MrTPlush

Those fanbases would actually expect him to perform and would pelt him with stones if he didn't. In Milwaukee he can casually be average and still have a cult following of fangirls who don't care if he goes 0-50. He followed in his buddies footsteps (Braun) and made sure to sign a massive extension before he turned into a crippled pumpkin. Braun decided it was easier to just play for Milwaukee versus going to a team like the Dodgers. Playing for a coast team is overrated. During the season you are basically working 24/7 outside of sleeping. You don't really get to chill on the beach all day...half the time you aren't even at home anyway. He is filthy rich...he can just own a Malibu house and enjoy it in the offseason. That is what Braun did.

I doubt the Brewers would even try floating the idea themselves. The last thing the Brewers need is PR about how they are trying to dump Yelich. Especially since it is essentially impossible and he has a full no trade clause. All we would get out of approaching other teams is laughter and look stupid.

I doubt the Brewers would even try floating the idea themselves. The last thing the Brewers need is PR about how they are trying to dump Yelich. Especially since it is essentially impossible and he has a full no trade clause. All we would get out of approaching other teams is laughter and look stupid.

I want nothing to do with an extension for Adames. I could probably write a 100 page paper on why it is a terrible idea with examples and would be lucky do write a few pages on why it may be a good idea. He isn't the type of player to give a massive deal to. If someone wants to view him as a safe bet elite SS and give a package to match it...I would ship him out easily.

I want nothing to do with an extension for Adames. I could probably write a 100 page paper on why it is a terrible idea with examples and would be lucky do write a few pages on why it may be a good idea. He isn't the type of player to give a massive deal to. If someone wants to view him as a safe bet elite SS and give a package to match it...I would ship him out easily.

The 2013 DUI wasn't exactly a great look either. I don't think people really ever appreciated Yo after that massive first half in 2010 just to have a total meltdown in the second half. Pretty sure he had an injury in there somewhere, but I think many were frustrated it looked like we had a guy breakout to be an ace and he just never was close to it again.

Not going to lie…this is a weird move. He has no MLB experience. Not like he has some decent experience that may help us in the case of an injury versus throwing Frelick into the mix for two weeks off the bench or something like that. I mean I ain’t going to lose sleep over it, but a bit interesting.

I don't find Singleton being protected that shocking. He is pretty experienced, so some team nabbing him is at least plausible. With the universal DH there are a lot of 1B/DH/bench spots open these days. If they think he might be of use next year...why not protect him for the time being? Do we get bonus points for leaving the roster spot empty and not protecting him...not really. Not much to lose.

I don't find Singleton being protected that shocking. He is pretty experienced, so some team nabbing him is at least plausible. With the universal DH there are a lot of 1B/DH/bench spots open these days. If they think he might be of use next year...why not protect him for the time being? Do we get bonus points for leaving the roster spot empty and not protecting him...not really. Not much to lose.

You can try, but you will always be losing more than you are getting back…in the long run. If we trade Woodruff or Burnes, most of what we receive (if not all) will amount to nothing. The odds any of it becomes an All Star level talent I’d a huge order to fulfill. Very wasteful use of resources because we aren’t developing pitching. Unless you are referring to trading excess prospects of one side to get prospects of the other side…but that’s not really common or realistic, in my opinion. The one problem here is truly elite pitching prospects don’t seem to move in trades as often. Teams will ship out mega positional prospects all the time..,but rarely are teams wanting to give up pitching. We would be way better off developing pitching and trading Burnes/Woodruff for bats. If I had to guess, if either gets moved, it will be for bats and unlikely a pitching prospect heralded as a future frontline starter. Hopefully they can pick the right pitchers to compliment the bat that headlines any deal and maybe we can luck into finding another frontline starter.

You can try, but you will always be losing more than you are getting back…in the long run. If we trade Woodruff or Burnes, most of what we receive (if not all) will amount to nothing. The odds any of it becomes an All Star level talent I’d a huge order to fulfill. Very wasteful use of resources because we aren’t developing pitching. Unless you are referring to trading excess prospects of one side to get prospects of the other side…but that’s not really common or realistic, in my opinion. The one problem here is truly elite pitching prospects don’t seem to move in trades as often. Teams will ship out mega positional prospects all the time..,but rarely are teams wanting to give up pitching. We would be way better off developing pitching and trading Burnes/Woodruff for bats. If I had to guess, if either gets moved, it will be for bats and unlikely a pitching prospect heralded as a future frontline starter. Hopefully they can pick the right pitchers to compliment the bat that headlines any deal and maybe we can luck into finding another frontline starter.

Used to develop hitting at will...then struck some gold with pitching, but now have zero hitters we developed. Looking at the minors now, it is heavily offensive and very very little for notable pitching. I suppose we can trade off Woody/Burnes for the pitching gap, but for perpetual contention you really should be doing pretty well developing both sides of the ball.

Or it totally destroys any chance of biting an apple for 2+ years. It is also more likely those prospects all fail to be anything meaningful in the grand scheme and don't really help a ton in biting apples in the future. If this was 2015 this would be a total no brainer...it isn't in 2022. Not saying they should hold onto him, but there are many more paths they could take than trading him. If they got a massive offer...like includes a borderline Top 10 prospect in baseball plus a lot more, I would send him on his way. If all we are getting offered is a prospect barely sitting in the Top 50 to headline the trade...I might just try to roll the dice one more year.

Or it totally destroys any chance of biting an apple for 2+ years. It is also more likely those prospects all fail to be anything meaningful in the grand scheme and don't really help a ton in biting apples in the future. If this was 2015 this would be a total no brainer...it isn't in 2022. Not saying they should hold onto him, but there are many more paths they could take than trading him. If they got a massive offer...like includes a borderline Top 10 prospect in baseball plus a lot more, I would send him on his way. If all we are getting offered is a prospect barely sitting in the Top 50 to headline the trade...I might just try to roll the dice one more year.

Only $150,000 to put in my plane after I win the powerball....nice.

If Stearns was the GM, I would be 95% confident either Burnes or Woodruff hits the road out of town. Now that Arnold is the main guy and he will have a new conversation with ownership I am less confident. Attanasio is very fan-like and is one of those owners that legitimately would love to win a World Series. Attanasio has also been proven to be a bit reactionary and emotional over the years. Demanding things like FA signings and signing elite players to long term contracts. He certainly gave the reigns more to Stearns, but he still likely was the one forcing a Yelich extension. After trading Hader and watching the team/fanbase implode, I definitely could see them keeping everyone in tow and trying to make big moves. If I had to guess, I doubt Attanasio (whether Arnold wants to or not) lets one of the aces get traded, UNLESS it is like they tried to do with Fielder when he was near FA...acquire win-now talent in return. Since those trade don't exactly happen outside of MLB: The Show, I am guessing they both return. It would send a brutal message to the fanbase if they traded Hader, the 2022 season imploded, and then they started making it look like a fire sale this winter.

If Stearns was the GM, I would be 95% confident either Burnes or Woodruff hits the road out of town. Now that Arnold is the main guy and he will have a new conversation with ownership I am less confident. Attanasio is very fan-like and is one of those owners that legitimately would love to win a World Series. Attanasio has also been proven to be a bit reactionary and emotional over the years. Demanding things like FA signings and signing elite players to long term contracts. He certainly gave the reigns more to Stearns, but he still likely was the one forcing a Yelich extension. After trading Hader and watching the team/fanbase implode, I definitely could see them keeping everyone in tow and trying to make big moves. If I had to guess, I doubt Attanasio (whether Arnold wants to or not) lets one of the aces get traded, UNLESS it is like they tried to do with Fielder when he was near FA...acquire win-now talent in return. Since those trade don't exactly happen outside of MLB: The Show, I am guessing they both return. It would send a brutal message to the fanbase if they traded Hader, the 2022 season imploded, and then they started making it look like a fire sale this winter.

I think I will remember Stearns as a guy that turned around organizational philosophy on a lot of fronts and made them consistently relevant. However, I am betting I will look back and see a dude that totally wasted half a decade of having 2-3 aces in the rotation. Maybe in ten years one can look back and thank him for laying a foundation for winning a World Series. However, for the goal of winning a world series, I am confident he would have never won one no matter how long he stayed. The early years of competing were massively thanks to being gifted a great situation, great trade chips, and some good prospects that turned into great players. As the years went on he refused to make the team anything more than a WC contender. The cherry on the top being 2022 when he traded one of the most notable players at the deadline and at best tried making a division leading team tread water (in reality replaced Hader with total garbage). He made us a consistent contender, that is impressive. The fanbase is bored with that though...at the end of the day people want to see WS contenders. Stearns wasn't doing that and absolutely nothing he did the last few years gave me any confidence he would change us from a WC contender to WS contender again. Still the best lead guy in franchise history by a lot...and I do think the foundation he laid will be felt for years. It will be interesting to see how they approach all these good players approaching FA while they still can compete. So much of that Hader trade was the pure fact they trade a good player when they were competing, and they flat out didn't do anything to improve the team. To a lot of fans (casual or serious) it looked like they were arguably worse after the deadline. People are bitter and that is with declining attendance/interest as is. This fanbase has been supportive of many stars getting traded...but we were garbage when we did it. It didn't go over to well this time.

I think I will remember Stearns as a guy that turned around organizational philosophy on a lot of fronts and made them consistently relevant. However, I am betting I will look back and see a dude that totally wasted half a decade of having 2-3 aces in the rotation. Maybe in ten years one can look back and thank him for laying a foundation for winning a World Series. However, for the goal of winning a world series, I am confident he would have never won one no matter how long he stayed. The early years of competing were massively thanks to being gifted a great situation, great trade chips, and some good prospects that turned into great players. As the years went on he refused to make the team anything more than a WC contender. The cherry on the top being 2022 when he traded one of the most notable players at the deadline and at best tried making a division leading team tread water (in reality replaced Hader with total garbage). He made us a consistent contender, that is impressive. The fanbase is bored with that though...at the end of the day people want to see WS contenders. Stearns wasn't doing that and absolutely nothing he did the last few years gave me any confidence he would change us from a WC contender to WS contender again. Still the best lead guy in franchise history by a lot...and I do think the foundation he laid will be felt for years. It will be interesting to see how they approach all these good players approaching FA while they still can compete. So much of that Hader trade was the pure fact they trade a good player when they were competing, and they flat out didn't do anything to improve the team. To a lot of fans (casual or serious) it looked like they were arguably worse after the deadline. People are bitter and that is with declining attendance/interest as is. This fanbase has been supportive of many stars getting traded...but we were garbage when we did it. It didn't go over to well this time.

Maybe there isn't interest anymore? As it stands the Brewers PBO =/= Mets PBO, the Mets GM was the top guy for running player decisions when they had a PBO. Eppler led them to 101 wins...is Stearns really worth losing Eppler? I imagine Eppler would tell them to kick rocks and would leave if they hired Stearns to be PBO and handed him the reigns to run day to day player operations. Because #1 that is just downright insulting and #2 he would basically be getting demoted. Demoting your lead guy after leading your franchise to 101 wins seems comical. Sure seems like it makes things more complicated than they need to be. As they say, the grass isn't always greener on the other side. I imagine Stearns is off to have a one-year vacation before going elsewhere...and if the Mets are really the mutual interest...but what if Eppler leads another 100+ win campaign? Would be interesting if a team went and tried to interview Eppler for a PBO job, see what the Mets do. The article explains why you are going to get essentially nothing in a trade. The rules force MLB to allow any team to purchase Stearn's contract. Off course that would set an ugly precedent...so they prefer teams to just work out some random trade so it looks mutual between the teams.

Maybe there isn't interest anymore? As it stands the Brewers PBO =/= Mets PBO, the Mets GM was the top guy for running player decisions when they had a PBO. Eppler led them to 101 wins...is Stearns really worth losing Eppler? I imagine Eppler would tell them to kick rocks and would leave if they hired Stearns to be PBO and handed him the reigns to run day to day player operations. Because #1 that is just downright insulting and #2 he would basically be getting demoted. Demoting your lead guy after leading your franchise to 101 wins seems comical. Sure seems like it makes things more complicated than they need to be. As they say, the grass isn't always greener on the other side. I imagine Stearns is off to have a one-year vacation before going elsewhere...and if the Mets are really the mutual interest...but what if Eppler leads another 100+ win campaign? Would be interesting if a team went and tried to interview Eppler for a PBO job, see what the Mets do. The article explains why you are going to get essentially nothing in a trade. The rules force MLB to allow any team to purchase Stearn's contract. Off course that would set an ugly precedent...so they prefer teams to just work out some random trade so it looks mutual between the teams.

Does it have to play second fiddle though? Fully electric cars are arguably cheaper due to being cheaper than buying gas and the lower cost to maintain. The cost of the vehicles and their respective batteries should continue to go down...though frocing them to be made in the U.S. might make that more difficult. It just is woefully inconvenient at this point for most people. I could see that be fixed enough where electric vehicles could push for a market share around 50%. Solar energy seems like a cheaper alternative even in more northern climates. I ran the numbers and even for me I think I could save thousands over 20-30 years. My house and bill just aren't big enough for the risks involved. The companies installing and making the products are just so young at this point there is a ton of risk if either of those entities go out of business and you have problems. A 20-year warranty isn't much if the business is gone in 5 years. Reputable companies and higher quality/efficient products should continue to strengthen the solar sector though. 15 years from now I could see solar being a big player in the market. If families start adding 1-2 fully electric vehicles it will make their energy bill a lot bigger and solar might actually push their bill high enough to consider solar.

First you have to make alternative energy to be the cheaper option and convenient. Let's be honest, no one cares about helping the environment if it isn't saving them money...especially on expensive purchases. Spending money (extra than you would otherwise) to help the planet is a niche market. That or to have a status symbol, like a Tesla. I own a plug-in hybrid because it gives me 45mpg to work and 999mpg for most everything else. Whether or not it helps the environment is kind of just a bonus if it does that. I don't think EV/Hybrids/PHEVs are that expensive, but they are to someone who is considered true middle class or lower. Most of these vehicles are priced up around what a limited trim is. Most manufacturers aren't releasing true base models with hybrid+ capabilities. Of course, now that they fudged the tax credits that really just makes them pretty crappy priced across the board.

So where is the risk? The buyer is gone, so what? Buyers come and go. You could scare them off for life and it won't matter. If you don't care if you move or not...it really doesn't mean much. You just stay home, problem solved. The only issue I could see is if you sit your house on the market for 6 months not caring if you move and then all of a sudden you have to move for some unexpected reason. Then your house recently failed to sell for half a year in a hot market and it is going to make people assume there are a bunch of issues with it. Though, even then, I can't imagine it being a huge hurdle once your realtor explains it to prospective buyers agents. Real risk is buying a house while still owning one and the purchase isn't contingent on your current house selling. That is a true mess and I have seen it play out a few times around me the last few years. People think their house will easily sell for what they expect and something quirky about the house makes it difficult. The entire concept is kind of dumb though. The odds someone "makes you move" is just not likely at all and not worth the hassle. Not sure where such a thing would happen...but probably not Wisconsin.

I mean…no. If you have zero interest in moving why would you? You could offer me 20% over the value of my house and I wouldn’t sell it to you. Maybe for 50% over I might. I think ‘make me move’ is kind of dumb…not sure it really works nor is it anywhere near common. Not sure what it has to do with your comment though. You said it was risky in this market unless you had a place lined up already. I just don’t really think that is the case.