True Blue Brew Crew

Appears so. People would dig into the package I posted above and change their tune real quick if it came to fruition. You don't have to get a team's best asset to win a trade either. Btw, given Dominguez's age, he's actually 1 spot behind Garcia (#1) on the Yankees top ten prospects list. I'd jump for joy if Dominguez was traded to Milwaukee but I don't need him to be in the package for it to make sense for the Brewers. Garcia would be a great centerpiece.

If Im Stearns and they tell me that a prospect is untouchable in a Hader trade i hang up the phone. Best reliever in the game. Pony up or gfy You're missing a key aspect - Hader isn't untouchable. Untouchables net untouchables. Can probably chalk you up as one who will be unhappy with the return for Hader.

I saw one Yankees / Hader proposal on Twitter that I'd be on board with... Hader for... SP- Deivi Garcia (key piece) 3B - Miguel Andujar OF- Clint Frazier 1B- Mike Ford The Yankees aren't trading Jasson Dominguez. If there's a deal to be had with them it's gotta start with Garcia.

This is where I'm at and I've made this point in past years. If the same number of sluggers are in the lineup, what difference does it make what defensive position those bats play? If the Brewers IF slugs 80 HRs with the majority coming from 2b and SS, it's the exact same production as the typical structure where the majority come from 1B and 3B. I have no earthly idea where this Hiura to 3B nonsense is coming from. If Didi Gregorius is signed, it's either him or Urias playing 3B.

I'm not one of those you are referring to but I just want to point out that I've been given timeout warnings for doing the same thing you're doing here. Just looking for some consistency here. As you know, I've been wrong a lot. Like A LOT! But I certainly try to own it when I am. I just would like a little accountability from those who were absolutely certain that the Badgers stood no chance of getting a Rose Bowl bid. Not really trying to go all "Old Takes Exposed" here, but the certainty that some had that the Badgers wouldn't sniff the Rose bowl with a loss just bugged me. PM sent.

I'm not one of those you are referring to but I just want to point out that I've been given timeout warnings for doing the same thing you're doing here. Just looking for some consistency here.

If Peralta is anywhere near the starting rotation to open the season I think most will consider it a declaration that they're not serious about competing this year. One pitch guys who can't command even that one pitch typically struggle out of the pen let alone the starting rotation. OR could it be possible that a young pitcher has shown some growth and made strides over the winter. Same for Burnes. I think there are plenty of reasonable people who wouldn't write off the season going with those two in the rotation if warranted in ST over known quantities who have never come close to displaying either of their potential.

Buckeyes defense completely timing every snap. Need a change in cadence right now

Ohio State fans right now...

Repeat this score in the 2nd half and they might have to take the Badgers over Ohio State

On that OSU TD drive... Nope nothing to see there

538 has the Badgers currently at 50% and Ohio State 42% to make the playoff if this holds up. I'm thinking it would have to be a Badgers blowout for the committee to even think about it. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2019-college-football-predictions/

So much misdirection, love it!!!

And then some getting the stop on the first defensive drive. I'm sure the entire state expected an Ohio State answer there.

Amazing what a little motion does

Except that you're wrong. I have been a consultant for several private companies/partnerships and for every one of them there is little separation of personal and company finances. One competitor to a client had a perfect separation where all debt was in the company and all assets were in their private accounts. In a publicly traded company there are rules. In private ownership it's the wild west where almost anything goes. What's really interesting/funny about this discussion is that the one thing at Brewerfan that would command a clear consencus is that David Stearns is a very smart, good GM, who has been very successful creating winning teams with limited resources. Yet most people against spending money quote statistics based on your average GM and their success with more money. If there ever was a GM who could use that extra budget successfully it would be David Stearns. Not every decision he makes works perfectly, but he is the one of the few GMs in baseball who would be successful with maximizing that extra money. But let's just ignore that and quote statistics loaded with decisions by a huge excess of not so bright GMs. Two points... - Never said co-mingling of personal and team funds doesn't happen, just said it's not as simple as people want to make it out to be. I even gave examples of when and why it does happen. It is still a personal choice that no one should expect of someone else ever. So, no I'm not wrong, fellow poster who never posts without condescension. - As for Stearns, I believe the entire objective with hiring him was to use his creativity to achieve more with less. And Mark A has taken the reigns off when justified. That doesn't mean it's a sound practice budget-wise to do it year after year.

If anything people should start worrying when Attanasio starts spending money on payroll like a drunken sailor. Because it likely means he's selling within a few years. And then good luck finding a better owner or even one as good. The next guy could be a whole lot worse.

I made my point about the lack of liquidity and practicality of transferring one's personal wealth in the other thread so I'll just toss out another consideration for those who want an owner to exceed the revenues and profits their business is generating... You say take out loans. Fine lets talk about loans. What if the team starts the season terribly in a season you just upped the payroll $40 million via loans in a year you were already projected to finish in the red IF you drew 3 million fans and made a playoff run. Now because the star player got hurt in game 4, or the team is riddled with injuries, or half the team underperforms, suddenly only 2.5 million tickets get sold and half of them aren't even showing up in August and September. Revenues throughout the stadium nosedive. Now here you are on the hook for $40 million plus interest, and you've failed to meet the budget expectations you had WITHOUT the extra $40 million. Now your total shortfall for the year is suddenly $60 million. So the obvious answer is "well your investment has quadrupled, so cry me a river". That $60 million just comes off the billion you'll cash out when you sell. Really now? So there's no chance of a sports bubble ever bursting? There's certainly no chance that the economics get so out of whack that one day it's so bad that no one wants to even bother owing a small market team. The general economy could tank. We could have another US Depression. Don't act like it can't happen, because just over a decade ago, it almost did. Suddenly no one can buy a ticket to a game. No one is paying cable subscription fees, no one is buying team apparel, and suddenly you can't even sell the team for what you paid. The only day you can start counting the money of Forbes' estimated value for Mark A's Brewers is the day the funds hit his account when he sells. If he'd like to see a World Championship while he owns the team and also not risk his entire family fortune, he has to keep an eye on operating revenue and find people who can win within that structure. Anyone asking him to do more is asking him to do something they themselves would never do. That's a kindergarten-level description of how this works. It's obviously much more nuanced. And yes there are owners who take that gamble that the quadrupling in value will be waiting for them at the end. They tend to be at an advanced age knowing they are near the end or very near ready to sell. But it's still a gamble nonetheless. Mark A. sounds like he wants to keep ownership in the family. Thus he's nowhere near the finish line or anywhere near that cash out payday. That means he likely has decades of risk that values will be maintained. He'd be an idiot to risk mortgaging his own wealth based on what today is nothing more than a myth.

I get why people factor in team valuation and an owner's overall wealth when they ask for their favorite team to spend more. I don't agree with it, but I get it. The part that always floors me is how people think the owner's money and team's cash are just co-mingling in an account somewhere. The team's finances are separate from the owner's personal wealth and finances. Do people think an owner is just supposed to write a personal check to cover what the team doesn't have in the bank? Or for more realistic and practical purposes, should they wire 100 million from their personal account to the team account? Even if it were that simple which it's not, would you do that?

Seems like they're a Hader trade away from having the lineup and perhaps even a bullpen spot covered. And then they're sitting on a pile of money to add multiple mid-level pitchers.

So the Brewers are noticeably deciding to use the draft pick they are gifted out of thin air for being a small market team to add major leaguers to the roster each year. You can either use the extra pick as a lottery ticket in the hope of it one day turning into a major leaguer or send it out straight away after it's awarded for a major leaguer. Seems like the sort of thing that could catch on.

I nearly fainted seeing this.

Takeaway is that nibblers wouldn't be a good fit on the mound with this guy. Heck nibblers will be bad fits with robot umps when they arrive. Brewers are going to be placing less value on strikeouts (especially called ones) and more emphasis on pitchers who induce weak contact. And if you had issues with walks throwing to the last guy paired with human umps, you're days as a Brewer are probably numbered. Zach Davies would not have fared well with this guy. Sure you could have made Pina his designated catcher but then you lose the ability to exploit the L/R hitting platoon. If this deal has been in the works for awhile, it would explain why there's so much pitching turnover on the club this offseason. Whether they had their sights set on Narvaez or not, simply knowing they were going to de-emphasize pitch framing would explain a new direction.

I'd be shocked if he isn't high on their target list. They were the runner up in 2018 when Baltimore traded him to Atlanta. You might very well get your wish.

The line of suitors is reportedly long. To me, what's up in the air isn't the quality of the offers they'll get, it's whether the Brewers will pull the trigger. Having more spots to fill, increases the likelihood of pulling the trigger in my mind.