Ron Robinsons Beard

Hey Hiura struck out on a high fastball! Shocker!

Just when this team starts to give you hope, they stab you in the eye. Every time.

Apparently Lindblom threw the only one of his 9 different pitches that doesn't have movement LOL

Brent Suter can be a Brewer forever. Perfect combination of goofy and effective.

Fell down on the mound during a pitch during Yelich's AB.

There's that swing!

I'd be ok with Sogard back in a utility role next year. Not at $4.5 million though. Jace Peterson makes the minimum, and they are basically the same player.

99% of MLB players beat that swinging bunt out, but Gyorko is constantly running in quicksand.

Davante Adams is doubtful. Wouldn't surprise me if they held him out. Hamstrings are one of those injuries that can get much worse if you push it.

Without any sure answers at either 1B or 3B, I imagine Gyorko will be back next year at $4.5 million. So knock it down to roughly $17 million. Gonna still need a 1B or 3B, a SS if Arcia is non-tendered (perhaps Urias takes this spot), at least one starting pitcher, and a couple pen arms more than likely (unless they really like what guys like Topa and Feyereisen have shown). Also need a bench spot or two.

Dang bad sex timing! If he's married, you have to take it when you can get it. touche LOL

Dang bad sex timing!

I said I was done discussing this, but you're greatly misstating my position(s) so I feel I need to respond one final time. I have NEVER said anything advocating herd immunity as "a SOLE precaution against COVID-19". I even state "You can argue that it's not the best option". If you honestly think that I'm advocating herd immunity as " a SOLE precaution against COVID-19"you need to go reread what I wrote. I spent 15 years of my life making vaccines. I've been an extremely strong vaccine advocate throughout this thread. Do you honestly believe that I don't think vaccines are, in all likelihood, going to be a fantastic highly efficacious, safe, cheap, low-cost option? I'm sorry to hear that you are a high-risk individual and I truly understand why that would make this a hot button issue. However you must stop incorrectly restating my positions. It is unfair to me and detrimental to productive discussion. Use quotes in the future if you want to respond to something I said instead of using straw-mans. Thank you for your response. It is much appreciated, and once again, I apologize for obviously taking what you said out of context. It is obvious that the argument was somewhat lost in translation in this case, as my argument has never been anti-herd immunity as a portion of the solution, but rather using it as the sole solution. I believe we are on the same page on that idea, and perhaps I didn't lay out my argument clearly enough above. I believe that the crux of the disagreement is in our varied interpretations of the word "viable". To me, a solution that potentially kills millions is not a viable option, especially when the science and intelligence (along with responsibility) is available to avoid a large number of those deaths. The simple definition of "viable" is "capable of working successfully; feasible." In this case, determining success and feasibility is subjective.

You sorta did, though ... which is why I was surprised you responded the way you did, saying that herd immunity is a viable option based on historic context. I do realize that is technically correct, but it also defies the advancements in medical science and in civilization in general. I'm a literal medical scientist. Your argument is that a medical scientist does not believe in medical science. This is a ridiculous position and as a result I don't wish to discuss it with you further. That's fine. Given that you are a medical scientist, I simply ask that you expand on your above idea that herd immunity, taken as a sole precaution against COVID-19, is viable in the present. I believe that something has been lost in translation, and it very well may be on my end. If that is the case, I apologize. As noted above, as a high-risk individual, this is a hot-button issue for me, and I tend to react emotionally rather than scientifically, probably much more often than I should.

I don't understand this. The concept of herd immunity is extremely well established, well documented, and well accepted. Do you think it's some sort of conspiracy? Of course I do not. My phrasing is a criticism of those using the idea of herd immunity as a political argument, or as a societal argument in advocating for a "business as usual, throw caution to the wind" approach.

You sorta did, though ... which is why I was surprised you responded the way you did, saying that herd immunity is a viable option based on historic context. I do realize that is technically correct, but it also defies the advancements in medical science and in civilization in general.

This is the type of hyperbole that is all over the internet, and is dividing us. This is not helpful in any way. "Herd immunity truthers" is both dismissive, and really makes no sense. Claiming that anyone who believes herd immunity is part of the solution have no problem with infecting and killing others is, well, a disgusting comment to make. OK, so let me get this straight. My comment is the type of hyperbole that is dividing us and isn't helpful, but you throwing around phrases such as "we can't hide in the corner for two years, for a whole lot of reasons" isn't? I mean, to me, that reads as a direct insult to those who have chosen to take precautions. I'm not a big fan of being called a coward. There is certainly some basis to the idea that herd immunity is part of the solution, along with taking safety precautions and an effective vaccine. It is those who are propping up herd immunity, and advocating a "business as usual" approach as the only viable solution, who I believe are missing the mark here.

I personally don't believe that attempting to float the idea of herd immunity as a viable option (sans a viable and effective vaccine) is helpful or responsible either, but perhaps that's just me. Humanity has survived many many epidemics/pandemics throughout history. Most ended via some level of herd immunity. You can argue that it's not the best option, but it absolutely is a 'viable option'. It's been the default option fo millennia. If that's the case, why even invest in medical research? While we're at it, why invest in roads, sewers, and plants that provide safe water to drink? We could go back to the Middle Ages, when people threw their raw sewage out the window into the street below, and epidemics ran rampant. I realize that what I'm saying above is very hyperbolic, but I guess the point is that if we have the technology and know-how to keep people alive though an epidemic, why choose not to?

I personally don't believe that attempting to float the idea of herd immunity as a viable option (sans a viable and effective vaccine) is helpful or responsible either, but perhaps that's just me. It's worth recognizing that relatively early-on based on the very limited information a case could have been made for it. Based on how most countries reacted it was not a compelling case, but not a Flat-Earth situation either. From a news story today https://www.yahoo.com/news/parents-knowingly-sent-kids-coronavirus-170052665.html “The human behavior aspect of sending sick and positive children to school is not something we can control, and we never accounted for people completely disregarding basic health guidance,” Johnson said. “We have no tools left, and we just want everyone to be safe.” As much as I suggested caution above, any plan that didn't account for parents sending sick kids to school wasn't developed by anyone with normal school experience. There are any number of reasons it should have been easy to imagine parents sending kids anyway. A little cynicism about human behavior and rule breaking is useful when trying to make plans. At some point the power is simply out of your hands, though, and you are in the situation then of depending on others to take the similar precautions you have chosen to take. But due to selfishness, resistance to change, a sense of entitlement, or what many would call "freedom", that hasn't happened in the U.S. You are correct in saying that the people making the plans should very well have planned on a number of people not following the guidelines. But I totally get what Mr. Johnson is saying above, though. Like the old worn-out cliche says, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. What scares me about the majority of the herd immunity truthers, though, is that they seem to be advocating that society take no safety precautions whatsoever, basically taking the "whatever happens, happens" philosophy many are preaching and injecting it with steroids. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who have no problem with the idea of becoming infected with COVID, and possibly infecting and killing others, as that is simply "nature running its course." I am never going to believe in that line of thinking, though.

I personally don't believe that attempting to float the idea of herd immunity as a viable option (sans a viable and effective vaccine) is helpful or responsible either, but perhaps that's just me.

The Reds have more recognizable names. They spent more money in the offseason. That's it. They are going up against the afar superior team this weekend in the Twins, and I expect that the Twins will trounce them. Of course, most of my predictions have gone wrong this year, so take that with a grain of salt.

Even the Reds? The Reds suck. They really do. They got hot a week ago. They'll probably drop at least two this weekend to the Twins. That team is not very good.

Topa hitting 100 MPH is fun.

The Brewers have scored 3 or fewer runs in 30 of their 55 games this year. That isn't good.

Yelich was a 1B in high school. So yes, he likely could.