JimH5

I'm not equating it with income. And none of us know what their income truly is anyway. There's no guarantee that other businesses operate at a profit every year, why should our favorite baseball team be any different?

You see, it’s this narrative that’s just unfair and a holdover from the Brewers of the Selig Era. The Brewers have been significant players in free agency the past few years, so there’s no bargain rack to it. That’s just a false narrative. I will gladly jump for joy when they add players whose performance exceeds what they lost in Grandal.

Highest payroll in team history and 4th in the division. https://www.usatoday.com/sports/mlb/salaries/2019/team/all/

You're right. I don't know if they are fabricated. But the $1B valuation increase says there's money there if he wanted to get to it. Mark A has been a fine owner, and Stearns has done a fine job of assembling the rosters since he's been here. I just want the Brewers to win a World Series. And today, November 21st, they seem much further away than they did in September. Losing Grandal, but gaining 3 other players is fine. But only if they gain the other players. There's no guarantee of that happening. And it's possible that the market leaves Stearns's strategy behind. When you're constantly shopping off the clearance rack, there's no guarantee you'll find what you need.

There is an entire league of owners that don't operate at a loss by and large. They don't share their financials so we don't know that. We surely don't know that among the winningest teams. Team values continue to rise, but there is no certainty that is because of business acumen. Sports ownership is an exclusive club that is attractive to the ultrarich. They want in, and I think that is what drives up franchise values. Like owning a piece of fine art, which produces zero income, team ownership is attractive because of its exclusivity and the fame that accompanies it. Attanasio and the ownership group are rich but he: A. Needs to make a profit for his ownership group. We don't know that either. His ownership group might be quite content with the $1Billion increase in franchise value that they don't care about yearly performance. If you own a growth stock portfolio, you might not care about annual income or dividends. B. Just because he's made a billion dollars on value since buying the team doesn't mean he has that money in his pocket right now just waiting to spend on a 3rd starting pitcher. Baseball owners have access to money. Either borrow on the franchise value or sell a portion of the team or make a cash call to his ownership group. Or structure the contract to have deferred payments. We all enjoy baseball - specifically major league baseball. It's not a terrible take to ask/wish that the owners spend more of their cash on the players...but...if you have this much of a hardened take, what's the point of following? Follow another league, sport, or activity. It's not going to change...these are the parameters. Why let this ruin a hobby for you? This doesn't ruin it for me. I like to complain about stuff. I'm mostly disappointed that my fellow fans look at attractive players as unaffordable and just accept that as the way things have to be. Why follow a team that insists it is shackled and unable to give fans a championship roster? Especially when they just told us that ink blob at the top of the new BiG logo means we are forever connected by an unbreakable bond? And to reiterate again - I would be shocked if they don't at least spend up to that $120-130 million range. What if that's not enough to win?

I'll bet, though, that you shop around to determine whether your furnace repair company is the best deal for their services relative to others out there. And I'd bet that you often weigh whether it's best incur the cost to replace that furnace this year, or whether that money would be better spent on multiple-other important items, like upgrading your old water heater, painting the whole upstairs of your house, and having your deck re-stained. Sure, you can do ALL of those things now and put it on your credit card, but that would be fiscally irresponsible and either snowball into a catastrophe in 2-3 years, or would cause you to have to sell your house to pay off the debt you incurred and weren't able to pay for. I'd bet that relates to most people's lives pretty well, one way or the other. Come Cheer the Fiscally Responsible Brewers! They're exciting to watch, and budget-friendly! First of all, my house isn't my business and source of income. It also hasn't gained $1Billion in value since I bought it. So I'm not sure that's the best analogy. And none of us know what is fiscally irresponsible for the Brewers to do. We don't know how much they make, nor do we know the value of winning a World Series, either in the year they do it or in the years that follow. What we know today is that they didn't want to pay the price to bring back Grandal. Maybe he'll be a bust. Maybe tomorrow they'll sign someone who is awesome. All I can do now is look at the roster and lament the loss of a really good player. Thankfully, our front office understands that there are smart, fiscally responsible decisions that can be made to upgrade the roster and they have a history of doing so. The Brewers! Endorsed by the Financial Planners and Actuaries Association of America! I find all of the hand-wringing very odd, when the team has had two consecutive offseasons where they signed top-tier free agents prior to now. Also, it's November 21st. They've also had 50 years of not winning. And they were really close last year, but have done nothing so far but shed players. I just don't get shrugging off the loss of a player they liked and wanted. It's not your money.

Per Murray: "...In the end, 4 years, $73 million was out of their price range." That's where I assumed 4 years wasn't too long for them.

This line of thinking is how bad teams stay bad for such a long time. Just because you can afford a player doesn't mean the contract is what the team needs. That is not the contract the Brewers need right now. The team does have finite resources they can spend and this is most likely not a productive way for them to spend it in the long run. How do you know this to be true? If Robert Murray's story is true, the Brewers dropped out because of price, not contract length. They were ok with 4 years of Grandal. We don't know if the Brewers are profitable or not, or if they even should be. We know that they don't NEED to be. The owner could afford to operate at a loss if he wanted to. I just don't like shopping at the Dollar Store, when it's not clear to me that they must. Admittedly, it's super early in the offseason, and they could have lots of surprises in store. But they have a lot of payroll flexibility and if they are serious about winning, then they'll have to pay somebody. And Grandal seemed like a fine fit last year.

I don't think they do. I think those are Forbes estimates, though to be fair, my claim about the franchise growing by more than $1Billion in value also comes from Forbes. If there's a source on actual revenue reporting, please link.

Just because they chould doesn't mean they should. The Brewers are lucky to have so many fans who are concerned about them getting a good deal on their player contracts. We don't do that with anything else in our lives. We don't concern ourselves that the furnace repair company is paying their workers too much. Or the barista at the coffee shop. But somehow, despite never opening their books, in a league without a salary cap, and for a franchise that has grown in value by $1Billion since he bought the team, lots of good and loyal fans fret and stew that Mark A not spend too much on the players he wants us to root for. I am more interested in the Brewers winning games than I am in whether or not they do so at a bargain.

The White Sox also had been running a very low payroll and this might finally have been their time to strike. Understood. But I'm done counting coins on behalf of the Brewers Front Office. They could have afforded Grandal at that salary. And with the assumption that Arcia is returning at SS, it's important to get offense from other positions, and Grandal did that really well last year.

Lots of payroll coming off the books. This better mean something big is in the works.

(they wouldn't do it if it didn't' work on some people) Personally I agree with you, not every color and part of the logo needs to mean something. We all know they changed the logo up just a little to try to get people to not just keep on wearing the stuff they already bought and that is valid. The brewers are spending alot of money to make this change, including updating every sign at miller park and just paying the fees for the company they hired to make the change. I also wonder if MLB get a cut, similar to a franchise relocation fee. Whatever they spent on the logo design firm and the signage and changing the stadium gift shops is a fraction of what Gerrit Cole would cost. They're getting off cheap, hoping we're distracted by heartstring videos and expensive new caps. I think I've said my piece on this and I don't want to stomp all over everybody's joy. I like the cream colored jerseys and the barley ball patch. I just don't like the way we tend to celebrate everything they do, especially when I see some things as hamfisted and transparent marketing.

You are unqualified to tell me what should and should not bother me.

I'm not opposed to them trying to further connect their franchise to the fanbase. I just think they were finding that connection in places where there was none. Specifically...The change to the ball in the new BiG logo is being sold as a three panel ball that represents the fans, the city and the state. It's just a more realistic baseball. I could draw a stick figure and say it represented my hunger for a grilled cheese sandwich, but nobody would think that by looking at it. Same as the three panel ball. It doesn't represent something if only they say it does. Same with the M and B being connected in that logo at the top of the glove webbing. That line that now connects the two letters is supposed to represent a connection between the fans and the team. It's just a glove design that they liked better than the original. Again, nobody sees that glove webbing and reaches the conclusion that the Brewers are trying to make. It's like if a stoner were studying the back of his hand and thought he found the meaning of life. That's the cheeseball stuff that is eyerolling. The jerseys and logos are fine. Probably something for everybody.

Having a massive increase in merchandise sales from this rebranding could definitely bring in some extra cash to be put toward the payroll. So in a way, it could help with upping the payroll and having the space to bring in an extra piece or two if not for the rebrand. I have no idea how much they make in merchandise, but surely there is a buzz around the new looks. If that's Gerrit Cole money or Minimum Salary Guy money, I don't know. It would take a lot of merch sales to pay for a $300+ million pitcher.

Oh, don’t get me wrong- the ‘bond between the city and the team’ thing is absolutely crap. But I don’t think the tweaks were made to cause obsolete items. If you asked the designer honestly, he’d just say it was because he thought it looked better. Yes. We agree. It was time for a logo reset, with Majestic out and NIKE in, with Miller out and AmFam in. With the 50 year celebration...All valid reasons to change the look of the team and to update the merchandise. But using that unveiling to pretend that they designed it to communicate affection is patronizing. Instead, they could have said, "It's cool new gear and we hope you like it and hope that we're wearing it as World Series Champions". The rest is just sales pitch noise.

I guess I'm just jaded then. I think the logos are fine and people seem to like them. I like the barley ball and the home cream jersey. But the special-meaning-behind-the-change gobbledygook is insulting. They liked a 3 panel ball instead of the pepsi ball. That's fine, but don't sell it to me as having some deep emotional meaning. They made that up. Nobody sees a three panel ball and thinks "they love me more". A meaningful change that the Brewers might make to signify their special bond with the fans would be to splurge on a starting pitcher or two. Or some way of getting people through security lines faster. Not a drawing of a baseball on a sweatshirt they want to sell me.

Sure. They took the beloved Ball in Glove logo and changed it to signify their devotion and love for us. Because nothing says "I Love You" like a little blob of ink that makes all of the other apparel you've bought over the years obsolete. They did this to sell more stuff. That's a perfectly valid reason.

I had the same spirit of optimism about 10 years ago, dreaming of taking my daughter to games. Despite many years of attempts, she just never found the experience much fun, and often was ready to leave by the 3rd inning. it's not her fault, she likes what she likes and is generally happy and well rounded. Baseball just meant nothing to her, and my ticket package became a burden. I discontinued it this past year and didn't go myself even once. And I didn't miss it at all.

I think it's a reflection of changing tastes, but that is a result of the traditional way of experiencing live baseball as being unsatisfying to enough customers to merit the change. Baseball games are too long and too boring to be plopped in a single seat watching all of the non-action. The Brewers are trying to make it enjoyable for the fans who don't want to just sit there.

They must have data that says this is a better way to use that space, so I trust they're doing this to better use that area to serve their fans. It's probably easier to sell access to a section than it is to have assigned seating in a traditional seat. We'll see if it works.

How is it that a Popeye's chicken sandwich can become a craze? I sort of understand when people wait in line for a new phone or tickets to an event, or even the Black Friday folks. But I can't imagine getting worked up about a fast food lunch.

Arcia is 324 Plate Appearances away from securing his place on the Brewers Wall of Honor.

The NCAA still wants to be one to say what's allowed, while the recent California law makes no such deference. This matter isn't over, and it's not going to be up to the NCAA to decide.