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.

Come on. In my experience, anyone who starts off a post like this is isn't interested in a real discussion. You think they are letting Fielder go because it's not a "good decision" to re-sign him? Absolutely. Well why is that? If you have to ask this question, then you aren't following the discussion. Which nicely ties into my previous observation. The reason it is not a good move is because of the financial impact of it This makes no sense. The Brewers will have a payroll that is larger than the combined salaries of Braun and Fielder. They could afford to sign Fielder to whatever contract he will sign. The reason not to sign him is that the money he is asking for can be spent in better ways. They can't afford to take a risk on such a long term deal because if he gets hurt or starts to play poorly at the end of the contract they probably won't be able to replace him. So, wait, you are saying the risk of a long contract is bad? But that understanding that risk and not offering a better contract to Fielder isn't a good decision? Do the Yankees have either of these problems? To my knowledge, they have had it once, when they chose Randy Johnson and late career Bernie Williams over Carlos Beltran. I would say they are having that issue now, when they aren't in on the best position player free agents. Have they ever been stuck with a crap rotation because they can't afford better pitchers? That easily could have been the case in 2011, but they got incredible performances out of Colon and Garcia, pitchers any team could have afforded. It may happen in 2012. Was it a "good decision" to extend Sabathia, or Jeter, or, or Rivera? Or to sign Texiera? Will it be a good decision to extend Cano? Yes, No, Yes. I thought so at the time, not looking good now. Depends on the money and years. but I don't think anyone is arguing spending more money always equals more success. Plenty of people keep bringing up money and saying there is a competitive balance problem, without actually showing that teams that spend money and make good decisions have a problem competing.

Did you ever hear of something called "small sample sizes" and how they generally don't tell the entire story You actually have to prove that it is a small sample size, not just believe it. Everything that I have read states that the Brewers can not go to much over $90million. Adding Fielder at $20/mil per year or whatever it ends up being would pretty much mean they would have to trade someone like Hart, Weeks, or Gallardo. It doesn't mean that at all. It means going cheaper at a few more positions than normal. For the right player, it's a decent risk. He can do that because of teams like the Yankees and Red Sox or any other team that seems to have endless streams of money to spend that dictate the market and what every player will be paid. This is basically what I have a problem with. Fielder isn't currently linked to the Red Sox or the Yankees. What teams do you believe have endless streams of money? Oh well, I'm sure Gamel will give us the same production that Fielder did. Beating up on strawmen is a pretty clear sign that you don't have an actual argument to make.

You can't just take a four year period and say "see everything is great" Why not, because it doesn't fit well with your beliefs? Sure every now and then one of them will miss it, and every now and then someone like the Brewers or Rays will make it. 50% and 75% out of a given timeframe doesn't equate to every now and then. Who do you realistically expect to maintain their success more, year in year out? The Yankees or the Rays? Are you talking the near future? The Yankees have players that are being vastly overpaid for a number of years and it's not a guarantee they will have even a league average rotation next year. If the Rays make good decisions, there's no reason they can't extend their success. The rules for them are you can keep either Braun or Fielder, but you can't keep both. That's not a rule at all. The Brewers have the flexibility to afford Fielder for his production. He is seeking a contract that exceeds his production. The Brewers not keeping Fielder is a good decision, not something that should be lamented. Teams like the Yankees and Red Sox don't play under these same rules. That to me is what I define as a "substantial competitive balance issue" The Yankees and Red Sox are successful when they make good choices. That's the biggest thing that separates them from the Mets and other teams that spend without success.

What about the ten years before that? I think you are in serious denial if you don't acknowledge that Tampa was an expansion team and was not managed well for years. I think you're in serious denial if you don't think money has a major affect on success That's not what was stated though. It was stated that there is a substantial competitive balance issue. So, if one were to state that the game is broken and that teams that don't spend massive amounts of money can't compete, how would one support that?

I just scratch my head at those who suggest that a payroll gap of $150+ million between the largest and smallest payrolls (and the large standard deviation of all the team payrolls) does not create a substantial competitive balance issue. The Rays have made the playoffs as many times as the Yankees in the last 4 years despite a massive payroll difference. It's easy to think that it's a problem, it's hard to demonstrate that it actually is a problem.

One game he batted leadoff and got on base 3 or 4 times while making some great plays Gamel batted leadoff once in 2009. He did get two walks, but didn't get a hit. Getting on base half of the time would be great but that's not likely and it's not like he drove the ball so well that he should have been immune to sitting on the bench.

I think that gets repeated without much serious analysis. I guess it depends on what Reyes signs for and what Greinke wants for an extension, but it wouldn't be impossible to get them both in the budget. It just means that the Brewers need to rely on cheap players at quite a few positions. They will have cheap production at catcher for a few years, if they go with Green and Gamel at the corners they will be cheap there for years, CF in 2012 will be moderate, and could be cheap for years afterwards. It means relying on pitchers from the farm and cheap FA pickups to fill out the bullpen. It means replacing Wolf in 2013 with a farmhand. It means replacing Hart with a young OF when his contract is up. The Brewers would have to hit on nearly all their young players that are close for it to work, and most of those players probably project to be more average than stars. It's definitely a risk, but I think it's best to take risks on players who are All Star caliber rather than fill the holes with veteran FAs.

I agree that 2 months is a reasonable timeframe, and that is very close to what Gamel was given. The Brewers played 50 games in that period, and Gamel appeared in 43 of those games and started about half of them. I don't really think having a few more PA in more game a week would have had a dramatic impact on Gamel's ability to hit during that time. I am rooting for Gamel to do well, it would be great if he developed into a solid 1B for the Brewers. I do think his situation should have been handled better. But I do think he was given a shot to earn the job, and he didn't show that he should have. Many players who ride the minor league buses would love to have been given the shot he had that year.

The point is, all players go through stretches like that and they mean absolutely nothing. Gamel has not been given a real chance no matter what anyone says. This is a fact. That's not the point that was made. What to you would constitute a shot? How many PAs should be given to a player who isn't contributing?

Hart's defense is terrible This is overstated. he also hit .236 with 2 outs and RISP That's Voros Law sample size. Do you really believe that is significant? If so, why? Over his career, Hart has done this 2 outs, RISP 339 408 365 99 22 4 19 141 9 1 38 80 .271 .348 .510 .858