NLCS IST - Dodgers & Brewers

[Centerfield]

4 hours ago, metirish said:

I think I'm all in on the Brewers 

As happy as I am about the Dodgers being eliminated it was hard rooting for the Brewers and I never really got over it. 
 

I thank them for doing a job. Now I’m Tampa/Cleveland the rest of the way. 

[seawolf17]

The Stearns question is actually a very valid one. Were the guts of this team acquired under Stearns? Maybe we *should* just let him cook.

[Gwreck]

2 hours ago, seawolf17 said:

The Stearns question is actually a very valid one. Were the guts of this team acquired under Stearns?

Yes, they very much were.

The Athletic had a breakdown of how the roster was built (not specifically focusing on Stearns) today: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7694850/2026/10/16/building-brewers-10-moves-world-series/

-9 key players were drafted or signed as amateur FAs under Stearns: Misirowski, Chourio, Turang, Hamilton, Mitchell, Frelick, Henderson, Ashby, and Uribe

-Yelich, Contreras, Gasser, and Megill were all acquired in trades during Stearns’ tenure.

Stearns also hired Pat Murphy (as bench coach), Chris Hook (pitching coach since 2019), and his successor Matt Arnold (as assistant GM, from Tampa).

 

[Centerfield]

I think it’s impossible to draw any conclusions on David Stearns based upon what Milwaukee has done since he left. 
 

The success could be proof of the great system he put in place, or it could be proof that he had nothing to do with the success. Obviously everyone else is smart and he was just taking credit. 
 

The fact that they’ve been better after he left could be proof that he was the one thing holding them back, or it could be proof that his teams only get better with time. 
 

Alternatively, if the Brewers had gone downhill, it would have proven that everything he did was smoke and mirrors, or he was obviously critical to their success. 

[Gwreck]

 

2 hours ago, Centerfield said:

I think it’s impossible to draw any conclusions on David Stearns based upon what Milwaukee has done since he left. 
 

You don’t think it’s possible to conclude that Stearns gets significant credit for building up a core team, primarily through drafts/amateur FA signings, that had significant success both while he was in Milwaukee and then after he left?

You and I (and others here ) have discussed before the idea of sustained success, and the frustration that the Mets haven’t been able to achieve that…basically ever.  Stearns has, as evidenced both by what happened when he was there and that success continued after he left.

(Now, that success in Milwaukee of course does not mean that he’ll succeed in New York.  And of course it’s gone horribly wrong in the last two years at the major league level.  But much of the success in Milwaukee is still rightfully credited to him). 

[Centerfield]

No. And I said as much in the next paragraph and provided my reasoning for why. 
 

David Stearns deserves credit for Milwaukee’s success while he was there. And although we will never know how much of that success was attributable to him versus those around him, ultimately he was in charge and deserves the credit. 
 

The success of Milwaukee after he left could be proof that he put a successful system in place and that the current regime is still benefiting from that. It can just as easily mean that the current regime of Mark Arnold and crew were the keys to success all along and David Stearns was there taking credit for it. We have no idea which is correct. And depending on your agenda, you can make a credible argument either way. 
 

All we can reasonably conclude is that Mark Arnold has been in charge the last three years, and under his watch the Brewers have not only continued winning, but gotten better. And have now reached the World Series. And like Stearns before him, we don’t know how much of that is attributable to Mark Arnold, but ultimately he is in charge and deserves the credit.