kramnoj
-
Posts
2,293 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Milwaukee Brewers News, Rumors & Analysis
2026 Milwaukee Brewers Top Prospect Rankings
Milwaukee Brewers Videos
2022 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
Milwaukee Brewers Trade & Free Agent Rumors
Milwaukee Brewers Fan Guides & Resources
2023 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
2024 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
The Milwaukee Brewers Players Project
2025 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
2026 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by kramnoj
-
After watching a good chunk of Larsen's perfect WS game, I don't ever want to hear again about how hard guys threw in the old days. It doesn't make any sense to judge the pitchers of an era based on the pitchers you saw in one game. Larsen retired with a losing record and an ERA+ of 99. He had a few decent years, but he never really even had one good, full season. His high for game starts in a season was 28. Sal Maglie had a nice career, but you saw him as a 39 year old. One other thing to keep in mind was the medium that we were seeing. We were basically seeing film from a camera that was put in front of a television. Certain things were distorted, for example the outfield didn't look nearly as big as it really was.
-
Would you sign Derek Lowe for 3/50 ?
kramnoj replied to TwinsBrewersWorldSeries's topic in Transaction Rumors & Proposals
The Hot Stove report was just Heyman speculating, I don't think it was based on anything. I thought I read that Melvin was interested in Lowe but was told that Lowe would get better offers elsewhere. But I may be misremembering. If the Mets try to low ball Lowe and if there aren't any other teams in the running I would definitely see if he was available. He might be available for 4/$60M. He would probably be worth it for the first two years and then the Brewers would regret it for the last two. I'm just not sure that the Brewers are close enough in 2009, even with Lowe to make that kind of move. -
MNBrew, can you tell me how ZR is subjective? ZR has problems, in that it doesn't know how to account for shifts, but that's different than being subjective.
-
Granted Giambi did have some decent years Have you actually looked at what Giambi did? His best years were OPS+ of 172, 161, and two at 148. Two of those years he had 155+ games and the other two he had 139 games. That is far more than "decent". Hammonds, meanwhile had a first season where he only played 49 games and produced a 91 OPS+, his second season he played 128 games for a 93 OPS+ and he was cut in his third season after playing 10 games. For a 3 year contract, the Brewers got barely more than a year of production, and it was at a below average level. You said that the Giambi deal made Hammonds look like a bargain. Just because something is less expensive doesn't make it a bargain. The Brewers didn't get anything close to value out of Hammonds. There were certainly years where the Yankees got value and something close to value out of Giambi.
-
This data is seven years old, but it should give some perspective: http://www.baseballprospe...rticle.php?articleid=1297
-
Red Sox nearing deal for Penny?
kramnoj replied to StearnsFTW's topic in Transaction Rumors & Proposals
It's so frustrating that teams like Boston et al can take risks like this, and if they don't pan out, it just doesn't really matter. You make it sound like the Brewers didn't do this with Gagne. I'm sure Melvin looked at Penny but other teams were willing to guarantee more money. -
I'm just not into guys with "mental" issues. I'm not making light of it, If you're not making light of it, putting quotes around mental doesn't serve much purpose. Besides, the Greinke talk is more idle speculation than anything based on what the Royals are doing. The Royals have shown a willingness to spend money with Meche and Guillen, they aren't going to trade away Greinke because they don't want to pay him.
-
"Red Sox eyeing Mauer in 2011"
kramnoj replied to RU Rah Rah's topic in Transaction Rumors & Proposals
Unless your projecting some huge injury, there has never been any speculation that Mauer would move from catcher. There was speculation about Mauer moving away from catcher before he was drafted, because there isn't a history of success of catchers that are as tall as he is. The Twins will have the money to retain Mauer, it's just a question of how much he wants and if the Twins will pay up. The thought over at bbtf among some smart Twins fans is that Mauer will sign before he becomes a FA. -
They have more world championships in the past 11 years than the Brewers have had in their entire existence, so I don't see how you can say you don't try to compete. Have you been paying attention to what the Marlins have done so far this offseason? They have traded away useful major leaguers for not a whole lot just so they wouldn't have to pay them in their arbitration years. How does that fit in with your belief that they are trying to compete? Secondly, did you really not read the other sentence of my post, where I say that the Marlins have it perfect because "As a baseball team, they build around youth and every now and then they can supplement the youth with veteran talent to go for a championship." As far as a salary cap, I don't think anyone is missing any point you are making. The sport has never been healthier in terms of revenue or attendance, and there isn't an example of a well run team that can't make the playoffs. The MLBPA won't allow a cap, and baseball would be incredibly stupid to lock out to force one. It is just not likely to happen, so there isn't much benefit to trying to come up with a plan that includes one.
-
Lowe, but he won't sign with the Brewers. After that, Garland, Oliver Perez, Randy Wolf, Odalis Perez, Byrd, Redding, Sheets, Penny (but I think he already has better offers) plus other minor pitchers or long shots (Pedro, Smoltz, Mulder, etc). As far as trades, at one point Melvin was talking about acquiring a pitcher through trade rather than FA. I wonder if he explored options and didn't see the value he wanted.
-
The Jason Giambi and Carl Pavono deals make Hammond's deal look like a bargain. Pavano, yes, Giambi, no way. Hammonds didn't have one good year for the Brewers. Giambi really only had one really bad year and one year where he missed a lot of time and was below average in the games that he played. I would say that Giambi had 4 good-very good years, and last year was so-so for his salary. Cashman has made some horrific signings but they go unnoticed. Unnoticed by whom? Pavano certainly gets more blame for his contract than Cashman does, but there isn't a critic of Cashman that doesn't bring up Pavano. Igawa was certainly a poor decision, but critics of Cashman are aware of that too. You're probably exaggerating, but I just don't think your statement is true.
-
I am sure the Marlins would love a salary cap. The Marlins have it perfect right now. As a business, they make far more money now than they ever would if they actually tried to compete. As a baseball team, they build around youth and every now and then they can supplement the youth with veteran talent to go for a championship.
-
JB, if you are going to mention tv ratings for baseball and not mention that ratings for MNF are down and that TV ratings in general are down, then you aren't making any real point at all.
-
A floor is the first order of business, not a cap. A floor would just mean more money goes to mediocre or even inferior players, it wouldn't do that much to make teams competitive. Teams should be required to spend the money they get from revenue sharing on improving the team, whether that be major league players, more scouting, international academies, etc. The only problem is that there isn't any way to actually prove that unless teams opened those portions of their books to the MLBPA.
-
I don't mean to sound rude, but anyone who think baseball has competitive balance is nuts. If it's so completely crazy, you should be able to easily prove that there isn't reasonable competitive balance. Choosing three teams and insisting that they all miss the playoffs in one season doesn't do so. Its the owners who are taking all the risk by paying hundreds of millions of dollars for a franchise and then being forced to pay guaranteed contracts to players who may stink it up so bad that the team actually cuts them while still paying them (see Jeffrey Hammonds). The owners are only obligated to pay money to players they sign to guaranteed contracts. The fact that the Brewers signed Hammonds to an awful deal is the Brewers fault, not Hammonds.
-
The luxury tax is just lip service and is meaningless. That the Yankees are the team that only repeatedly signficantly crosses the luxury tax line shows that it isn't meaningless. Other teams do use it as a guide as a border that shouldn't be crossed. The problem isn't the luxury tax in and of itself, but there are related problems. The money collected from the luxury tax isn't directly distributed to other teams. It goes into a central fund that is spent at the discretion of the comissioner. Also, with the Yankees and their stake in YES, the Yankees aren't paying themselves their full revenue for rights fees, meaning that they aren't properly sharing all revenues. There's one last thing which is basically a Pandora's Box. The Yankees are probably technically losing money, and there isn't a provision in baseball that prevents them from doing so. The Yankees are on a different playing field, on quite a few different levels.
-
Without major corporate sponsorships, MLB will go bankrupt. This is hyperbole. Teams will adjust their payrolls based on expected revenue. If a team has to non-tender players because of lack of revenue they will do so. National and local TV are guaranteed in rights fees. If suites and tickets stop selling, teams will adjust prices to find a level at which they will sell. Any team with a great FO may be able to be competitive, but the fact that some teams can have awful FOs and still be competitive year in and year out is pretty blatant competitive imbalance. The Yankees have made bad, even awful decisions. That doesn't make them and an awful FO. There isn't 100 % competetive balance in baseball, but it's not nearly as bad as some make it out to be. I think some people who compare the NFL and MLB competitive balance don't take into account that a greater percentage of NFL teams make the playoffs, so that a direct comparison can't be made.
-
There is no need to limit the amount of money that players can get. Collectively players are being paid a smaller portion of baseball revenues than just a few years ago. JohnBriggs, you contradicted yourself. You said the White Sox and other big market teams are dominating the playoffs, but the Twins have still been very competitive. Both of those things can't be true. Well run small market teams can manage mid-market payrolls and can compete. For just about any team, the reason they aren't competitive is because of lack of talent in the FO, not the amount of money they spend.
-
MLB will have the HD equipment, but it's possible that the local cable companies don't have enough channels to provide both a regular MLB channel and a HD MLB channel.
-
So if the Yankees threw in a low level arm with Melky Cabera to get a top 10 CF they'd be overpaying? The deal didn't get done because the Yankees haven't made a fair offer. The deal didn't get done because the Yankees didn't have enough of a need to get the deal done. If their need was greater, they would have made the deal while adding more value. It's clear that desperate teams overpay. Kazmir for Zambrano being an example. You could say it was a stupid deal, but desperation results in stupidty (and overpaying). Now I don't expect Melvin to make a deal like that. But I also don't expect another team to just trade away something that Melvin wants because Melvin has a need. Once that need is exposed, it only makes sense that the trading partner will extract the most out of the deal that they can. Neither Sebathia nor Harden were dealine deals. No, but they were closer to the deadline than the start of the season, and they wouldn't have been available at the start of the season. You're evading the question. You said that a team can make a trade when they have a need, and then you said there are plenty of pitchers available at the deadline. What happens if a pitcher goes down in ST, or in the first month of the season?
-
A players trade value is dicated by the numbers of teams pursuing the player. Whether its a need of yours or not means nothing. I just don't think this is true at all. One of the reasons that the Cameron trade isn't happening is because the Yankees didn't need him. He would have been a nice upgrade at a reasonable cost, but Cashman wasn't going to give up more than he wanted to for him. If it's in the season and Cashman loses a CF and the Yankees are falling behind the playoff race, Cashman surely would be more likely to give up a low level arm, and maybe more to get the deal done. Pitchers are available at the deadline every year, and there pricetag is pretty standard stuff. Your previous point was that a team should wait for a need to develop before acquiring a 6th or 7th starter. What if you need that depth before the trade deadline?
-
While I realize the team will likely need 6 or 7 starters over the course of 162 games, couldn't we wait until the need arrises to aquire them? That worked out OK last year. It's not a good idea to make a trade in need, because you are likely going to have to overpay when your trade partner knows that you have a need. I would also disagree that CC was acquired because of a need. He was acquired because he was available, he was a significant upgrade, and the Brewers had the pieces to make it happen. I don't think that anyone who is "defending" this deal would like this to be the primary move the Brewers make. But if the better pitchers are asking for deals the Brewers don't want, and if Looper will improve the current pitching staff for a reasonable deal, it makes sense for the Brewers to do it.
-
The Brewers have info that we don't have. They know how many season tickets have been renewed, they know how many holiday 4-packs they have sold. If the Brewers aren't going to add to payroll, I suspect it will be because they are forecasting fewer ticket sales and are planning accordingly. Actually, I think we should accept that there will be fewer tickets sold this year, it's just a question of how big the drop will be.
-
In other words, at the start, at least, they will be feeding us all Yankees and Red Sox stuff most of the time One of their early shows is going to be called Hot Stove. Considering the Yankees are spending the most money so far, the network would be doing a poor job covering the Hot Stove if the Yankees weren't a big focus. There just isn't much reason to talk about the Arizona Diamondbacks right now. Once the season starts, their live show should be representative of all the teams. After all, it's a live show that is going to be on for 7-8 hours, there will be plenty of time to give all teams their due.
-
This information is almost seven years old, but it is the best source of information that I have seen regarding non-player expenses: http://www.baseballprospe...ticle.php?articleid=1325. At that time, non-player expenses ranged from $35M-$84M.