Lauer not happy with “bites of apple” approach

[markedman5]

Yes things would have been so much better if Brewers had emptied the farm system and “ went all in”….like the Padres……lol

Stearns calculus was that the Brewers could get some players they really wanted for Hader before he lost most of his value…..and not make the team worse by also acquiring Bush, Rodgers and Rosenthal.

The fact they aren’t playing better now is just a continuation of how they have played since May……..if management concluded that this team had no realistic path to the World Series this season I certainly don’t blame them……

In retrospect the deal looks better and better……Hader has stunk and taken out of the closers role……Gasser has gotten off to a fantastic start….and Rogers and Bush have had more good outings then bad.

I’m sorry Lauer’s feelings got hurt……but the team isn’t worse then before the trade…….I understand losing a popular teammate in season is difficult…….but from time to time it’s going to happen in sports.

 

[Axman59]

3 hours ago, Jopal78 said:

There's millions of Americans every day who take a dig at their employer, it's not really noteworthy other than he's a semi-famous professional athlete.

However, Eric Lauer's FIP this year of 4.77 (too many walks, too many ding dongs)  places him near the bottom of the pile of staring pitchers in the NL Central in terms of FIP, which is undoubtedly one of many reasons the Brewers are where they are this year. Thus, he's literally one of the guys not holding up his end, and nonetheless decides to take a shot at his employer. It's a fair question to wonder if he looks wise or foolish. To me, it's almost like Homer Simpson taking a shot at Mr. Burns for how he runs the plant. 

FIP is a B.S. stat. It also has nothing to do with Lauer's statement.

 

Look at the interview with Devin Williams after the trade. The guy literally looked like someone just killed his dog.

[Fear The Chorizo]

51 minutes ago, Axman59 said:

FIP is a B.S. stat. It also has nothing to do with Lauer's statement.

 

Look at the interview with Devin Williams after the trade. The guy literally looked like someone just killed his dog.

Devin Williams should have that look nailed down - probably what everyone in the clubhouse gave him last October after he decided to break his hand as the playoffs were about to start

[UpandIn]

5 hours ago, NBBrewFan said:

So the players, who are being paid sub-market wages because of the deck that MLB and MLBPA has stacked, should be responsible because they are entering a point where they actually will be compensated equitably for their performance?  This is a system that has been in place for decades so I would think the team is the one who needs to do a better job of managing their budget not the players no longer getting the short end of the stick. And if managing that budget means they have to shed arby players because they gave a >$200M extension to a doorstop then that's the management's issue not the arby players or just to become arby players. 

I like this debates. I don't like when they get intellectually dishonest. No, he didn't say they should be "responsible" because they're about to get paid...but lets also not infantilize these players. They understand how the game works. Lauer's going to going out and do what's best for him.

I don't believe the inference was EVER made that he should take less money(which is what I assumed you meant by "be responsible) in arbitration. 

And you're absolutely right. It IS managements issue. And they addressed it. It's LAUERS responsibility to go out and pitch even if the Brewers made a trade. 

Quote

Yeah, Lauer should give back some of that raise since he's been underpaid by more than $25M so far, that really seems like the only FAIR conclusion.?

 

Where was this inference EVER made? Or even hinted at? That he should turn down the raise? He was pointing out an objective fact. One of the reasons they needed to move on from Hader was because of the rising costs of players. I don't actually think that's why they made THIS trade at this time, but it's just a reality. And I reject the notion that he's been underpaid. He's on a contract. It's a real simple system and literally the ONLY reason why Baseball exists outside of about 10-12 cities. 

MLB has a pretty powerful union. They could have JUST decided they wanted to change it. They didn't. Employees in nearly every field are underpaid relative to their worth early in their career. This can be true of the trades or any number of fields(medicine is a big one). 

[NBBrewFan]

9 minutes ago, UpandIn said:

I don't believe the inference was EVER made that he should take less money(which is what I assumed you meant by "be responsible) in arbitration. 

6 hours ago, monty57 said:

There is no way that Lauer and others were going to take a discount next year in order to allow the team to stay under payroll, so they shouldn't gripe too loudly when the team has to make financial decisions.

 

[UpandIn]

3 minutes ago, NBBrewFan said:

 

And where is he saying in there that Lauer(and/or others) SHOULD give money back or take a pay cut?

He's stating the plain truth. The cost of keeping this team together is going up. 

[brewmann04]

Their is no way they are keeping both Woodruff and Burnes 

[brewmann04]

They will be wholesale changes being made in the off-season 

[yourout]

15 minutes ago, brewmann04 said:

They will be wholesale changes being made in the off-season 

I agree.....$$$ is going to dictate a pretty good sized turnover. That Yelich contract really hurts.

[Never Outhustled]

4 hours ago, monty57 said:

This has been discussed quite a bit on here over the years. The Brewers are a limited partnership, so the ownership group gets their share of the profits and losses passed through to their personal taxes. These aren't public, so no one knows, but I'd guess that they run it with fairly thin profit margins every year, not wanting too much taxable income passed through, but not wanting to dig into their own pockets (or take out a loan against the franchise) to pay the expenses. Most of these owners are in it for the long-term equity and the thrill of being an owner, not for more taxable income in the current year.

Attanasio and the rest of the ownership group have been open to raising the payroll when they think it will be a meaningful pick-up, and I'd guess McCutcheon was that guy this year. His $8.5M probably made them a little uneasy, as it pushed them around $10M over their previous record high opening day salary, and the lowered attendance numbers this year probably aren't helping that any. Axios says they're down around 13.4% year-on-year as of July 19.

So, as far as the future consequences go, if they lose money this year, they either have to take a loan, which will add to future expenses (therefore potentially reducing future payrolls) as the loan is paid off, or they pay the money out of their own pockets which may make them less amenable to bumping up payroll in the future.

I'm not "crying poor." These are all fairly wealthy individuals, but they do have to make sensible financial decisions. It wouldn't take too many foolish decisions to really hurt the Brewers. Thankfully, I think this is an area in which Attanasio is really smart. I believe that he'll keep payroll competitive while not risking the future of the franchise, and in the rare occasions in which the Brewers lowered payroll, they bought the Carolina team, and refurbished the Arizona facility and the food courts at then Miller Park, all of which should be good long-term investments for the team.

I'm sure Mr. Lauer doesn't bother himself with any of this. He's a bit discouraged right now, but I'd prefer he show his emotions by shutting out the Dodgers. Either way, he will be one of the guys traded away in the not-too-distant future (this offseason or next) in order for the Brewers to continue their attempt at building a "continually competitive" team, not only for this year, but for the coming years as well. He won't be a Brewer then, but I will still be a fan, so I hope they continue to think of both the present and the future in the aggregate moves they make.

Signing McCutchen and pretending like it was a big move drove fans away. Attanasio needs to show more respect to the fan base. We're not morons. Signing McCutchen was a huge waste of money, and made the team worse, since he's playing in front of a superior player. 

Also, don't fall for the owners accounting tricks. They're making money hand over fist. They have an ownership stake in subsidiary businesses, so they make there cash there and report little earnings here. It's a joke, really. 

[UpandIn]

3 hours ago, monty57 said:

This has been discussed quite a bit on here over the years. The Brewers are a limited partnership, so the ownership group gets their share of the profits and losses passed through to their personal taxes. These aren't public, so no one knows, but I'd guess that they run it with fairly thin profit margins every year, not wanting too much taxable income passed through, but not wanting to dig into their own pockets (or take out a loan against the franchise) to pay the expenses. Most of these owners are in it for the long-term equity and the thrill of being an owner, not for more taxable income in the current year.

Attanasio and the rest of the ownership group have been open to raising the payroll when they think it will be a meaningful pick-up, and I'd guess McCutcheon was that guy this year. His $8.5M probably made them a little uneasy, as it pushed them around $10M over their previous record high opening day salary, and the lowered attendance numbers this year probably aren't helping that any. Axios says they're down around 13.4% year-on-year as of July 19.

So, as far as the future consequences go, if they lose money this year, they either have to take a loan, which will add to future expenses (therefore potentially reducing future payrolls) as the loan is paid off, or they pay the money out of their own pockets which may make them less amenable to bumping up payroll in the future.

I'm not "crying poor." These are all fairly wealthy individuals, but they do have to make sensible financial decisions. It wouldn't take too many foolish decisions to really hurt the Brewers. Thankfully, I think this is an area in which Attanasio is really smart. I believe that he'll keep payroll competitive while not risking the future of the franchise, and in the rare occasions in which the Brewers lowered payroll, they bought the Carolina team, and refurbished the Arizona facility and the food courts at then Miller Park, all of which should be good long-term investments for the team.

I'm sure Mr. Lauer doesn't bother himself with any of this. He's a bit discouraged right now, but I'd prefer he show his emotions by shutting out the Dodgers. Either way, he will be one of the guys traded away in the not-too-distant future (this offseason or next) in order for the Brewers to continue their attempt at building a "continually competitive" team, not only for this year, but for the coming years as well. He won't be a Brewer then, but I will still be a fan, so I hope they continue to think of both the present and the future in the aggregate moves they make.

I agree with this for the most part, but a couple points. Income from professional sports teams is tax free. This is why...I believe, the Nuttings for example still own the Pirates. The Angelos family, the Brown family in the NFL is just ROLLING in cash, taking in a couple hundred million a year. 

That's not the case with the Brewers. We don't know exactly what they make, but we've have a reasonable approximation. They could spend a bit more and I am fairly certain they would have if such a deal would have been available. They also need to approach their budget constraints with a modicum of common sense. Josh Hader in his 4th year of arbitration and projected to make 17M dollars was not the best use of that money. Now...without the benefit of hindsight(because the deal looks MUCH better in the immediate aftermath with Hader's meltdown)...they made a trade with the Padres wherein they downgraded pretty significantly in the pen, but still got back a valuable left handed reliever, then added a breakout CF prospect on the precipice of the big leagues, and a pitcher whom they thought VERY highly of. My issue with that trade remains the management of the roster and DFA'ing Lamet, but that wasn't about money.

They then went out and traded for another reliever in Bush as well as a bit of a wild card in Trevor Rosenthal. So JUST for this years team, they got 3 relievers, none as good as Hader, but definitely better than what they had in their pen. 

 

For the future, they got potentially 12 years of cost controlled players. 

In truth though...this is a natural reaction. Rodgers was upset the Packers moved on from...Brett friggin Goode(among a long list of players). The Packers didn't let those players go because they could not afford to pay them. They let them go because they didn't think they were the best allocation of their resources. And they were usually right. 

 

[UpandIn]

55 minutes ago, Never Outhustled said:

Signing McCutchen and pretending like it was a big move drove fans away. Attanasio needs to show more respect to the fan base. We're not morons. Signing McCutchen was a huge waste of money, and made the team worse, since he's playing in front of a superior player. 

Also, don't fall for the owners accounting tricks. They're making money hand over fist. They have an ownership stake in subsidiary businesses, so they make there cash there and report little earnings here. It's a joke, really. 

Exactly what "subsidiary" of the Brewers do you suppose is making money "hand over fist" for the owners of the Milwaukee Brewers. 

I don't even know what this stuff means. "report little earnings here." To who? Who are they reporting earnings to?

 

They could sell the team, make over a billion dollars and do whatever they want. There is this fantasy that the Brewers are REALLY actually rolling in money but they only care about profits. 

The entire premise of this is flawed, even down to the idea that they signed McCutchen and "made the team worse since he's playing in front of a superior player." He wasn't when they signed him. He was coming off a .780 OPS, Hiura of a .570. 

He was so clearly a better player when they signed him. 

 

Who WAS the player they should have signed? I remember the calls for Nick Castellanos...5/100. I'm sure we'd have comments about how management needed to be smarter than to give up 100M for a player with a negative WAR.

Kris Bryant, 7/182. Obviously unrealistic. 

Chris Taylor was another. 4/60 for a player who's been worse than McCutchen and of course, likely preferred to remain in LA.

Rizzo would have been nice. Course the Yankees tend to be a bit more attractive to Free Agents(particularly those who are FAs FROM the Yankees). Marginal upgrade for at LEAST 15M more a year and likely more than that unless you believe he'd have preferred the Brewers.

https://stathead.com/baseball/player-comparison.cgi?player_id2=tellero01&p1yrfrom=2022&type=b&player_id1=rizzoan01&p2yrfrom=2022&sum=0&request=1

I thought Eduardo Escobar would have been a nice player to bring back...though his -.43 WAR this year...and I'm just guessing here, the people frowning up on the signing of McCutchen and his .9 WAR, they'd likely be unhappy with Escobar. 

 

So I'm just curious...for all the fans they "drove away," who exactly should they have signed? I also say this with all sincerity, those fans, they probably should jump on another bandwagon. I'd suggest a team that's just printing money like the Cubs...but of course, they're not really spending money(other than to appease fans in the off-season).

But the Mets seem like a good choice. They'll be able to outspend the pentagon...

[AdvantageSchneider]

Eric Lauer motivational genius.  This was all just a ploy to fire the boys up.  There are about to go on a tear.  Book it.

[bjkrautk]

9 minutes ago, AdvantageSchneider said:

Eric Lauer motivational genius.  This was all just a ploy to fire the boys up.  There are about to go on a tear.  Book it.

I can’t be the only Brewers fan to read “tear” and “book” in close proximity & immediately think Steve Sparks.

[sveumrules]

13 minutes ago, bjkrautk said:

I can’t be the only Brewers fan to read “tear” and “book” in close proximity & immediately think Steve Sparks.

Anytime I see someone getting a little to cavalier with the salad tongs over to the Golden Corral, I can’t help but think “hast thou learned nothing from the follies of Matt Wise?”

[rickh150]

3 hours ago, UpandIn said:

I agree with this for the most part, but a couple points. Income from professional sports teams is tax free. This is why...I believe, the Nuttings for example still own the Pirates. The Angelos family, the Brown family in the NFL is just ROLLING in cash, taking in a couple hundred million a year. 

That's not the case with the Brewers. We don't know exactly what they make, but we've have a reasonable approximation. They could spend a bit more and I am fairly certain they would have if such a deal would have been available. They also need to approach their budget constraints with a modicum of common sense. Josh Hader in his 4th year of arbitration and projected to make 17M dollars was not the best use of that money. Now...without the benefit of hindsight(because the deal looks MUCH better in the immediate aftermath with Hader's meltdown)...they made a trade with the Padres wherein they downgraded pretty significantly in the pen, but still got back a valuable left handed reliever, then added a breakout CF prospect on the precipice of the big leagues, and a pitcher whom they thought VERY highly of. My issue with that trade remains the management of the roster and DFA'ing Lamet, but that wasn't about money.

They then went out and traded for another reliever in Bush as well as a bit of a wild card in Trevor Rosenthal. So JUST for this years team, they got 3 relievers, none as good as Hader, but definitely better than what they had in their pen. 

 

For the future, they got potentially 12 years of cost controlled players. 

In truth though...this is a natural reaction. Rodgers was upset the Packers moved on from...Brett friggin Goode(among a long list of players). The Packers didn't let those players go because they could not afford to pay them. They let them go because they didn't think they were the best allocation of their resources. And they were usually right. 

 

How much did MA make doing drive up Covid tests in the parking lots? That number was never announced, correct? Had to be a few million dollars, right?.

[UpandIn]

1 hour ago, rickh150 said:

How much did MA make doing drive up Covid tests in the parking lots? That number was never announced, correct? Had to be a few million dollars, right?.

I didn't know they did get paid. I suppose it'd make some sense, but it's such an outlier, I wouldn't really consider it a significant source of revenue...IF they got paid. 

Certainly wouldn't call it a "subsidiary" of the Brewers...but I don't know. 

[Nola Beery]

I just don't see anything particularly snarky or provocative about what Lauer said.  His take may be wrong, but he's merely giving his take and not dodging the question.  

[monty57]

48 minutes ago, Nola Beery said:

I just don't see anything particularly snarky or provocative about what Lauer said.  His take may be wrong, but he's merely giving his take and not dodging the question.  

No, he didn't say anything snarky. You want your players to be competitive and want to win. His take ("I don't know how many bites of the apples we can take in the next few years") has to be a short-term view. He'll only be here for a short while and wants to win with the group currently in the room. The Brewers have made a conscious decision to take a long-term view. Sometimes those will clash, but I'm a big fan of the long-term strategy that Brewers' management is employing.

Unfortunately, some players took the trade deadline as a "gut shot," and it probably cost them some games. It turns out that Hader has imploded and the team seems to be better off having made the moves they made.

All in all, I'm glad to see Lauer hold down the Dodgers for five scoreless innings yesterday, helping the team secure a much-needed victory. Hopefully, the "fog in the room" has cleared and the team remembers that they are good, starts playing to their true talent level, and grabs a playoff spot.

[endaround]

9 hours ago, UpandIn said:

 

 

Who WAS the player they should have signed? I remember the calls for Nick Castellanos...5/100. I'm sure we'd have comments about how management needed to be smarter than to give up 100M for a player with a negative WAR.

Kris Bryant, 7/182. Obviously unrealistic. 

Chris Taylor was another. 4/60 for a player who's been worse than McCutchen and of course, likely preferred to remain in LA.

Rizzo would have been nice. Course the Yankees tend to be a bit more attractive to Free Agents(particularly those who are FAs FROM the Yankees). Marginal upgrade for at LEAST 15M more a year and likely more than that unless you believe he'd have preferred the Brewers.

https://stathead.com/baseball/player-comparison.cgi?player_id2=tellero01&p1yrfrom=2022&type=b&player_id1=rizzoan01&p2yrfrom=2022&sum=0&request=1

I thought Eduardo Escobar would have been a nice player to bring back...though his -.43 WAR this year...and I'm just guessing here, the people frowning up on the signing of McCutchen and his .9 WAR, they'd likely be unhappy with Escobar. 

 

So I'm just curious...for all the fans they "drove away," who exactly should they have signed? I also say this with all sincerity, those fans, they probably should jump on another bandwagon. I'd suggest a team that's just printing money like the Cubs...but of course, they're not really spending money(other than to appease fans in the off-season).

But the Mets seem like a good choice. They'll be able to outspend the pentagon...

https://www.fangraphs.com/players/daniel-vogelbach/14130/stats?position=1B/DH

Pretty sure they could have gotten him...

McCutchen was paying full rate for a 1 win player with little upside to beat the contract and tons of downside.

[Playing Catch]

The tweeter clearly edited out all context from the original McCalvy article. In the article, with the context from a number of other team sources, it was clear that Lauer was simply being emotionally honest with McCalvy about how the trade deadline felt, without attempting to throw the FO/Owner under the bus, or make excuses for the team's performance, or even complain about the current state of MLB owner/player relations. He was just responding to a question the way someone would respond if their buddy asked them the same question, "How did you feel about everything that happened at the trade deadline?"

In the future, It's entirely possible that Lauer felt that while McCalvy didn't do anything wrong, Lauer may be a bit more guarded in future interviews.

[tmwiese55]

16 hours ago, markedman5 said:

Yes things would have been so much better if Brewers had emptied the farm system and “ went all in”….like the Padres……lol

Stearns calculus was that the Brewers could get some players they really wanted for Hader before he lost most of his value…..and not make the team worse by also acquiring Bush, Rodgers and Rosenthal.

The fact they aren’t playing better now is just a continuation of how they have played since May……..if management concluded that this team had no realistic path to the World Series this season I certainly don’t blame them……

In retrospect the deal looks better and better……Hader has stunk and taken out of the closers role……Gasser has gotten off to a fantastic start….and Rogers and Bush have had more good outings then bad.

I’m sorry Lauer’s feelings got hurt……but the team isn’t worse then before the trade…….I understand losing a popular teammate in season is difficult…….but from time to time it’s going to happen in sports.

 

I think the bolded is probably an overlooked part of the deadline. Thought of it but forgot to include in my post.    While yes, if you win the division and make the playoffs, with the two ace pitches and Hader/Williams, it's possible to go on a run.   But, the Mets and Dodgers are simply loaded this year. Yes the Dodgers aren't going anywhere for future years, but the Mets are the Mets and Scherzer is like 40.  But for this year, you're not getting the bye with how poorly they've played since May. While you still want your bite at the apple, it probably wasn't the right here to go 'all in' for a slightly bigger chance.  Better to stand pat (in their opinion they probably didn't noticeably lower their chances this year, since they were already quite low) and hold those prospects and theoretically increase your chances in the next 2-3 years. 

[nate82]

3 hours ago, endaround said:

https://www.fangraphs.com/players/daniel-vogelbach/14130/stats?position=1B/DH

Pretty sure they could have gotten him...

McCutchen was paying full rate for a 1 win player with little upside to beat the contract and tons of downside.

The Brewers went with Tellez over Vogelbach and Vogelbach is someone you only want facing RHP and should never face LHP.  So I don't see how Vogelbach would be much of an improvement for the Brewers.  Vogelbach is also a DH only and shouldn't see the field ever.  McCutchen at least gives you some roster flexibility where he can play a passable LF.  

A better option would have been Pederson who signed a $6m deal with the Giants.  I think the Brewers showed some interest but I think the interest wasn't mutual.  

[UpandIn]

8 hours ago, endaround said:

https://www.fangraphs.com/players/daniel-vogelbach/14130/stats?position=1B/DH

Pretty sure they could have gotten him...

McCutchen was paying full rate for a 1 win player with little upside to beat the contract and tons of downside.

C'mon...really? So keep two big guys who are lefties and limited to 1B/DH on the 40 man?

And THAT would have made fans happier?

[NBBrewFan]

7 hours ago, nate82 said:

Vogelbach is also a DH only and shouldn't see the field ever.

The defensive metrics say the same about Tellez.