snyttri

This is my point -- almost all of the teams were large markets. There was 16 teams, spread over about 10 cities. I would love for you to show what teams had a market advantage and how they used it. If you could show me where the Yankees spent more money than other teams, I'd give the idea merit -- and of course you realize that the Yankees bought Ruth from Boston one of the 4 "large market" teams as defined by TLB. I'm afraid the burden is on you to demonstrate the unusual idea that that MLB history is charcterized by roughly equal spending. The Cardinals market advantage in the South and West was unique and as was stated, they used it to pay for extra minor league teams. Some teams teams have always had a money advantage and have always had many ways to use it (including scouting, signing bonuses and buying ML players). As is well known the Boston owner sold off his championship team because he needed money for reasons of his own, not because of market size (The Red Sox lead the league in attendance 2 of the 3 years before they sold Ruth). The Yankees acquired much of Boston's championship team. It's ironic that in the same sentence you could mention the purchase of Babe Ruth that cost $100,000 and also ask for proof of how the Yankees used their money advantage. Yankees star pitchers of the 20's Herb Pennock and Carl Mays cost the Yankees $50,000 and $40,000, respectively. IFs Tony Lazzieri and Joe Dugan cost $50,000 each. OF Earl Combs cost $50,000. Since the Yankees took over from the Giants as NewYork's most popular team in th 20's they regularly enjoyed a big attendance advantage over the "other large markets" like Cleveland and Cincinnati. http://www.baseball-refer...om/teams/NYY/attend.shtml Baseball owners are secretive about their finances and Forbes has not been doing its unofficial analysis for long. The Yankees did pay Ruth a $70,000 salary that was out of line with what anyone else was making.

As has been noted before, metropolitan area should be used when comparing the size of markets, not the number of people within an arbitrary city limit. Some teams have always had the advantage of having more money available. New York has always been a relatively large market. St. Louis once had the advantage it no longer has of no teams to the South or West of it and consequently a vast fan base. It may be no coincidence that the Cardinals are second in championships. Teams have always had an opportunity to use their money advantage. Some teams, like the Cardinals, have had more farm teams than others. There was no amateur draft before 1965 and bonus money talked. Babe Ruth and others were bought from other teams.

not to mention both Chicago teams for the first time ever The White Sox beat the Cubs in the 1906 World Series. http://www.baseball-almanac.com/ws/yr1906ws.shtml

Seriously, how many people do you think would sign up for a voluntary CC tax? I bet it'd be a lot. It could be in the form of a pledge tally ($52 increments?) that draft movements for presidential candidates have used. No obligation to pay unless CC signs.

He just didn't earn his $10 million contract, and the classier thing to do would be to give most of it back, as he didn't earn it. It might be more accurate to say that Gagne earned his contract by pitching to the best of his current abilities, which is all he promised or could promise to do. If someone is to blame for Gagne's disappointing performance it would probably be Brewers management who took an unwise risk when they outbid themselves for a suspected PED user who ended his comeback season in a slump. When everyone who is below average gives part of their salary back will they get reimbursed when it turns out that the statistician who determined they were below average was below average at his job?

It sounds like the agent is doing his job to whip up as big a market for Sabathia as possible. If an agent can help get fans in a smaller market to believe that a virtually unsignable player is signable the ownership may bump up their offer a little bit.

I was surprised to see Gagne has been allowing base runners at the same rate as CC since the All Star break (team stats) (gagne 10 game log). Comparing starters and relievers may be apples to oranges, but still, it's the MVP candidate and the tar-and-feather candidate. Since he has been used in lower pressure situations he seems to be more effective. It's not what he was paid to do, but he seems to be a fairly good late inning reliever now instead of the bad closer or set up pitcher he was earlier, and he does it with the burden of being a scapegoat.

I don't see that comment as an attack on posters but a comment on the booing issue. Booing will remain an issue and if anyone who thinks booing makes Brewers fans look bad has to be silent the issue can't be discussed. Booers of the home team might expect some flak for having a negative affect on the team. Booing the visitors may not be classy but it's good strategy. Why not boo to win?

Isn't Mark A. in the same industry as Bear Stearns, Shearson and Merrill Lynch? If his business is also worth pennies on the dollar the Brewers and his son's band may be the only thing keeping food on the Attanasios table. Let's hope a bad season doesn't result in a food basket from brewerfan.net to the Attanasios next Christmas.

BA describes the game without imposing his personality over the events, which isn't common. I suspect if the Brewers used Cirillo as the color guy the Brewers might have two broadcasters the networks would be interested in. In limited exposure he also seems to have some restraint and adds a sense of humor.

Moving is only a long term issue. Unfortunately, 2M is not a bad year in attendance for Milwaukee. Miller Park will not always be relatively new. The economy will different than it is now and new stadiums will be built. Many teams have moved before and it could happen to baseball's smallest market again, particularly if there isn't local ownership to fight for Milwaukee. http://www.baseball-refer...om/teams/MIL/attend.shtml http://www.baseball-refer...om/teams/ATL/attend.shtml

( That was because the relevance of the owner being from California was brought up. Milwaukee would have to fall to the bottom in attendance after problems with other franchises have been resolved.

It's the nature of fans and the manager's bosses to scapegoat the manager. Ned may not a very good manager and he will be easily replaced but he has taken the blame for flaws in the building of the team that he is not responsible for. He deserves some credit for the team playing better than expected for the middle part of the season as well as the bookend choking. There may be no chance of the team being moved for a long time but it might eventually prove significant that the Brewers have an out of town owner as it did for Milwaukee's previous team. The booing may be one sign that many fans will be fickle and desert the team if disappointed again this year. A drastic change in the carry-in policy would alienate some. New York has been mentioned as a destination for another team.

Lou Boudreau player-managed for Bill Veeck at age 24 and won a WS at age 30, but he was an infielder (boudrlo). Player-managers were once common and saved owners a salary. I'd rather have someone with a good track record at this point.

I didn't interpret Attanasio's statements that way. His press conference reference to the decisions "we've" made sounded to me like he's been more involved.

The lobby of the art museum is good to see. The lake front park(s) that goes from downtown to the north suburbs on both the bluff and lake level (designed by Olmstead) is nice. Karl Ratzch's may have the best German food, though Mader's is a tourist attraction (the plaque over my last table said JFK ate there). Commissioner Selig allegedly lunches at Gilley's Custard on Blue Mound, west of Miller Park. Frozen custard and the fish fry are popular. They aren't supposed to charge more than face value in the ticket resale area near the stadium.

You don't have to have a sense of entitlement because you know how the stadium is financed. There are too many people who should know and don't so they can't understand what kind of stadium Miller Park is (not a MillerCoors product even even if the team cap looks like one) or how free the owners are being with their money. If the Brewers do the customer service continuing training some companies do they could remind the employees they're going to have to ask the customers to raise their taxes to build MillerCoors stadium some day. A business may be able to be very customer oriented and still keep its more than a few unruly customers in line.

Thanks for the read. I've found other sites that show $310 million of $400 Million was from tax dollars or roughly 77%. I'm not sure what that has to do with respecting a building wether it be public or private or who built it? Our tax dollars pay for lots of buildings and community ammentities, but I'm not going to go around spitting on the ground or urinating on the walls. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif You are the first to say it should affect the respect for the building. But it couldn't hurt the courtesy level of Brewers employees to remember that their corporate facility was paid for by the public. And Brewers fans should remember all the ways they have been paying for the team.

The public paid the lion's share, but the Brewer's were a minority participant towards their new home. Brewers employees should know that the public built their stadium. Here is an old timeline linked to a builder and the Racine newspaper. http://www.nbs-inc.net/A3_brutimeline.html

Miller Park was built by long-suffering taxpayers, not a corporation or baseball club.

The Brewers should do okay if they get to the postseason even if they don't get a haul from gate receipts. hardballtimes.com/main/article/diamond-dollars-the-economics-of-winning-in-baseball-part-1 "The rewards from winning vary based on three key variables-an economic system driven by the size and fan loyalty of a team's local market; the team's level of competitiveness, defined by its regular season record; and the windfall of revenues that accrue to a team for reaching the postseason."

Tons of advertising is good if it equates with money spent on the team as has been the case recently in Milwaukee. I'm glad things were more low key when the Brewers were dumping salaries. Teams can probably always sell advertising if they let it go cheap enough. College summer league games in Madison (the Mallards) are bursting at the seams with advertising but it doesn't seem to bother people.

I just wanted to expound on this a little bit and wonder outloud if it may be more profitable for the team to reach the NLCS or WS, but not win it. Would the novelty of winning the World Series actually send the following season's attendence into 2.25M or 2.50M levels simply because the ultimate goal has been achieved? Or would the sale of WS Champion merchandise trump the lose of tickets the following season? Attendance always seems to increase the year after a team peaks at a pennant or World Series championship from the year the pennant or championship was won. http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/attend.shtml You can't buy advance tickets for a World Series winner instead of just a contender until the next season. The more success the Brewers have, the more season ticket packages will be sold. This will leave fewer seats for the "bandwagon" fans, and should lead to more baseball educated, and enjoyable crowds. With another 3 million anticipated next year, and if 4 packs of terrace season tickets stay at a fairly low price, a lot of season tickets will be bought solely for resale. MLB seems to be taking a cut from StubHub/Ebay.

It was quite a stroke of luck that Garcia and McCarthy turned into Danks and Floyd. Ken Williams should get out of the player evaluation business and move to Las Vegas. Sure there's some luck involved, but give some credit for identifying which players have a good year in them, which have potential and which are washed up. The Brewers have not gone so long without seeing the layoffs by bad luck and turning youngsters and washed up players into players at their peaks capable of having big years who complement each other is a little more than luck.

It makes sense to say a player has played over his head for a whole season because the season can be an anomaly, like Norm Cash's career year (Cash). However a team is assembled differently every year to work well together. Unlike with a player who will be the same player next year the particular combination of veterans, rookies and acquisitions will never appear in another season. So its team performance can't be an anomaly. Even if baseball is the most individual of team sports there is more to it than a collection of individual stats. If a lot of the players have good years it could be attributed to the way the team was put together that year. If CC pitches over a season's worth of complete games in less than half a season here it might be attributable to the circumstances rather than being just a statistical anomaly. Assuming that championships by someone other than the usual suspects are traceable to players playing over their heads rather than baseball people seizing on unique opportunities seems to me to elevate projections above reality. If a team wins 100 games and a World Series then it would seem that the season determined how good it was, not how the individual players careers rank against the players of other championship teams. If so many players have good years together that the team has a historic season it may not be just a coincidence. Every championship team contains some impressive statistical oddities. It could be exceptional team chemistry causing players to do surprising things. And not as much a collection of surprisingly good seasons with the happy coincidence of a championship. Player's values are determined by their careers, so one outstanding year can be discounted. Because a team is assembled year by year to win a championship it doesn't seem to make sense to discount one team's season for what a different collection of players failed to accomplish.