kramnoj

I highly doubt that would go into effect until the 2012 offseason. Since the offseason has already started and teams are starting to think about whether or not to offer arby, they can't just change the rules mid-offseason. Here is Jayson Stark http://espn.go.com/mlb/st...step-forward-source-says "The other major issue that is still unresolved is a change in compensation for premier free agents. The union is pressing for a new system that would either no longer require teams to give up first-round draft picks as compensation for signing a top free agent, or would like to reduce the number of players who would qualify as "Type A" free agents. Club officials and agents both believe the uncertainty over those changes, and whether they would take effect this winter, has had an impact on the current free-agent market."

The Brewers management and coaching staff have never, I repeat, never given Gamel a real chance at the big league level. From May 22nd to July 19 in 2009, Gamel accumulated 123 PA in 43 games. He OPSed .699 in those games.

Gamel is also out of options. With no outstanding alternatives, it's likely he'll start the year at 1B. I don't think they'll stick with him all that long if he struggles though. He's going to have pressure to produce right away. The challenge with that is that if Gamel earns the job in ST but then doesn't perform well for a few months, the Brewers don't really have a replacement at 1B ready to call up. I guess that's where the Hart to 1B gains momentum, as it is more likely that an OF will be ready to call up and not have a place to play otherwise.

I wouldn't be as worried about the pick since they'll be getting something for Fielder. The CBA is still being negotiated, and the players want to get rid of teams giving up a pick for signing a FA. It's not a guarantee that it will exist in what agreement is reached.

I'd give anything to see the books If you haven't seen them already, the financial reports leaked on Deadspin for a few teams are quite detailed. One could probably guesstimate some Brewers income and costs by looking at other teams.

I think in particular once they hit get their new TV deal they should be completely capable of spending 110 million dollars. One effect that may happen with the new revenue from the tv deal could be a decrease in the amount of revenue sharing funds the Brewers get. I don't think we know the formula to know what that effect may be, but its something to be considered.

Besides, the presumed value Narveson would have to the Marlins is cost control. The Marlins would be getting the inferior player who has more service time than the better player they are trading away. There isn't any upside there. Amateurish is harsh, but having the first move be a trade that isn't going to happen doesn't make a good impression.

The real reason Gamel was not in a Brewers' uniform in September of 2011 was hidden cleverly: Milwaukee is NOT high on Gamel One could argue that Milwaukee wasn't high on the one thing that Gamel would be asked to do in September - pitch hit. Gamel's defenders will argue that he did well when he was playing regularly, and that is true. But it also then highlights just how pathetic he was as a DH or PH. As a reference, point, his performance in those 73 PAs is worse than Betancourt has done in any season. There wouldn't have been much value to add a player who wasn't expected to do well at the one thing he could be called on. It probably didn't help that Gamel was previously called up and then told the Brewers he was hurt and couldn't contribute. There wasn't much upside to the potential for distraction.

Guys like Narveson can be found in FA every offseason You aren't helping your defense of Breen here. If this were true, the Marlins would have no need to trade someone away for a piece they can pick up as a FA.

If GMs were so good at in game strategy, how come so few were ever big league managers? For the most part, managers are former players. If not from the majors, at least minor league experience. Yes, there are exceptions (Jack McKeon), but that is the standard. Players like to be led by men who have been there before, gone through the wars, etc. If this standard didn't exist, we could have female baseball managers. I bet Hawing would be a better manager than quite a few who have held the position.

I think your definition of could is a bit broad. Punto has started a total of 234 games at SS over the course of his career. He's only played in 120 games in 3 seasons. It would not have been a good bet that he could have done that at age 33 and do so all at SS. The fact the Twins consistently played Punto at the wrong position doesn't mean that much.And the fact that he didn't regularly reach the level of total games played that you advocate? You didn't address that. In 2 of the 3 seasons that he has played the most games, he has had two of his worst offensive seasons. His two best seasons by OPS+ were when he played less than 100 games. There isn't much reason to expect him to both play a lot and be at his best in the same season.

I think your definition of could is a bit broad. Punto has started a total of 234 games at SS over the course of his career. He's only played in 120 games in 3 seasons. It would not have been a good bet that he could have done that at age 33 and do so all at SS.

That you state it as if it's a fact shows a bit of arrogance on your part if you ask me. I'm not the one that has said that others are fooling themselves. My statement is clearly a fact - The White Sox have made the playoffs once in the last 4 years, the Giants once, the Mets none. So the Brewers have as many playoff appearances the last 4 years as those other 3 teams do, combined. What evidence is there to support your notion that those 3 teams are all in every year?

Doesn't it bother you that every off season there are 2 - 4 free agents that the Brewers and many other teams can't even begin to consider? No. The big free agents sign contracts that won't match their performance for the most part. You never hear that in reference to the Yankees, Phillies, Red Sox, Mets, White Sox, Giants, because they are all in every year. If you think the Mets and White Sox and Giants are all in every year, then I think we've identified the problem here. Your perception is not matching the actual situation.

So, if Attanasio were to state that the Brewers were going to increase their payroll to $150 million next year would that excite you? Would you think that would give them a better opportunity to be successful than with their current payroll of $90 million? I'm not sure how you could possibly answer no to that with a straight face. If you can find anywhere where I said money isn't an advantage, please let me know. I've said I don't think it represents a problem. In your example in you last post you conveniently left out Philly and NYY (the top two teams in terms of payroll and two of a handful of teams that drive and control the FA market). I've already said money is an advantage, saying that NYY and the Phillies are doing well doesn't add anything to this conversation. But it is interesting that the Rays have made the playoffs the same amount of times the last 4 years as the Yankees, despite the massive payroll difference that you say presents such an advantage that it is a problem.

The Red Sox haven't finished under .500 since 1997, and the Yankees haven't since 1992, the Angels have had 1 season under .500 under their current regime, the last 10 seasons. Why is finishing over .500 now the conversation? Spending as much money as those teams do and just having a winning record is a disappointment, not proof that the system is broken. If you can develop internal talent at the same rate as other teams, and augment that talent with the best pieces you need via free agency, how is that not an advantage? I haven't said it's not an advantage. I just don't see it as a problem, because not all big money clubs are run wisely, and because teams who spend and do so wisely can compete. Over the last 4 years Brewers 2 playoff appearances Rays 3 playoff appearances Twins 2 playoff apperances Dbacks 1 playoff appearance Rangers 2 playoff appearances (they have been a mid level payroll team the last 2 years) Red Sox 2 playoff appearances Angels 2 playoff appearances Dodgers 2 playoff appearances Cubs 1 playoff appearance Mets 0 playoff appearance When I see that, I don't see a broken system that prevents teams that are trying to win from doing so.

Burnett, Soriano, Jeter, Posada made a total of 55 million last year, and combined for less than 3 rWAR. Their bad payroll was 60% of the Brewers TOTAL payroll. To suggest that a big market team does not have an advantage is ludicrous. I think you should re-examine those sentences before throwing around words like ludicrous. Because one of the disadvantages of having a huge payroll is that agents and players know there is money to spend and will wait until they get the money they want, because they know they can. That means that players will be overpaid, decreasing the monetary advantage. Just because a small market team can compete on occasion, does not mean they can compete year in and year out with big spending, well run teams like Boston, NYY and LAA. The Brewers have more playoff appearances as the Angels and Red Sox over the last 2 years.

I think the argument is pretty coherent. The difference between the largest payroll team and smallest payroll team is about $175 million. That's not that much of a problem, as the teams that are at the bottom aren't trying that hard to win. There is a massive payroll difference, but you haven't actually shown how much that is an actual advantage. Teams that have smart talent in the front office making smart moves are going to have a shot at the playoffs, and I think they probably have just as good a chance as teams who spend massive amounts of money and spend it poorly. If you don't think that there is a definite and clear advantage to big market teams in baseball, then you must have just become a Brewer fan this year. I'm not even really sure how this makes sense. The Brewers made it to the playoffs in 2008 and the Mets didn't.

Option on Betancourt and Krod declined http://espn.go.com/mlb/st...e-brewers-decline-option

There's no need and not much benefit to giving a vote of confidence right now. The point is that if the Brewers wanted to spend on the FA market, they can do so by going with in house options at 1B and 3B at the minimum.

I'll don't understand how people can make these claims. What proof do you have that this is the case? There were the leaked financial documents posted on Deadspin. It showed the Pirates owners paid themselves a dividend and the Pirates said it was to pay the taxes of the owners. But the Pirates wouldn't have had that money to give to themselves if they didn't get the revenue sharing money. Do you know what they get in revenue sharing? In 2008, they got $39 million. That gives them a payroll of $66 million. That's still less than 1/3 of the Yankees payroll. They don't really have to worry about the Yankees until they get to the playoffs. The problem is that there are windows for these teams. This is also true in the NFL. There are teams that aren't competitive every year, even with all the revenue sharing. Teams like Milwaukee have to trade away their farm system in order to have some success, while teams like NY, Boston, etc, can pretty much be guaranteed success every year under the current system as they can continue to buy any talent they need. The farm system exists to make the major league team better, and trading prospects for players that will improve the team is one way to build a playoff team. On the other side, Boston hasn't made the playoffs the last two years, the Mets don't make the playoffs on a regular basis, the Dodgers haven't made the playoffs in the past two years, the Cubs haven't made the playoffs the last 3 years, etc. I find a system that pretty much excludes over 2/3 of the teams from FA's like Fielder, Pujols, Sabathia, etc to be broken. He's one player, and many here feel that he won't be worth whatever contract he signs. That doesn't seem to be a problem. I don't see anyone fretting over the small market Packers ability to keep Rogers in future years. They had no problem keeping Farve for all those years The Brewers had no problem locking up Braun for all those years. They had the ability to lock up Gallardo, Weeks, Hart for future years. There is a problem with baseball and I think people who say there is not are just fooling themselves If you want to say that others are fooling themselves, you should have a coherent argument.

He might not be lying about his age, but he looks a lot older than most people I know to be his same age Greg Oden looked 35+ when he was 20.

What would be the purpose of the salary floor, and what level would the floor be? I would like better enforcement of revenue sharing going to improve the team, whether that be through major league contracts, minor league signing bonuses, foreign scouting/academies anything else that is designed to improve the talent on the field, either immediately or in the future. I don't see any purpose in teams scrambling to sign Overbay to a contract for more than he is worth just to lift the team to a salary floor that won't project to make the team significantly better.

Not only that, Jeter has two years and 30 million left. He could easily fall completely off the cliff as a hitter next year or in 2013, to combine with his Betancourt like range at shortstop. The new batch of ZiPs is starting to come out, and it has Jeter projected with an OPS+ of 82. That's what Carlos Gomez provided for the Brewers this year. That's a pretty harsh age decline from this year, but Jeter did have an OPS+ of 90 in 2010, and there isn't a lot of history of good shortstops at age 38 (that can probably be said for a lot of positions). The point about Arod is certainly true. It certainly is a cautionary tale for any team that is going to pursue Pujols if he wants a 8-10 year deal or Prince if he wants an 8 year deal.

Well, I hope for their sake they ignore your advice, but I don't think there is any way Reyes gets less than the 7/126 base that Crawford and Werth have gotten the last 2 years, Which two teams do you think will be competing for Reyes so heavily that he will get that much money?