Thurston Fluff

Path C - Stearns believes the talent on the team was legitimate and thinks the youth coming up is legit as well. Thus no need to spend big. I don't see why thinking young players improving and a healthy farm can't produce a contender. I might be the only person who would be happy without a major addition this off season. Fill in around the edges for depth, maybe kick the tires on a second baseman or work a deal to clear the glut of outfielders but beyond that I liked the direction our team was heading. So why change it with costly trades or expensive big name free agents?

Not mentions is that there could also be a showdown between Disney and MLB as Disney wants to start a sports streaming service which could directly compete with MLB.TV. That showdown is going to happen someway somehow no matter what. Too many cord cutters as it is and that trend isn't showing signs of slowing down. As it is I wonder if the Brewers might not be better off just streaming it's games for our market instead of selling the rights to cable. Why try to force people into watching with 20th century devices in the 21st century? They could even sell the right to broadcast their stream back to cable for a fee. After all cable needs content too.

Thanks. I have had dogs all my life but she is that once in a lifetime dog. I got her at the shelter when she was 6 months old and we've been inseparable ever since.

That means the price for players in other positions goes down. In baseball there are so many differnt ways to build a winning team that no single position group is more vital than any other. Some are just more in vogue so it costs more to get them. It's better to find the next big thing than to chase the last one. It will be undervalued so you can get a lot more for a lot less and have more overall talent. If relievers get so crazy in cost then teams will not have as much to spend of starters. If pitching is outrageous the price for hitters will be less and so on.

Swarzak was found in the bargain bin to begin with. I just don't see much evidence that going after higher valued relievers produces better results than scrap heap guys and minor leaguers. For every surprise like Swarzak, there are 3 feliz's. In a year that we should be hoping to perform better, we shouldn't be searching the bargain bin for guys to fill key roles. We can try doing that for a spot, or more likely is use minor leaguers for 1 or 2 spots. But we can't have a bullpen of Knebel, middle relievers, and minor league pitchers. We need some level of stability in the back end of the bullpen. Even one higher priced guy would improve us from that standpoint. For every Swarzak (the current version) there is a Will Smith, Tyler Thornburg and Jeremy Jeffress. The difference is you can find 4 scrap heap guys to find the one you need but you can't buy 4 high priced ones to find the one you need. While people always want stability that just isn't something bullpens rarely ever are from year to year. It might make the fans feel better but it's fools gold. Stearns is paid not to buy into a fool's errand.

My 14, soon to be 15, year old dog now needs to be carried up and down the stairs to go outside and only eats once every couple days. She basically sleeps a lot but still gets up on her own and seems generally in good spirits. I really don't want to have to make "that" decision around Christmas but soon I fear I may be forced to.

It could also be that Stearns has set a price based more on the role more than the player. Alternatively if the odds are you have a similar chance of finding the same level player one way vs another it makes no sense to go the higher priced way regardless of how much money you have to spend.

Swarzak was found in the bargain bin to begin with. I just don't see much evidence that going after higher valued relievers produces better results than scrap heap guys and minor leaguers.

While I wouldn't mind one more proven reliever I'd be happy to go with what we have and some scrap heap options. Relievers are so unpredictable that what they are paid rarely matches their production. I would rather be on the underpaid side than overpaid. In a year or two maybe I will change my mind but even if we are in the prime contention years, relievers are so volatile I'm not sure spending a lot of money on them produces better results. I get bullpens are more important in today's game than in the past. But just because they are more important doesn't mean spending more money on them is the best way to build one.

Which kind of stinks since it takes them out of the Harper sweepstakes (presumably). One less team to bid against the Cubs. Brewers have been saving up payroll.....just saying! Harper opening 2019 season in a Brewer uniform! Realistically, I was hoping Red Sox because having top 2 sluggers playing against each other in major rivalry would be great. Bring back some McGwire and Sosa memories. I have a feeling Nationals will pay Harper. Cubs will have decisions coming soon with some big contracts. They need arms which they will need to buy. They have no help on the way in minors. They don't have the system to trade for elite arms. I have no problem with the trade. It makes the Yankees more exciting again which I think is good for baseball. They are so iconic and such a huge part of our past time....I don't really like seeing them the way they have been past few years. I hate them being so dominant like they were growing up but I like to see them more relevant with some iconic players. Outside of Judge last year, who was the last Yankee player or team that was really that interesting or fun to follow? To be, they have just been ehh for years and extremely boring. So the whole rich get richer argument I disagree....this isn't George's Yankees anymore. Their team right now is based on hitting on Judge, Luis Severino, & Montgomery . Making trades to land Gregorius, Torres, Frazier, and McKinney. Then some FA's and trades. Think it is more smart managing than throwing money around. It isn't smart that allows them to trade a bag of balls for a player few teams can afford. It's having the money to do so. It's why they can make any trade they want with no regard for what it might cost them down the road. It also has to help keep a decent farm system in place when you are one of five or so teams than can pay for a player a team can no longer afford. Pretty easy to keep a good farm when you can get the best players for essentially nothing in trade. If the Brewers could trade for players like Greinke or Sabathia knowing they would be able to outbid anyone else when their contract is up they would trade for more players like Greinke or Sabathia and be dominant for years. We can't, so we settle for a season or two and five years to rebuild afterward. If you really want smart instead of rich look at the Cardinals. They just keep on chugging along doing what they do and win as much as the Yankees do.

Is it dubbed in English or do I have to read it? I ask because my babble fish died.

Jeffress has been to enough teams now that I think he realizes this is the place he is most likely to reach those incentives. Some players just feel comfortable in certain places. K-Rod was another that just seemed to like it here. That some players actually feel that way about our team just shows how far we've come as an organization.

With relievers the past is not always a good indicator of the future. Jeffress is younger and throws harder which probably gives him a better chance of repeating what he did in the past.

I am fine with him as a backup catcher. While I don't think he is a very good catcher every backup catcher is going to have flaws. There are not enough starting caliber catchers let alone backups who can do everything well. I think overall he is decent enough defensively to make a positive contribution when taking in his offense and leadership skills into account. I hope it means Pina is viewed as a full time starter who only gets days off when he needs it instead of some sort of soft platoon. I think at this point he deserves it.

Precisely. This is simply one way to add talent without losing something in return. It's little moves like this that help get a slight edge. When combined with all the other little things he does it ends up being a much larger advantage.

Hopefully yes. It's a very smart strategy. While any team can claim him and put him on their 40 man, we are now the only ones who have a chance to keep him without using a 40 man roster spot. I am all for doing that with as many players as possible. All it can do is allow us to accumulate players for essentially no cost in players or 40 man roster spots. It's the little things like that which add up to stronger farm systems.

Given how volatile relievers are this type of signing is a necessary part in building a decent relief corps. I hope to see several more of them. It isn't as sexy as signing an established big league player but it's as important to a team's success as anything.

Thanks. The timing couldn't be better from the Brewers perspective. If there is limited money available I would much rather sign them than spend too much on Arrieta.

That is harsh but fair. I wonder how they plan on treating the players when it comes to signing with other teams. Are they minor league free agents, regular free agents or subject to international rules as though they are first time international prospects.

Winona Ryder playing the mom made me feel really old but it sort of made the whole 80's nostalgia come full circle. I was waiting for Michael Keaton to come out of the upside down but (spoiler alert) he did not.

This. It would be a win now at the expense of long term viability move. I really hope we don't take that path yet again. Overall I would be content to make some marginal moves and let the farm produce the major pieces. Sign a bunch of relievers to minor league deals with an invite to camp and add a veteran or two to short term deals if it makes sense but I just don't want the all in approach.

While I understand the sentiment I think there are more ways to help the major league club than just spending money on major league players. A place in spring training with better equipment, field and medical facilities also helps. It also has to help players who are rehabbing but not quite ready for live action. My guess is Jimmy nelson spends time in extended spring training next season for example. A better place for that can't hurt.

My friend asked this to a coworker who believes the world is flat. They aren't mountains. They're giant zits. Flat surfaces can have zits can't they?

I have a clock made in Canada. Does anyone know how far to turn back a clock using metric hours?

Every player who has a couple great seasons sprinkled in an otherwise subpar career has an explanation for those couple years of success. Few ever sustain it.