument. You are trying to prove the Brewers will benefit from a higher draft position, which nobody disputes. The only question is whether this is Stearns goal, or if it's simply the result of having a rebuilding year.

Wouldn't the Brewers be better off if they were picking 1st than 5th? Maybe, maybe not. Which is exactly why it isn't a goal. Look at just about any draft year, and the #1 pick did not turn out to be the best player. Let me put it another way. The Brewers will be bad this season. That means attendance will be down. So, is the goal of this season to have a lower attendance? Of course not, it's the bad that comes with a rebuilding year. Just as a high (or even #1) draft pick is the good that comes with it. See, neither one of those is the goal of rebuilding, just the result.

I really don't care if they win more games than last year, and barely care if someone wants to call it tanking. My pet peeve is those who believe the actions Stearns is taking have anything to do with improving their draft position. (I think that's the reason the word "tanking" is being used.)

Depends what type of team the Bucks want to build. I haven't figured that out, and I don't think they have either. Do they want a tough defensive team like last season? Do they want to run and gun? Moving forward do they want be a big 3 point shooting team? Because the pieces they have now are all over the map. If they want to go run and gun, Jabari is a perfect 4 for that. But if they want to rely more on the 3, or defense, he is not a fit. Haven't followed Russell this year, so no idea if that's a good trade or not, honestly.

That would not prevent a team from rebuilding, or tanking as you call it. I keep asking, what would Stearns have done differently if a rule like this was in effect? Do you think he wouldn't have traded Lind, KRod, Segura, Davis, etc.? Do you think he still wouldn't try to trade Lucroy, Braun, and others even if it was guaranteed he would have no 1st round pick in the 2017 draft? As for retraction, that may work marginally. But you will still have a bottom tier of teams who will want to rebuild for a window to compete. Plus, of course, it will never happen since MLB is looking for ways to expand, not retract. Finally, I think it's odd that this has become a topic of debate suddenly this year, when teams have been rebuilding/tanking for decades. I don't see what the problem is, it's up to each team to do what's best in their situation. Has always been that way, always should be that way.

Brewers current rebuilding process is not unconventional. It's the same thing smart teams have been doing for decades. Also, a large draft pool is not the only way to build a WS capable team. How about selling off assets and bringing in guys like Phillips, Hader, Santana, Houser, Davies, Diaz, Nottingham, and others- and more to come? Maybe use the international market wisely (Arcia, Lara, others to come.) Of course the draft is important, especially for a team like the Brewers. But you seem to imply targeting the 1st or 2nd overall pick is the goal, and the best (or only) way to find top players and build a winner. That is simply not true.

If the Brewers had no first round draft pick in 2017, it wouldn't have changed one thing Stearns has done.

No, those changes in the draft would have zero effect. Do you think Stearns would have done anything differently if he was guaranteed NOT to have the #1 pick next year? Or even top 10? Me either.

Except I don't think it's a "bad" contract. Certainly not a bargain, but if he's even a little better than last year, the contract is fine. No way the Brewers should have to eat half his contract, in my opinion.

Exactly. Eating part of Braun's salary would be very easy for them to do this year or next. But, as others have said, I don't think the contract is the problem. PEDs aren't an issue either. It's all about his various injuries. If he can stay healthy and pound the ball this year, a deal can be made at the trade deadline. I'm not worried as much about taking on part of his salary, I'm more concerned with the return they should get. If Braun is healthy and even comes close to being that MVP level player, they need a similar return to what they got for Gomez/Fiers. And frankly, one prospect needs to be a top 10-15.