World Series Hope in the future

[TURBO]

48 minutes ago, SF70 said:

"We hope" the Brewers brainpower will allow them to adapt to the new CBA and the beat will continue on. 

Fixed.

You just can't speak in absolutes.

I trust our brainpowers, and if anyone will be able to figure it all out after the CBA kicks in, it is them, but we won't know how good or bad it is for the small market teams until we get through it.

[SF70]

1 minute ago, TURBO said:

Fixed.

You just can't speak in absolutes.

I trust our brainpowers, and if anyone will be able to figure it all out after the CBA kicks in, it is them, but we won't know how good or bad it is for the small market teams until we get through it.

Stop telling me how I can speak or not speak.

[TURBO]

2 minutes ago, SF70 said:

Stop telling me how I can speak or not speak.

C'mon, what's up with the thin skin?

I'm simply saying speaking in absolutes is a dangerous game.  All the things you are saying sound like you think it's factual, none of them are factual.

[Playing Catch]

1 hour ago, SF70 said:

The Brewers brainpower will allow them to adapt to the new CBA and the beat will continue on. 

I share completely, your trust in the front office. And I agree that their general philosophy is to innovate to win.

My primary concern is a salary cap that flattens the competitive landscape to such a degree that it renders front office competancy moot.

I loathe the idea of the league just being a media content creator with a 12-month cycle of ESPN headlines that drive advertising like the NFL or NBA.

But there will be plenty of time to worry about that after the World Series.

[Thurston Fluff]

1 hour ago, Playing Catch said:

I share completely, your trust in the front office. And I agree that their general philosophy is to innovate to win.

My primary concern is a salary cap that flattens the competitive landscape to such a degree that it renders front office competancy moot.

I loathe the idea of the league just being a media content creator with a 12-month cycle of ESPN headlines that drive advertising like the NFL or NBA.

But there will be plenty of time to worry about that after the World Series.

I think competency is as important when there's a cap and revenue sharing. Possibly more so. The NFL actively works for competitive balance and you still see certain teams continuously win and other lose. I'm not worried the Mets are suddenly going to be as good year in and year out because the Brewers can pay compete for players. My worry about a salary cap and revenue sharing is teams like the Brewers start to make decisions based on something other than value for the dollar. Things like paying Willy Adames because he was so important in the clubhouse type of deals are what I hope to avoid.

[Playing Catch]

22 hours ago, Thurston Fluff said:

I think competency is as important when there's a cap and revenue sharing. Possibly more so. The NFL actively works for competitive balance and you still see certain teams continuously win and other lose.

I'm pretty cynical about the entertainment value the NFL provides, so I will fully acknowledge my bias.

With that disclaimer in place, I dislike how a lousy team in the NFL can just clean out their roster for a year or two, hire a new hotshot coach and a top-5 pick QB, and boom, you are competitive. Collect more PI/illegal block flags in your favor and you are a playoff team. There is evergreen hope and expectation that your team can improve quickly with a key trade or draft pick.

With the NFL's flattened competitive landscape, what joy is there when many games are so tightly contested that the difference is often whether the last kick stays true, or drifts wide? Each regular season game is about as interesting as a coin flip.

Baseball's quirks already allow for competitive balance, but without opportunities for truly great teams and bad teams to exist in the same landscape, Baseball would be filled with a bunch of .500 teams. No thanks.

[igor67]

Regardless of outcome there are plenty of reasons to be optimistic that we can get back to the World Series again. But it is a hard thing to do. I wouldn't ignore CBA ramifications, but seemingly regardless of sport the biggest difficulty in repeating comes down to good ol' Branch Rickey 101 it's better to trade a guy 1 year too early than a year too late. We have a lot of complimentary pieces, and being able to slowly cycle those guys out without turning them into expensive Brewer lifers is critical and it seems our front office recognizes that as well as anyone.

[Thurston Fluff]

42 minutes ago, Playing Catch said:

I'm pretty cynical about the entertainment value the NFL provides, so I will fully acknowledge my bias.

With that disclaimer in place, I dislike how a lousy team in the NFL can just clean out their roster for a year or two, hire a new hotshot coach and a top-5 pick QB, and boom, you are competitive. Collect more PI/illegal block flags in your favor and you are a playoff team. There is evergreen hope and expectation that your team can improve quickly with a key trade or draft pick.

With the NFL's flattened competitive landscape, what joy is there when many games are so tightly contested that the difference is often whether the last kick stays true, or drifts wide? Each regular season game is about as interesting as a coin flip.

Baseball's quirks already allow for competitive balance, but without opportunities for truly great teams and bad teams to exist in the same landscape, Baseball would be filled with a bunch of .500 teams. No thanks.

I'm not a fan of the NFL either. The only time I ever watch it is if I'm with someone that's watching it. MY point about the NFL was solely about the effect evening the playing field has on innovation and competence of the organization. While some teams can strip things down most poorly run teams  end up back in the basement in short order or never leave it. AT the same time other teams manage to stay competitive year in and year out. Which leads me to believe innovation and competence will matter regardless of how even the playing field is.

[Underachiever]

28 minutes ago, Playing Catch said:

Baseball's quirks already allow for competitive balance, but without opportunities for truly great teams and bad teams to exist in the same landscape, Baseball would be filled with a bunch of .500 teams. No thanks.

Baseball already has a bunch of .500 teams. 20 of the teams were between .556 and .444 winning percentage, which is the equivalent of going 5-4 or 4-5 every nine games for a season. 14 MLB teams had the NFL equivalent of 9-8 or 8-9 records. NFL is legislated to have parity. MLB's 162-game schedule is its own self-leveling structure (perhaps that is a quirk you are referring to).

As they say, you're gonna win 60, lose 60, it's what you do with the other 42 that makes your season. The Brewers had a dominant season, and their winning percentage is equivalent to 11-6 in the NFL. 

[Playing Catch]

1 minute ago, Thurston Fluff said:

Which leads me to believe innovation and competence will matter regardless of how even the playing field is.

You aren't wrong. When the lines between success and failure are so thin, every advantage is key to winning. But when the lines are so thin, success feels different, too. The Packers beating the Bears in the NFC championship to go to a Super Bowl on a last second FG to win after a 30-yard PI penalty just doesn't hit the same way as beating the Dodgers in a 7-game set.

If baseball becomes even more random, then it's all just about who can get more lucky coin flips than the other team.

3 minutes ago, Underachiever said:

As they say, you're gonna win 60, lose 60, it's what you do with the other 42 that makes your season. The Brewers had a dominant season, and their winning percentage is equivalent to 11-6 in the NFL. 

Yes. But the Brewers got here after over a decade of planning and organizational discipline and execution. The Seahawks won the Super Bowl after signing Mike McDonald and Sam Darnold.