kramnoj

I could be wrong, but I'm guessing that since there are reports that a TV contract is in place, it would be too late to negotiate.

On the bases he's still a liability, for every extra base he takes via steals, 1st-3rd, or scoring a run when other players on the roster wouldn't have gotten the extra base he gives back by making very poor decisions that lead to outs on the bases. The stats at b-ref disagree with this. Granted, he's not nearly the + runner one would hope for a player with his speed, but the numbers don't really support him being a liability.

I saw Morgan cost the Brewers at least 4 runs in the playoffs alone last year, while I watched Gomez save that many I bet you've seen really good hitters go games without getting a hit, and I bet you've seen very poor hitters hit for the cycle. A couple of games in a short time span is not indicative of true talent. I don't agree that Morgan is a far better choice against RHP. With the bat yes, but you can't really quanitfy how much good defense adds. If you don't believe you can quantify the advantage Gomez brings, why would you advocate using him? We can quantify defense to some degree, and Gomez's plus in the field doesn't compensate enough for his deficiencies at the plate.

I've read that there are rules requiring making a fair offer to a posted player. I believe that if there was an extreme case of a team posting a high number with the sole intent of blocking that player could have it's bid removed and the right goes to the next highest bidder. I don't believe that it has been enforced, but the leagues did anticipate that maneuver.

Is it just me, or does this seem like irresponsible GM'ing? What do you feel is irresponsible? $2.5 Million is like the signing bonus for a draft pick, and Aoki has a better chance and a much quicker chance of contributing to a major league roster. It's a move to help the major league roster given the possibility of Braun being gone for 50 games, as I certainly don't want to see Gomez as a starting OF to replace Braun. The playoff hopes of the 2012 season are too important to hope that someone from the minors is ready to contribute meaningfully right away.

I heard one fan with fun speculation on 1250 this morning - Greinke could negotiate his own contract and save himself the agent fee of 5% or whatever a MLB agent charges. Let me just throw out a number, lets say Greinke went to the Brewers and said he would sign for 4 years and $52 million - he would save himself $2.6M in agent commission.

Casey has an excellent memory. Here is a link to a thread that discusses ratings for 2009 and 2010 - http://brewersfandemonium...-2010-reply-16ish?page=1 In 2009, the Brewers actually had more total viewers than the Angels when this rating was released. In 2010, the Angels were getting about 23k more viewers, but Milwaukee had a rating about 4 times higher.

It has been mentioned at times that he could or would increase the payroll by injecting personal money into the team. Has this been explicitly stated? I thought there was just a general idea that there are players that the Brewers will find money for. I don't recall it being stated that the extra money would be coming out of ownership accounts directly. Maybe it means that there are certain players that the Brewers would go over budget by getting an advance on a credit line they have (for example, the Mets got a $25M loan from MLB).

Sorry I'm not buying that. Yankees had home grown talent, but their rotation was bought and paid for for years: Wells, Clemens, Cone, Mussina, and on and on. Only Pettitte was home grown. 96 - Cone and Rogers were making $5M each. Not a small amount, but not banking the break either. 98 - Cone up to $6.7M, Wells at less than $5M 99 - Cone up to $9.5M but definitely worth it, Clemens at $8.25M, but he was traded from Toronto, meaning it wasn't just the Yankee money machine that thought he deserved that salary. 2000 - Cone at $12M and bad, Clemens at $6.35M. Mussina joined the Yankees in 2001, so he wasn't there for the previous 4 WS years. In 1998, the Yankees were actually outspent by the Orioles, who were relatively close in other years.

but just being in the post season over and over again, being the byproduct of the Yankees money machine, won't make me vote for a guy. The Yankees did outspend other teams, but not nearly to the extent that happens today. They won because they had a core that they developed and supplemented that core with smart signings. I would like to vote for Bernie, as CF aren't represented to the point that other positions are, but I think he just misses even my big hall. I would probably vote for Bagwell, Larkin, Edgar, Crime Dog, Raines, Trammel. I would have to look closer at Larry Walker. His career was too short, but he was a great player.

Albert Pujols, Prince Fielder, C.J. Wilson, David Ortiz, Jonathan Papelbon, Roy Oswalt, Jose Reyes and Jimmy Rollins were also Type A free agents this offseason. They will cost one draft pick to sign. Their teams will obtain two total picks if they decline offers of arbitration to sign elsewhere, as expected. Takashi Saito and Carlos Beltran, two other Type As, cannot be offered arbitration. Ken Rosenthal of FOX Sports first reported the changes. http://www.mlbtraderumors...-type-a-free-agents.html

Then when evidence is presented that the majority of the playoff teams have a top 5 league payroll you just dismiss it by saying lower spending teams aren't trying? I don't think data from 1998 is all that relevant to today. MLBAM wasn't pouring money into team revenue as much back then. You also first brought up massive payrolls, then switched to top 5. Those aren't the same thing, as just listing top 5 doesn't tell you anything about the difference between the top 5 and other teams. As far as dismissing lower teams spending, I addressed it because you brought it up. Since when does the amount of money spent on payroll directly correlate with how hard a team is "trying"? I would say for decades. It's possible to build a team cheaply, but most teams that are trying to win are going to be in the middle of the pack or higher when it comes to payroll. If you believe that teams that have the lowest payroll often are trying to win, provide evidence to support it. What exactly are you arguing then? I've argued that the Brewers could keep Fielder at his level of production. The numbers that you cited don't equal Fielder's projection.

The irrational argument that the Brewers can sign Fielder to a $25 million a year contract for 7 or 8 years and still have enough money to be competitive? Do you see someone making that argument? Or is that another strawman? What this shows me is that teams with a top 5 payroll are much more likely (almost three times more likely in the AL and almost 8 times more likely in the NL) to make the playoffs than teams with bottom five payrolls. Teams with a top two payroll make the playoffs about 75% of the time total. Teams with the lowest payroll very rarely make the playoffs. Why should we expect teams with the lowest payroll to make the playoffs more than rarely? Most times, if a team isn't spending money, it isn't trying to compete.

The Brewers have limited resources and have to determine where to spend the limited money they have. While Boston and New York don't technically have unlimited funds, they can certainly afford to pay most anyone they want to without having to sacrifice other positions like the Brewers do. Every team has limited resources and has to make decisions on where to spend them. As a Brewer fan, I don't worry much about what Boston and New York do. If at some point they meet in the World Series, I can worry then. Stop being so technical about this Logic gets in the way of irrational arguments. This is assuming Fielder agrees to that. As long the value of the contract equals what Fielder wanted, it wouldn't be a major obstacle. And then you say we'll just have a rotation that includes a couple of young cheap arms from the farm, like it's a given that this can happen. In order for the Brewers to be competitive in the near future, it will be highly important for this to happen. And that is true regardless of whether the Brewers signed Fielder. What I mean by that is that teams with the ability to have massive payrolls have a built in advantage over the teams that don't. If it's true, its easy to show. Define what massive payroll means, then show how the built in advantage actually equates to more playoff appearances compared to teams who make smart decisions.

Even if you just look at the last 20 years of Free Agency, 4 years is relatively small. The previous 16 years aren't all that comparable to the last 4, with the different CBAs and the immense amount of money coming in from MLBAM. So, you think that the Brewers could add Fielder next year without dropping anyone on their current roster and still maintain a payroll of around $90million? I think the math has already been done on that and it has been shown that this is not possible. I've advocated in the past that the Brewers can structure a contract to anticipate future conditions. So maybe Fielder gets paid $15M in 2012, but it goes up to a higher figure when we will have 2/3 of the OF be cheap for years and the rotation includes a couple of young cheap arms from the farm. If the Yankees have overpaid for a guy like Texeria in the past, then Fielder and Boras look at that as the benchmark and anyone who wants his services needs to fork over that kind of money to get it. It doesn't matter what the bar is, if there aren't teams that feel it is reasonable and wish to spend the money. If there aren't enough teams with money that think Fielder is worth past contracts, he won't get it. Just because I make a sarcastic remark does not mean that I'm beating up on a strawman Then what was the specific purpose of the remark? Just because you have a team full of "value" players does not mean you have a good team. It just means they did the only thing they could do with the limited amount of money they had to spend. You are absolutely correct. But having a decent team that is providing good value may leave money available to make mid season acquisitions that can propel a team into the playoffs, as the Brewers have done twice in the last 4 years.