Tbadder

I still think the issue is the pressure that the starters are going to put on the relief corp. Without CC and Sheets the bullpen is gonna have to cover extra innings. That's the most important reason to get McClung out of the rotation. Looper will definitely help in this regard. And as pointed out earlier in the thread, Macha needs to make McClung into one of those guys who gets 10 three inning saves over the course of the year. This is a good sign. They weren't going to get better.

I would be the least surprised person if Jordan was found out to have shot up. I think this is really good for the game (A-Rod being named). This brings us closer to naming the era the steroid-era. It's not one or two. It's not a small cadre of players who duped the record books and fandom while bailing out baseball with the tacit approval of teams and trainers and the upper echelon of MLB. It was a significant amount of players from every team in the MLB. Give it time. We will hear half the truth eventually and that should be enough to stop pointing fingers and making a whipping boy out of Bond, Clemens, Palmiero etc. It was pervasive and an integral part of the game. I'd bet my life on it. Of course I'll be dead anyways after the dust has cleared in twenty to thirty years.

My only reaction is "please, please, please be good!" As a small market team, nobody might be as important as Bruce.

I think the Brewers only recourse is to sign Benny now. Without draft pick compensation we have to regain value. Now, the history of the illness might preclude any kind of signing, but if the prognosis is generally good I'd suggest a two year contract--5 million guaranteed over the two years, and 7 million in incentives in the 2nd year.

It probably is a "meh" move, but at this point since the Brewers can't throw money at a problem, I say throw as many arms at a problem as possible. I'd like to see three more similar moves--maybe they find one cubic zurconia.

I think he'll have two more productive years. I'd give him 46 for two if I had the funds. The Dodgers are never going to compete without him. I think they're playing russian roulette. If I was the Yankees I'd sign him. The heck with defense, lets just bludgeon everyone to death. But really, if the Yanks did sign him. Don't you think they could put together a strong package for a good defensive outfielder, especially if they ate some salary.

I think he'll have two more productive years. I'd give him 46 for two if I had the funds. The Dodgers are never going to compete without him. I think they're playing russian roulette. If I was the Yankees I'd sign him. The heck with defense, lets just bludgeon everyone to death. But really, if the Yanks did sign him. Don't you think they could put together a strong package for a good defensive outfielder, especially if they ate some salary.

I think he'll have two more productive years. I'd give him 46 for two if I had the funds. The Dodgers are never going to compete without him. I think they're playing russian roulette. If I was the Yankees I'd sign him. The heck with defense, lets just bludgeon everyone to death. But really, if the Yanks did sign him. Don't you think they could put together a strong package for a good defensive outfielder, especially if they ate some salary.

I really do think we are at the point where we need to sign some fodder for depth's sake. Either one of these guys seems okay for AAA and a call up or two for spot starts. Seems better than Naveson etc.

Excellent news. I really hate the bad feelings that going to arby causes. Come on Hart have a heart.

Yes, I agree it does seem odd. If Mark is to be believed we either lost a little or profited a little. But in the long run, a lack of success is inevitable. A downturn, back to the days of 1.1 million will happen. Well, maybe not that bad. But when the average fan finds out this year that the Crew will not really be in the playoff chase (nominally so for sure, but realisticallly probably not) attendance might drop to say 2.7 million. Still good, especially for a small market, but a drop that would probably necessitate a cut in payroll. That would probably lead to a team that was even less competitive, and so forth--another downward spiral until we get a magic year or two when we replace older players with minor league studs and we can get excited once more--briefly.

1) I do know that the Brewers have benefitted from the luxury tax, but I also believe that the Brewers are one of the teams that need contraction. 2) Yes, MacDonalds does in some way benefit from corporate advertisement. But if Brookfield MacDonalds was actually giving monies to Milwaukee MacDonalds from thir own revenues received from customers there would be a hew and cry. It simply would never be done. 3) I respectfully disagree with the idea that everyone in MLB is looking out for others financially. If it was up to the Baltimore Orioles the Washington Nationals would never exist because the Nationals are literally taking money out of the the Orioles' pockets. If Milwaukee folded, the Cubbies would generate even more funds. It would be really good for them. Up to a point I might agree with your arguments, but in the clear, cold light of fiscal survival I just have a different belief and that is every team is in it for themselves. 4) If the Brewers, Pirates, Marlins, etc. didn't exist another side benefit would be a better brand of baseball. I think that MLB is rife with AAA trying to pass themselves off as major leaguers. The league would be more competitive because poorer players would be out of jobs. MLB would literally be more efficient. I just fail to see how propping up franchises who can't compete is fair or just or in the end productive. We've bailed out Chrysler once, now again, how many times. These small market teams aren't going to all of a sudden double in population, etc. They are terminally behind the big market clubs and it makes for teams like the Brewers who can only make the playoffs once ever 26 years. 5) I will say that all of these small market teams would make excellent AAA clubs. They would draw more people than current AAA teams, and it could bring a level of excitement and real competitiveness that the likes of Milwaukee hasn't seen since the Braves (when coincidently Milwaukee was at one time the 9th biggest market and therefore very competitive). 6) Not that it matters because I'm only me, but your points are well taken, salient, and a perfectly legit point of view. I just happen not to agree in the main. Peace. daniel

I think the sooner he's out of the organization the better for everyone here. Then we don't have to talk about how inadequate he is all the time. TGJ is a great example of an organizational whipping boy--at least on fan forums. The question is who do replace his sorry butt with? Ya gotta have someone to beat up on.

Yeah, I understand that arguement. But you'll never see a MacDonalds in Brookfield giving money to a MacDonalds in Milwaukee. If MLB teams are not competing with each other on and off the field then why is it deemed a sport? That sounds more like entertainment. MLB is an entity in name only. Just ask the Milwaukee Braves, the St.Louis Browns, the Brooklyn Dodgers.

Yes, contraction. As soon as you get rid of jobs, then wages come down to a more realistic level. In the end the whole industry will be helped at the expense of teams that are losing money, and players who are poor performers. That's my biggest gripe. There's just too many poor performers. The idea that someone liek Jeff Suppan can make the money he makes is beyond ridiculous. So far beyond ridiculous, that I think we've lost sight of just how out of control worker's wages have gotten. Every major industry in the United States is undergoing contraction, layoffs, plant closings, etc. Why not MLB? Why should weak sister teams like Pittsburgh and Florida exist when they can't draw sufficient audiences in person or thru the media. All this talk of revenue sharing and salary caps etc. is just antithetical to the American way. Like the Bucks here in Milwaukee. The only reason they exist is Herb Kohl's deep pockets, but they're not deep enough to ever make them a realistic contender again. Now they need a new arena subsidized probably by taxpayers. Heck no, they need to go away forever. Nothing in this world is more important than making money. It really does make the world go round. If teams need hand otus to make money and therefore be competitive, then something is tragically wrong. Why should New York Yankees fans foot part of the bill for fans in Pittsburgh? It's not fair. It's basically robbery.

I think the international draft is a must. You draft players from around the world, hold their rights for five years, and then back into the pool. If players don't want to come (to MLB) based on the team that holds their rights then fine they saty at home and play. I suppose an exception would be players from Cuba. In which case a supplemental draft could be held whereby teams who drafted Cuban players would lose that draft pick in subsequent drafts. 2ndly, no high school players drafted, and once a college player registers for the draft, that's it, he's done with college. It's ridiculous what teams are forking out for unproven talent. I agree the real problem is media money. My solution is different. Take the highest local TV revenues (probably the Yanks) then say assign a percentage of that revenue that has to be obtained by all other clubs. say the Yankees average 100 million dollars a year and the percentage is 40%. Then any team that can't get a 40 million dollar per year TV contract can then be contracted and their players dispersed throughout the league. The real problem is that there are too many small market teams. Small market teams generally create more diversity in competitive balance (though teams like the Twinkies are the exception) and screw it up for both players and teams. Survival of the fittest I say, no welfare for ineffectual or underfunded teams.

The World Series will never be as popular as the SUPER BORE. A bunch of male erotic testastrone touching braniacs trumps skill and beauty every time.

I love this thread and this idea. All offers and all demands should be a matter of public record. Just state them every morning in the newspaper on the front page of the sports news. I'd love it! CC Sabbathia and his agent demand 145 million for 7 years. Milwaukee Brewers offer 125 million for 6 years. KC Royals offer 35 million for 10 years. Again, this kind of transparency would eventually be good for eberyone. And quite frankly a true marketplace would eventually would emerge.

I think the real problem is profitability. I think that team books need to be absolutely transparent. This would open a lot of eyes and start to force some owner's hand. Any team that can't remain profitable needs to be contracted. If a team can't prove it's a legitimate business it doesn't have a right to exist--close up shop. I'd have a probationary period of say three years. If a team can't conclusively prove long term viability then poof! Gone! Revenue sharing is just a form of socialism; it's how the weak are allowed to prey on the strong. On the other hand the players union is culpable for too much of the expense as well. The DH is a ridiculous idea that cost teams too much money. I'm not paying a worker a crap load for a guy who can't do 75% of the job. Guaranteed contracts are just as ridiculous. If a guy is hurt, suspend the contract, let worker's compensation take over until he can return healthy enough to perform. Cutting non-performing players with a small severance package should be a club option at any time. Next we need management to lock out the players just like the NHL. No negotiations period. Just no league for at least a year, maybe two. Then lets talk about how the league should be run and what the rules are. If it alienates fans and they stay away, well, maybe they weren't fans in the first place. I'd like to see one year contracts only across the board. In this way we weed out bad management, bad markets, bad teams, bad players, even bad fans (hey if you can't afford to drop a least 100 to 200 dollars a game and acn't afford to go to a significant amount of games stay home and watch a team in a different market because your team doesn't deserve to exist). Prove to me that you can turn a profit. Prove to me you can perform. Why should I have to subsidize either end of the spectrum?

I wouldn't want to take a chance on Mulder. However, if the Brewers could sign three Mulder types at two to three million, then I'd definitely want Mulder, thinking that one would stick and do a decent job. I'd definitely pay someone 6 to 8 million to outperform McClung as the #5 pitcher. Which, I suppose, I'd be willing to pay a guy like Looper 7 milllion for one year. Hmmmm....maybe I'm not that smart after all.

I'd so give up Salome for Kennedy. For god's sake, Angel (pun intended though cheesy at best) has no position. On top of that he's a virtual midget. Angel for Ian, they'd laugh us out of town. Start naming all the great, short DHs in MLB history. No, I agree that the Yankees can afford to stand pat. They are now in the enviable position of having starting pitching depth, which will get them out of a tought spot or two during the season. I think the Brewers will hold on to Cameron for the whole season and take a second rounder for him, or he'll accept arby and we've got him for another year at 10 to 12 million a year. As long as he's above average defensively and power-wise for a CF I'm okay with that.

I think we're splitting hairs. The easy answer (I realize that's a loaded word) is that the Cubs are probably worse in the pitching department because of Harden's injury (I don't think there's that much difference between Woods and Gregg--in fact I wouldn't be surprised if Gregg ended up with more saves) but their hitting should be better with Bradley. Seems like a wash. The Brewers pitching should be worse, the hitting should be better. Seems like a wash. I believe the division will come down to three things: 1) The Brewers bullpen. Will the starters use it up or keep it fresh. Fresh=82 wins, Blown out=75 wins. 2) Cub injuries. They could be awash in them. Healthy=96 wins, decimated 85 wins 3) The Reds. I agree with whoever posted about the Red Menace. They are waiting to happen. I think their young talent is better than ours.

Geez..Jim's goodbye letter was classy, even-handed, gracious. I hope someday I can be that way.

In the paper today (1/23), Mark A. states that there is no money for a starter. I really think we're looking at a 3rd place rotation. At this point I guess I'd be in favor of a salary dump with Cameron if it meant signing Sheets. If that's not possible, then we need to find relievers that can go 3 innings an outing so the pen doesn't turn into Caligua's Rome.

I just think Briggs' analysis of the situation is spot on as the roster stands now.