Brewers' payroll discussion

[bigred]

1 minute ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

The fan base here in particular has adapted the risk-averse model of the ownership group. I am not smart enough to say who is right or wrong. But there is a sizeable risk with Yelich-type moves. You are seeing it play out right now. His contract sucks, though it could be far worse. It is a big risk to take, that in no way ensures better results. Plunging hard into 1 or 2 seasons also is likely to work than it was in the past, IMO, due to the simple fact that the contracts are drastically more out of control than they were when the Marlins and DBacks tried similar strategies. 

There are two groups of fans. Ones who are strict develop-in-house people, and ones who at least think they are willing to take a huge risk to add MLB talent to the roster immediately. Of course is those risks don't pan out, the fans then immediately blame the team for losing and stop coming to games. As a random guy who doesn't suffer any of the consequences of losing, I would also like to see something big happen, but realistically I know it isn't going to, it's just not what this team does.

I agree. There's always risk in making moves though, and there always will be. Same can be said about not making moves. The risk there, is when it looks like their window is open more to make a splash in the playoffs, and then do nothing, they risk their window being slammed shut again. 

[homer]

I think most people here are resigned to the fact that the disparities in baseball make it impossible for the Brewers to spend a significant amount of additional money. If people want to go for broke on a player that's fine, but if it doesn't pan out that probably means a non-competitive team for a solid 4 - 5 years. At some point, they'll get the timing right with the prospects and have stellar starting pitching and offense at the same time. To date, it seems it's one or the other.  I have faith they will always figure out a way to build a good bullpen.

[bigred]

5 minutes ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

The fan base here in particular has adapted the risk-averse model of the ownership group. I am not smart enough to say who is right or wrong. But there is a sizeable risk with Yelich-type moves. You are seeing it play out right now. His contract sucks, though it could be far worse. It is a big risk to take, that in no way ensures better results. Plunging hard into 1 or 2 seasons also is far less likely to work than it was in the past, IMO, due to the simple fact that the contracts are drastically more out of control than they were when the Marlins and DBacks tried similar strategies. 

There are two groups of fans. Ones who are strict develop-in-house people, and ones who at least think they are willing to take a huge risk to add MLB talent to the roster immediately. Of course if those risks don't pan out, the fans then immediately blame the team for losing and stop coming to games. As a random guy who doesn't suffer any of the consequences of losing, I would also like to see something big happen, but realistically I know it isn't going to, it's just not what this team does.

Look at my comment asking people here that winning a championship is what teams are supposed to strive for. It actually got 2 thumbs down. Lol that's absolutely hilarious imo. I mean really? Winning a WS doesn't mean crap to them? 🤣

[homer]

10 hours ago, homer said:

oh zip it. you're a fan. no better than anyone else here. I would lock the thread but I don't think we want this infecting every other thread so we will leave it open. 

Apologies to @bigred and the board. I guess I was cranky last night. I should have phrased this differently.

[bigred]

9 minutes ago, homer said:

I think most people here are resigned to the fact that the disparities in baseball make it impossible for the Brewers to spend a significant amount of additional money. If people want to go for broke on a player that's fine, but if it doesn't pan out that probably means a non-competitive team for a solid 4 - 5 years. At some point, they'll get the timing right with the prospects and have stellar starting pitching and offense at the same time. To date, it seems it's one or the other.  I have faith they will always figure out a way to build a good bullpen.

The problem though, is we can't(or refuse) to keep our good young players in Milwaukee, once their arby years are up, and hit free agency. So, when we look like we have an actual chance of making a deep run in the playoffs, then I think they should try and do SOMETHING go for it occasionally, before our window gets slammed shut by our really good players going elsewhere, and the vicious cycle of relying on pure luck starts all over again. 

[Playing Catch]

4 minutes ago, bigred said:

Look at my comment asking people here that winning a championship is what teams are supposed to strive for. It actually got 2 thumbs down. Lol that's absolutely hilarious imo. I mean really? Winning a WS doesn't mean crap to them? 🤣

I think it is as Snapper said, they gave you thumbs down not at the idea that winning a WS was important, but that your desired method of doing so would make it more likely than making the playoffs every year.

I'll ask you, Red, if Team A makes the playoffs once in the next 5 years, but makes an in-season trade for Cy Young, and MVP, do you think that team has a better chance of winning the WS than Team B, which makes the playoffs all of the next 5 years?

For many on this board (but not all!), they would prefer the Team B approach.

[bigred]

8 minutes ago, homer said:

Apologies to @bigred and the board. I guess I was cranky last night. I should have phrased this differently.

 

8 minutes ago, homer said:

Apologies to @bigred and the board. I guess I was cranky last night. I should have phrased this differently.

I wasn't referring to you. I was referring to the person who called me "ignorant". Lol 

[Playing Catch]

1 minute ago, bigred said:

The problem though, is we can't(or refuse) to keep our good young players in Milwaukee, once their arby years are up, and hit free agency. So, when we look like we have an actual chance of making a deep run in the playoffs, then I think they should try and do SOMETHING go for it occasionally, before our window gets slammed shut by our really good players going elsewhere, and the vicious cycle of relying on pure luck starts all over again. 

It's only a vicious cycle if the team does what you are proposing. Otherwise, that team is competitive 7 seasons out of 10. The Brewers have been in the playoffs 6 of the last 7 seasons.

[bigred]

1 minute ago, Playing Catch said:

I think it is as Snapper said, they gave you thumbs down not at the idea that winning a WS was important, but that your desired method of doing so would make it more likely than making the playoffs every year.

I'll ask you, Red, if Team A makes the playoffs once in the next 5 years, but makes an in-season trade for Cy Young, and MVP, do you think that team has a better chance of winning the WS than Team B, which makes the playoffs all of the next 5 years?

For many on this board (but not all!), they would prefer the Team B approach.

All I'm saying, is with small market teams especially, their windows to win a championship are few a far between. So, when one looks like it opened itself, then they should at least try to capitalize on that opportunity a little more often, before we lose our good players to other teams, and the windows slams shut again. 

[bigred]

1 minute ago, Playing Catch said:

It's only a vicious cycle if the team does what you are proposing. Otherwise, that team is competitive 7 seasons out of 10. The Brewers have been in the playoffs 6 of the last 7 seasons.

In your opinion. SMDH. I'm done replying to you on this topic. 

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

9 minutes ago, bigred said:

Look at my comment asking people here that winning a championship is what teams are supposed to strive for. It actually got 2 thumbs down. Lol that's absolutely hilarious imo. I mean really? Winning a WS doesn't mean crap to them? 🤣

If you honestly believe that is the reason why you got two "thumbs down" on that comment, I have a bridge to sell you 🤣

Look, I get it. I will honestly say that I am getting frustrated that we've reached the end of January, and a team who most everyone expects to be the favorite to once again win their division has only made one significant move, and that was SUBTRACTING their All-World closer. While the roster appears pretty well put together, there are certainly still some holes that could be upgraded, most significantly 3B. I'm intrigued by the kid they got back in the Williams deal, but handing him the 3B job without any better plan is the type of move a bottom-dweller makes, not a team with World Series aspirations. There are also plenty of guys out there that would be a rotation upgrade. I expect some significant moves in the next few weeks, and if nothing happens, I will truly be disappointed/mad.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Okay, everybody, cut it out. I'm not going to individually warn people, there's plenty of people taking shots at one another. But here are some bullet points:

1. Don't call people names. Just don't.

2. No one here is a more legitimate or honest "fan" than others just because they hold a certain opinion.

If the personal attacks continue, I will lock the thread and issue warnings. Please, just stop.

[Playing Catch]

2 minutes ago, bigred said:

In your opinion. SMDH. I'm done replying to you on this topic. 

I came in peace, but okay.

[bigred]

1 minute ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

Okay, everybody, cut it out. I'm not going to individually warn people, there's plenty of people taking shots at one another. But here are some bullet points:

1. Don't call people names. Just don't.

2. No one here is a more legitimate or honest "fan" than others just because they hold a certain opinion.

If the personal attacks continue, I will lock the thread and issue warnings. Please, just stop.

What I think may help, is having an option to be able to opt out of seeing comments from certain people. Then, the people who don't agree with someone's opinions, don't even have to see them. If there's not an option like that already. 

[bigred]

5 minutes ago, Playing Catch said:

I came in peace, but okay.

Am I and a few others the only ones here that are beyond frustrated with simply just making the playoffs? Personally, a few years ago, when we had arguably the best starting rotation in MLB, was probably the best chance we had to win a WS. And they barely did anything those couple years to get over the hump. Unless we get extremely lucky, I don't see us having that good of a chance again, for QUITE a while. 

[Playing Catch]

4 minutes ago, bigred said:

What I think may help, is having an option to be able to opt out of seeing comments from certain people. Then, the people who don't agree with someone's opinions, don't even have to see them. If there's not an option like that already. 

Just hover over their avatar, and it will give you the "ignore" option. And I think there are a couple of variations.

[Brock Beauchamp]

5 minutes ago, bigred said:

What I think may help, is having an option to be able to opt out of seeing comments from certain people. Then, the people who don't agree with someone's opinions, don't even have to see them. If there's not an option like that already. 

If you hover over a user's name on desktop, a card appears. One of the options on that card is to ignore the user.

[bigred]

3 minutes ago, Playing Catch said:

Just hover over their avatar, and it will give you the "ignore" option. And I think there are a couple of variations.

I wasn't talking about me ignoring anyone. I'm not the one who's offended for someone having different opinions or expectations of our favorite team. It's the ones that get offended and/or belligerent with me for simply having a different opinion, or bringing up hard truths, and criticizing the team. They should feel free to ignore me then. Lol

[MVP2110]

41 minutes ago, bigred said:

I don't need to deep dive to know they could easily make a move or 2 once in a while to try and get better now. Notice how when the ownership group took over, they went out and made a splash to get Yelich, and since, absolutely nothing but a bunch of "bites at the apple" trying to get lucky.  I think getting Yelich was only meant to make our fan base think they were serious about winning a championship How many bites at the apple will it take before our fanbase gets full of apple, and start wanting a better chance at steak or lobster? 

I've read through this thread and find the debate interesting. But I wanted to point out that the bolded part is inaccurate. Mark A's ownership group had been in charge over a decade before making the Yelich trade. They also made the Greinke trade as well. They signed Cain to a 5 year deal, Garza to a 4 year deal, Lohse to a 3 year deal. They've made some fairly big moves during his ownership time 

[bigred]

3 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

If you hover over a user's name on desktop, a card appears. One of the options on that card is to ignore the user.

Then those here who obviously don't agree with me and a few others here, should feel free to ignore us. Instead of acting like they're the know it alls of everything. 

[bigred]

2 minutes ago, MVP2110 said:

I've read through this thread and find the debate interesting. But I wanted to point out that the bolded part is inaccurate. Mark A's ownership group had been in charge over a decade before making the Yelich trade. They also made the Greinke trade as well. They signed Cain to a 5 year deal, Garza to a 4 year deal, Lohse to a 3 year deal. They've made some fairly big moves during his ownership time 

Thanks for correcting me. Yes, you're correct. But, Garza was absolutely horrible. Lol. I didn't like signing Cain to that long of a contract either.. Imo, they should have made a move like those again, a few years ago when we had an awesome starting rotation, that we all knew wouldn't be here very much longer. 

 

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

1 minute ago, bigred said:

Then those here who obviously don't agree with me and a few others here, should feel free to ignore us. Instead of acting like they're the know it alls of everything. 

I may have gotten a little out of line, and if you were offended by anything personal I posted, I apologize. 

However, I don't believe it is out of line for anyone to ask you to back up your takes with specifics, especially considering the ways you have presented them. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

7 minutes ago, bigred said:

Then those here who obviously don't agree with me and a few others here, should feel free to ignore us. Instead of acting like they're the know it alls of everything. 

Telling other people to put you on ignore isn't a particularly helpful comment to make. Just let it drop, man.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

8 minutes ago, bigred said:

Thanks for correcting me. Yes, you're correct. But, Garza was absolutely horrible. Lol. I didn't like signing Cain to that long of a contract either.. Imo, they should have made a move like those again, a few years ago when we had an awesome starting rotation, that we all knew wouldn't be here very much longer. 

 

Correct, the Garza deal turned out pretty horrible after his solid 2014 season. Therein lies the risk of those types of deals, though. They can turn out poorly, and the Brewers are not in the financial position to simply write them off, unfortunately. The bigger the move, the bigger the calculated risk. The Brewers' front office has proven very calculating in their gambles. Which often leads to frequently boring offseasons, unfortunately.  

[bigred]

3 minutes ago, Ron Robinsons Beard said:

I may have gotten a little out of line, and if you were offended by anything personal I posted, I apologize. 

However, I don't believe it is out of line for anyone to ask you to back up your takes with specifics, especially considering the ways you have presented them. 

I did present some. Some here need to understand that not everyone has the time to dig as deep as some others here do. I've been told that there's a few people on here that either work for the organization, or have serious connections to people that do. Maybe it's them who are the ones who get offended by having their opinions and/or words challenged? Who knows.