kramnoj

This rotation is not nearly good enough to compete for a playoff spot with. What would you have said about the Phillies rotation at the beginning of 2008? The front end pitchers are better, but overall this staff isn't that different than what the Phillies were projected to get in 2008.

I just fail to see how propping up franchises who can't compete is fair or just or in the end productive. Having baseball in more cities leads to more fans being able to spend money on baseball. If the Brewers didn't exist, the Chicago teams would make some more money, but with a good team in Milwaukee, more total money is spent on baseball. Baseball benefits from this. These small market teams aren't going to all of a sudden double in population, etc. It doesn't matter if the population doubles. What matters is the effect that revenue sharing can have on making a team competitive, and the results that can happen. Attendance in Milwaukee in 1995 was less than 1.1 million people. Attendance last year was over 3 million. The Brewers last year had a higher attendance than the Red Sox. Yes, Fenway is smaller, but it's still impressive that the smallest market in baseball can draw that many people, and it only happens because of the current revenue sharing program. Baseball at this point wouldn't benefit from contraction. Having fewer teams in the league means that the next national tv contract will be smaller, because there will be markets that won't be as interested in watching baseball. This seems like a strange time to make these arguments. Baseball has never been healthier as a business. Making the argument that the Brewers should be contracted after the success they had last year doesn't make any sense.

Yes, contraction. As soon as you get rid of jobs, then wages come down to a more realistic level. You are starting off on a wrong premise. There is something wrong in baseball salaries, but the problem is that players are making a smaller portion of baseball revenues, not that they are paid too much. Baseball had more revenues in 2008 than ever before, and the portion of dollars going to major league players has been declining for the past several years. If you have a problem with the salary that Suppan is making, your problem should be with the Brewers, not Suppan, as they are the ones who decided to give him the money. As for revenue sharing, do you really not know that the Brewers are a major benefactor of this program, and that you wouldn't have enjoyed the last two seasons without the current revenue sharing?

Either Sheets medical reports are very negative or something crazy is going on here It doesn't have to be either/or. Both can be true. The crazy thing going on is an economy that has practically frozen the budgets of quite a few teams, meaning there is less money to spend on FA talent. Teams would rather spend on the reliable mediocrity of the Garlands than spend on the unreliable goodness of Sheets. Sheets injury history, the nature of his most recent injury that has teams thinking he is a Surgical Patient Walking, his demands for a multi-year deal, it's pretty clear why he's not signed yet. Sheets will get a deal for probably $5-$6M for one year with some incentives in there, it's just a matter of time until he realizes that is his best option.

I think they did bid against themselves. There is one report that another team offered more money, but it doesn't mention the team, so I don't know if that was made up to keep the Mets honest. It's my guess that the Mets knew they could afford it and didn't want to risk losing Perez, as they valued him more than any remaining free agent. I think they decided they would rather overpay and get what they want than play chicken and risk losing.

They are relevant because they were the opinion of Sheets, and I don't believe he has said anything or done anything to show that the opinion has changed. Sheets wants a multiple year deal and the Brewers aren't interested in giving him one. It's that simple. I'm not sure why we should be looking for some rift when there isn't any evidence of it.

To think that Melvin went into the offseason expecting to lose Sabathia and having no interest in resigning Sheets at any price and having no plans whatsoever to replace either of them is mindboggling. There's having opinions, and there is being just plain wrong. Melvin had an interest in retaining Sheets and did so by offering arbitration. It seems clear that Melvin doesn't have much interest in offering a multi-year deal to Sheets, and I find it hard to argue with that. There are still pitchers on the market. Wolf and Looper are available and the competition for them is dwindling. I think Melvin has played this as well as could be expected. He is watching a game of musical chairs, and he is waiting for a player to be left standing when the music stops. Once that happens, he can move in with a low offer and the player won't have much choice but to accept.

I think it's time to accept that Sheets just doesn't want to be back in Milwaukee. I'm not sure why we should accept that, when we have evidence to the contrary (Sheets saying "You can't invite yourself back"). Sheets wants a multi-year deal with a salary that he feels he is worth. Unfortunately for him, no team is willing to comply. Right now it looks like the Rangers are willing to give him a contract, but not one that Sheets wants, and the Brewers have offered one year deals, even when they know Sheets wants multiple years. If the Brewers would give Sheets a market deal for 2+ years, I don't see any reason to believe Sheets wouldn't take it. But it seems clear that the Brewers won't commit to two years, and while some may not agree with that, I can understand their decision.

By all accounts, Escobar is an outstanding fielder...... but will he ever hit enough to become a "star", One of the situations that a team likes the Brewers will face is that they can't pay market value at every position. If Escobar is only league average but can do so for the minimum for 3 years, that would have huge value for the Brewers. His trade value has never been higher Sure, he's going into his age 22 season. But Hardy would bring back more in a trade than Escobar would.

Yeah, guys like Tex and CC get their huge paydays, but how about the younger players? Did you mean older players, or are you making a different point? There aren't that many younger players that are FA. Most younger players are arb eligible, and the arb process seems to do well for pre-FA players. As far as making younger players more money, the minimum is $400k, that is a nice salary for players who sometimes don't contribute much.

Players won't approve a higher luxury tax specifically because it would curtail the Yankees spending. CC and/or Burnett would have made less money this year if the luxury tax was higher. Why do you prefer a higher luxury tax to increased revenue sharing? Luxury tax money goes to a slush fund controlled by the commissioner, it doesn't go directly to teams.

This will force the other teams to sign the other free agents since the Yankees can't sign them all and would lower the salaries then leading to more competitive balance. Limiting the ability of the Yankees to sign free agents won't force other teams to sign free agents. Look at what is going on right now. There are plenty of free agents to be had, and they aren't getting contracts right now. Lowering salaries won't neccessarily lead to competitive balance, it just means less money for the players, which they won't agree to. And player salaries have been dropping in baseball in comparison to baseball revenues for years. Getting the players to take less money shouldn't really be an issue. Baseball should have more revenue sharing and that revenue sharing should have to be spent on baseball operations. Hopefully the talk about a salary cap is really just public negotiations that lead to a compromise that increases the revenue sharing.

Cost certainty has been said several times as a valid reason why this deal makes sense for the Brewers, but I think it can go into further detail. Every player that was eligible for arbitration this year will be eligible for arbitration next year (and will presumably be more expensive), plus Villenueva will be eligible as well. If Melvin wants to have a handle on his payroll before the end of January next year, locking up Fielder for $10.5 can help that a little. If Fielder has a great year, he could have got millions more next year. That might give the Brewers enough flexibility to add a reliever or a couple of veteran bench players for 2010. It's a year away, but here's a look at what Melvin has is looking at for 2010, all figures in millions(courtesy of Cots): Suppan $12.5 Fielder $10.5 Hall $8.4 Riske $4.5 Braun $1 So that's $36.9M committed for 5 players. Then you have the players in arby this year, who will make around $16M (or more), plus Villenueva. For those 7 players, there is a fair amount of uncertainty. If they all have good years, you could add 50% or more. So if Melvin is looking ahead to the 2010 budget, he probably has to reserve $24M for arbitration for 7 players, and maybe more. Actually, Rivera will presumably be eligible for arbitration too, but I can't imagine he will cost too much more than minimum, and if he does the Brewers may try to save money elsewhere. Anyway, the Brewers are probably looking at $61M for 12 players. Let's say that Melvin can guess that he has an $85M budget for 2010. That means he has somewhere around $24M to spend next year, but right now he's not sure if can rely on the farm system to fill CF or C. Anyway, that's a whole lot of guesswork on my part, and it's a really long way of saying "cost certainty".

Like it or not, Prince is the face of this franchise and the single reason why the Brewers are back on the national media's map. I don't think this is true. Look at the player the Brewers are using to promote the 9-packs: http://milwaukee.brewers....specific_MIL_9packs010909 The Brewers have Braun under contract through 2015. He's clearly the face of the franchise. As far as the single reason that the Brewers are on the national media's map? I don't think you can support that. The CC trade was a huge boost for the Brewers image nationally. The Braun signing made national news. The playoffs obviously can't be ignored.

IIRC, before Fielder had a late season surge, his offensive advantage really wasn't that much greater than what his defense was costing the team. While it wouldn't be accurate to say that he didn't provide much value now, it wasn't that ridiculous for a big chunk of the season.

Casey, is this the chart you are talking about? AVG: 0.7244 OBP: 0.8340 SLG: 0.8421 TA-orig (~TB/PA): 0.8739 BOP (~TB/outs): 0.8955 FOES: 0.8990 OPS: 0.9231 ABSO: 0.9250 EqA: 0.9268 OBP*SLG: 0.9310 2OPS (2*obp+slg): 0.9323 GPA ([1.8*obp+slg]/4): 0.9326 RAA/PA: 0.9344 wOBA: 0.9350 R/G: 0.9355 from: http://jinaz-reds.blogspo...-do-i-keep-using-ops.html

You make good points bani717, but it's worth noting the time that the Brewers get to sit on money spent for season tickets for months. I don't know enough about high finance to be able to say to what degree that benefits the Brewers, but it's something to consider.

I never said that Rice was HOF worthy. and But five great seasons to me does not put a guy in the HOF. There are two issues here. One is what your personal thoughts are regarding the HoF. The other is now that Rice is in the HoF, how can one intelligently make the case that Raines shouldn't be in. By your personal standard, a player needs 6+ great seasons to get in the HoF. The writers either don't agree, or don't understand what a great season is. You also seem to have set a standard of 150 games for Raines but don't hold that standard for Dawson. No one has ever walked their way into the HOF, and no one ever will. The first part is true, the second part doesn't need to be. One of the problems that Raines faces is that he walked so often that he didn't get 3k career hits, even though he had a .294 batting average and played in over 2500 games. I don't think the writers know how to value those 1330 walks that Raines has. This is getting old. Over 75% of the writers do not think Raines is HOF worthy, and they are not an uninformed group. You are in the minority on this one. I would definitely dispute that the writers are fully informed when it comes to how to judge the value of players over their career. The fact that it took the writers 15 years to vote in Rice indicates that the writers have problems judging HoF talent. Either he should have gone in far earlier or he shouldn't have been voted in. As to me being in a minority, that seems pointless. You should be arguing the merits of my points, not assuming that because I am in the minority that my points don't have value.

That's pretty cool news. Besides the teams moving into new parks, how many teams besides the Brewers raised any ticket prices? Even the Red Sox held prices. Fun with attendance numbers. Attendance in 2003 was 1.7M. Attendance in 95 was less than 1.1M.

But five great seasons to me does not put a guy in the HOF. Can you point out the 6+ great seasons that Rice had, using your cut off of 150 games? I would argue that Rice had a 3 season peak and had other valueable seasons that range from goodish to very good. That's the problem with Rice's election, now that he is in, the writers will have a tough time explaining why he's in and others are out. Raines had a career OPS+ of 123, while Rice had a career OPS of 128+. When you take into account that Raines had great value on the bases while Rice did not and the probability that Raines had more defensive value and that Raines played in over 400 more games, it would be tough to explain why Rice is in and Raines is out. Raines career OPS+ is actually higher than Dawson, who only has a 119+. I would be curious which 6+ years you consider to be Dawson's great seasons in which he played 150 games or more. Well, then .286/.395/.418 with 9 HRs and 60 RBI for a cleanup hitter is poor. For a leadoff hitter (76 runs scored) or a cleanup hitter, that was not a HOF-worthy season. So shall we classify it as a mediocre season for a leadoff hitter, or a poor season for a cleanup hitter? Are you really going to call a season in which a player has a .395 OBP, which was 71 points higher than what a league average player would have put up in that environment poor or mediocre? His OBP was 5th in the NL that year. I would guess that Raines didn't rack up big numbers in either RBI or Runs because he batted both leadoff and cleanup that year. 71 games hitting cleanup and 65 games leading off. As to your comparison to Lofton, he only hit the mark of 150 games played twice. He doesn't belong in this conversation. He does belong in a discussion of centerfielders and if the BBWAA does a good job of selecting CF to the HoF.

You need to have guys hitting behind them with power to drive them in, and after Dawson left Raines didn't have that and thus his runs scored went way down. People see the OBP for Raines and get excited, but they often don't look over to the games played and runs scored and realize that it wasn't that great of a season. It looks to me like you are acknowledging that Raines Runs scored are dependent on the players behind him, but are still punishing him for not succeeding. I think you need to dig deeper into the stats again. Are you assuming that Raines was a leadoff hitter in 89? In 89 Raines started more games hitting cleanup than he did leadoff. That obviously is going to have an impact on runs scored. In 89, the Expos scored 632 Runs. I think you need to adjust for his scoring environment before saying that he didn't score enough.

Per this link, revenue sharing is 34% of net local revenue: http://www.forbes.com/200...ons-cx_mo_0420sports.html Merchandise sales outside stadiums are split equally. From this link, it says that each team received $3M from leaguewide merchanise sales, even though the Yankees represent 27% of all sales.

I don't think it's likely, but they have a chance. Look at the pitching that the Phillies had for the first part of the year. When they came to town for the first time last year, I certainly didn't think I was watching the team that would win the WS that year. They need to have a lot go right for them, and they need to have other teams suffer some bad luck. I think they will be competing for the WC with the Cards, the Phillies and the Braves (my guess is that the Mets and Cubs win their divisions and that the West won't have a WC contender). They could be a mid 80's win team and get into the playoffs if those other teams blow close games or suffer key injuries.

It's worth noting that Mazeroski was selected by the Veteran's Committee, not the writers. It should also be noted that he had an excellent defensive reputation and an important WS HR. He wasn't really selected for his career offensive statistics. But that doesn't change your first point that Dawnson and Bert should get in. History has shown us that just about everybody that gets over 60% will get in. I don't believe there are any first balloters debuting next year, so the writers would do Cooperstown a favor by voting those two in next year so that we don't have a year without an induction.

LouisEly, ignorance has different connotations. That you chose to compare Raines to McGwire rather than Henderson and that you think that his patience had more to do with his height and crouch didn't show that you had any appreciation for Raines. There is nothing in your first post that indicates you think Raines was good, let alone very good. As for the shape of Raines career versus others, I think you are making some wrong assumptions. It's not unusual for players to develop power in their 30s. Hank Aaron had his highest ISOs in his late 30s. Are you going to accuse him of steroids? What I posted was how do you explain five consecutive years of declining slugging %, followed by an increase in slugging % after the age of 31? Which 5 years are you talking about? Are you talking about the 4 years from 88-91? We need to look at some context here. 87 was a power spike year. We should't use that year as the baseline for anything. Raines ISO in 88 was higher than it was in 86. Really, I think it's much more fair to say that Raines power dropped 3 consecutive years No it wasn't due just to batting average Who said it was just due to his batting average? I said that was responsible for a chunk of it. For example, compare 89 to 83 and 84. If you just look at slugging and think that slugging = power, you will think that Raines hit for less power in 89. But Raines ISO was the same or higher in 89 to those years. His slugging is lower because his batting average was lower in 89. This is the 2nd year of 4 years of decline that you are using as your proof that Raines did steriods. As for other reasons why his slugging was lower in those years, look at his games played during those years. Raines played only 130 games in 90. Players usually miss games when injured, so I am going to guess that in the games that Raines did play, he may not have been 100% healthy. If someone is injured, their power can suffer. Look for example at Braun last year. His oblique was hurt, but he kept playing and it sapped his power. So you believe Raines was on steriods because you think his slugging dropped 5 consecutive years, but the largest stretch is only 4 years ( I say 3), and you are doing so because you are equating slugging to power, without adjusting for the batting average component that slugging has and you aren't accounting for the fact that Raines was probably injured in one of those years and what impact that may have had. You can make the case that Raines was just very good instead of HoF. I don't see any reason to say that he was on steroids, and to accuse someone of that so irresponsibly is something I find disgusting.