JimH5

Arcia makes plays on defense that are nothing short of spectacular. And he has occasional hot streaks at the plate. But the sum of his career to this point is that he's at the bottom of MLB in WAR by most measures. His unproductive bat was a factor in the Brewers being shutout so often last year. With all the strikeouts in baseball, there are fewer and fewer chances that will make it to defenders, so Arcia's numbers won't compare to elite defenders of the past. But I think his glove is on par with the upper tier of those shortstops. I just don't think they can carry such an out maker over the long haul.

I have not used them to buy or sell. But it does seem like a good site for determining market value. They move a lot of stuff through there, so everything from high end graded to commons seems to have a price.

Yes, Miller isn't a member of the MLBPA. He was a replacement player in the 1994 strike and those guys were not allowed to join. Kevin Millar is probably the most well known guy in that category.

If you have complete sets, I would keep them together. If you have unopened packs or boxes, those might be worth something. Otherwise, I'd pull out the Hall of Famers and consider the rest of them junk. You can check Ebay or COMC.com for an understanding of what they'd be worth. Sadly, yours are from an era when the whole world was awash in baseball cards. Other collectors might think otherwise. Fortunately, online searches will give you a good idea of what you have. Doubtful that a card shop would want them, so you're probably looking at selling them on your own.

I think these rings are mostly garish and awful. But, it is the thing that all athletes strive for. And Oscar was the other key player on that championship team. And an NBA 50 guy, Hall of Famer, averaged a triple double...all of that. He was the best non-center player in the game for awhile. If I think about it as a trophy to be displayed instead of a ring to be worn, then it's more palatable. Not that I'm going to bid on it.

SCP is auctioning some of Oscar Robertson's stuff. For those with the deepest of pockets, here's his Bucks championship ring: https://catalog.scpauctions.com/OSCAR_ROBERTSON_S_1971_MILWAUKEE_BUCKS_NBA_WORLD_C-LOT42316.aspx Kareem's sold for $150K.

And the biggest myth that keeps getting repeated is that the increase in franchise value must mean they have the financial means to support a huge payroll, even if it means taking on debt to support it. I trust that you're right. But let us assume that they don't take out a loan to pay operating expenses. What is a cash call? Isn't that a plea to the owners of a business for cash to fund day-to-day (operating) activities? Is that a loan to be repaid, or an infusion of new capital? Couldn't that money come from non-owners, and what would that be called? What happened in the Connie Mack days when a team's revenue fell short of its expenses? Where did the money come from to satisfy the shortage, and what was that called? And what about a team in today's era that budgets to have X in revenue, but actual revenue is less than X. Maybe ticket sales are lower than expected, or ad revenue, etc. If they had a tight budget to begin with, I'm assuming that shortage would be satisfied by their cash reserves. What if those reserves fell short? They are talking about using the unrealized gain in their homes (even if they have to take out a loan to cover it) and then hiring a maid or a gardener (operating expense). There are people who do that now. Mostly senior citizens or people on disability who have equity in their homes, a fixed income, and the sudden need for a day nurse or other living expenses associated with illness or aging. Those people are able to tap into that equity to meet living expenses. Or really, anyone who has ever opened a Home Equity Line of Credit. There are no limits on what one can purchase with that debt. Right?

You’re applying theory of fairly liquid assets to ownership in an entity that a select few can purchase. A house has a readily available market. So does that artwork, or even that building. How many people can truly afford to buy a 46 billion dollar franchise like the Yankees? Bill Gates and Warren Buffett? You may well be right, but I think it’s dangerous to universally apply a theory like this without actually knowing it’s true. Far too much talking in absolutes in this thread without actually knowing real numbers and mechanisms for my liking. I don't want to be a blowhard know-it-all, but I would think collateral is collateral. And I can't believe that he couldn't find a lender willing to lend money for other projects. Why would money earmarked for new concession stands and videoboards be any different than money earmarked for a staff ace?

I don't have factual knowledge. But I'm not just talking about home equity, either. When an Art Museum purchases a piece of art, I doubt it is always a cash deal. I believe there is financing based on the sale of other pieces in their collection. When a business finances the construction of a new building, it is based on their ability to pay it back, either from future earnings, or the value of the business itself. Isn't it? What else is financing other than money borrowed with the obligation to pay it back at terms that are acceptable to both sides?

I'm sure if you had something of extreme value, you could borrow off of that value without having to sell. Isn't that what collateral is? Lenders would offer financing on that value, and they wouldn't use an imaginary number. They would conduct an audit and lend based on real worth.

No, but they could. I think we're using Midwest values to determine what is prudent and what is excessive. Just because we wouldn't buy such an expensive, flashy car doesn't mean we couldn't. And it doesn't mean he shouldn't. And you're talking about a 75 percent increase over 20 years, while the Brewers have had a 400 percent increase over 14 years. Baseball teams go through cycles where they are competitive and then they're not. The Brewers are at the peak of that cycle. So if they find themselves lacking at a position and have a trade partner with an expensive player coming back, that contract shouldn't be a factor.

I don't know what a minority owner would expect for a return on their investment. Some investments are dividend producers, others are sold based on growth potential. In either case, I'd expect that Mark A would have made his plans known to them so they're in alignment on what the investment produces for those owners. Even if it has not paid a dividend, an original investor in the Attanasio group would have seen his investment multiply by 4 or 5 times in 14 years. Not too bad at all.

I don't think Attanasio owes us anything. He's been a terrific owner and I'm glad that he is here. But if he wants to win a World Series, while Uecker and Selig and Aaron are alive, this is the year. I don't think Dallas Keuchel should be had at any price, nor Craig Kimbrel. But this also isn't the time to be thrifty. He has made a very nice return on his investment.

Yes, Patrick. That is 100 percent true. All things being equal, a large market, large revenue team has more capacity to take on additional payroll than a small market team. What I'm saying is that the Brewers are worth more than 4 times as much as the current ownership group spent for the team, and that they could use some of that increase in franchise value on player contracts, even to the point of operating at a loss. Should they? I don't know. But they could. And also the financial performance of the business isn't the only thing driving the value of the franchise. Team ownership is an exclusive club that is desired by others.

It's self imposed because they are not stupid! Steve Ballmer paid $2 Billion for the Clippers. Was it a good deal? Probably not, but it was his one chance to buy an NBA team in Los Angeles. Sometimes the super wealthy will spend their money in was that are pleasing to them, without regard to whether or not they turn an annual profit.

I'm not saying they should spend it on payroll, only that they can. And that whatever limits they have on payroll are self imposed. Their asset is worth over $1 Billion. And there shouldn't be any shortage of lenders willing to loan them money on that asset. The other thing to remember is that the Brewers are a business, but the value of the franchise isn't only determined by the success of the business. It is determined by how much someone is willing to pay for it. The fact that sports franchises are rare, popular, and exclusive makes ownership attractive. The super wealthy want to be in the club. That's why fine art will sometimes (not always) command huge prices. Not because the asset is a profitable business, but because it is rare and other rich people want to buy it.

I understand their desire to earn a profit. Other teams want to earn a profit. I want to earn a profit. But they have >$700 million in gains. They don't need to be profitable every single year. It's not required to keep the lights on. I look at it like a person who has lots of equity in their home, or in their investment portfolio. If that person wanted to quit their job and start out on their own, they could afford to do so. They could borrow on that equity for awhile. They wouldn't absolutely need to be profitable the first year, or even for several years. Maybe it's not realistic, but when an owner announces he's All In, that could come with the expectation that he operates at a loss to achieve his goal. Businesses take short term losses all the time to invest in reorganization, stock buybacks, acquisitions, etc. Isn't this the same as that?

They could borrow money against that increased value for any reason, including player contracts. It's probably true that other teams don't do that, but the Brewers are an asset, and that increase in value belongs to the ownership group to invest if they want to.

A reminder that the team has increased in value by more than $700 million since Mark A bought the team. They can afford to sign or retain any player. Being a small market team should not limit their roster construction.

I don't disagree with an of this. I only disagreed that we were in some way entitled to know what was going on or that the Packers weren't well within their rights to no longer talk to a particular writer if he wrote an article. Especially one like this that is incredibly controversial, would have been far-far more controversial during the season or the McCarthy era and is only slightly less so now that Rodgers has a new coach and the GM who was getting sick is out and we have a new GM. I WANT to know lots of stuff. I want to know exactly what our offer is to Kimbrel. But this is a corporation. If they don't want to allow interviews to someone after this type of article, I don't think that's the least bit outlandish. It's not so much that we're entitled to know this stuff, as it is that a reporter should be entitled to tell it without fear of retaliation against himself or his news organization. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE reading this kind of stuff. Mostly because it's so rare to see it amongst the boring game stories and draft analysis and contract stuff. That Rodgers has hated McCarthy his whole career and was calling plays in the huddle because he thought his coach was a clueless dope--that's the most delicious thing I've read about this team in years. I'm just bothered that the locals felt compelled to sit on the story. Someone keeps bringing up the Knicks owner Dolan. I honestly could not care less about that guy. I won't care about him if/when Durant signs there this summer. I don't think I'll ever care about him. But he denied interviews to the press for an extended period of time because he was getting bad publicity. Exactly what I'm talking about. The difference there is the rest of the org leaked like a sieve. I've brought him up twice. And if Dolan doesn't want to talk to a specific reporter, that's fine. But he shouldn't be able to use his position as owner to deny press privileges to reporters or newspapers who rip him. Papers there don't tolerate being bullied like that and it shouldn't happen in Milwaukee or Green Bay. The media's duty is to the public, not the Packers. I've reached the end of my rant on this, so I'll let you have the last word if you want.

Cultural as in Cult-ural. The Packers influence over this whole state is absurd. I think the only way to break that is with a few 3-13 seasons. That might knock their halo askew.

This is the biggest Packers story of the offseason. It's on every talk show, tv station, news site. It's being discussed in offices all around the state, and is the subject of several posts in this string. And it was reported by a respected guy who used to work the beat, next to colleagues from the Press Gazette and Journal Sentinel. And with the local tv sports men and women who deliver us the "news". I just find it disturbing that he wouldn't have been allowed to write this story if he worked locally, but since he has the distance of working for Bleacher Report, that gave him the freedom to write it. Presumably, the toxic relationship between Rodgers and McCarthy was known by other reporters. But they couldn't dare write it, for fear of angering the team they are supposed to write about. This story would have driven traffic to whichever news organization published it, but locals apparently aren't allowed to. The Packers are treated like royalty in this state, and we're all treated like the kids who let them ride their bikes after practice. Again, read how James Dolan, Woody Johnson, the Wilpons, etc. are treated by the NY media. When those guys deserve to be taken to task, they are taken to task. And until yesterday, the Packers mostly hadn't been. And it took the safety of a national sports website to do it.

Anyone with a Pension plan is earning deferred money. It's part of the compensation that you're earning now, to be paid at a later date.

If fans want to ignore any bad thing about the Packers, that's on them. The media shouldn't have to. There has been a lot of bad stuff that has happened in sports. The Falcons doctors dispensing painkillers in quantities that were unlawful. Players commiting domestic violence. Dave Kingman being abusive to a female reporter. Ben Roethlisberger's history with women. Ryan Braun's PED suspension and the details around that. The list is very long. Teams shouldn't get to freeze out reporters who choose to write unflattering things about them.

I don't get this statement. Who should it not be "tolerated" by? It shouldn't be tolerated by media members and media companies, and it shouldn't be tolerated by their customers. The Packers shouldn't use access as their way to force editorial control. Newspapers have an obligation to their readers, to report the news. They don't have an obligation to the Packers to sit on stories that reflect badly on them. Look at how James Dolan is treated by the NY media. And he doesn't force silence on media that is critical. The NBA wouldn't tolerate it, and NY media and NY readers wouldn't tolerate it. Why should it take Tyler Dunne NOT working locally for him to have the freedom to put out today's story? The Packers are treating local media like their own publicity departments instead of independent news organizations.