kramnoj

surfer--some guys just have manlove for branyan, and have a hard time being objective about the 3b situation. What areas would you to like to be ojective about? Branyan leads the Brewers in OPS+ this season. He is currently in a minislump, but he should get back to providing league average or better production again. hall has more upside, pretty obvious. This season is no longer about upside. Branyan should be expected to hit RH better this season, and their overall defense seems to be about the same. he's played for 6 (including 2x for bbrewers) teams over 9 years and has never had more than 380 ab's. As a LH batter, he shouldn't be expected to face LHP, so it makes sense that he maxes out around 2/3 of a season. branyan is a below average role player. You can't support this. Branyan is a role player but he has generally been average or above in that role. maybe the other mlb teams he has played for saw something to limit his play or release him. I would never let the mistakes of other teams affect the way that I view a player. i'd rather have troy glaus than either hall or branyan. Not sure where this came from. This doesn't seem like an option right now, so not really relevant. Given salary and performance, I woud take Glaus over Hall, but I wouldn't take Glaus over Branyan. Edit: To address the point of the thread: I think it's too early to know what the Brewers will do here. Obviously they have stated an interest. There are currently two FA LH players available. That they aren't with the team probably indicates the level of interest in them that the Brewers have, or vice versa. There may be a veteran LH bat that Melvin will go for, but he will probably wait till the end of the month to let more teams really fall out of contention and go into sell mode.

I'm sure there's some stipulation in the collective bargaining agreement or the individual player contracts to prevent this from happening, but I could see some day a player suing a team over lost future wages or something over this exact same type of situation. Can you provide a link? I'm not sure that's the case. The whole point of making the team keep the player on the ML roster for the whole year is to provide a disincentive for a team stashing a player, but if the team knows it's going to stink, that's not much of a disadvantage. Re the thread: I loved Cirillo, and felt bad that he couldn't find success outside Milwaukee. Sure, he made nice cash, but money doesn't make up for the dread of batting .205. Looking at his career, I didn't know that he had two seasons with over .400 OBP!

I admit to not being knowledgeable about minor leagues, but I've heard rumblings that Brad Nelson may be lost in the Rule V draft this offseason because there may not be enough 40 man spots to protect him. With Nelson putting up a 900 OPS at age 25, I would guess that he would be attractive to other clubs. If that is the case, would Melvin be trying to package him in a deal for a reliever or a PH bat? I bring this up, just wondering what value Nelson would bring most to the Brewers: a September callup that gets a few ABs or used in a trade to acqure someone that the team feels can improve the club for the stretch. Also, I have an arby question: If someone were to get called up Aug 31, how much service time would they get? Would it be 1 day, 31 days if they were here for all of September, or something different? According to the roster management link here, a player doesn't have to be on the major league roster Aug 31 to be eligible for the playoffs, just on the 40 man: http://www.brewerfan.net/ViewRosterManagement.do . If I understand it correctly, if Gamel were placed on the major league roster on Aug 31, that may use an option, but it really wouldn't affect Gamel's future FA status, because a player needs 6 full years of service time to earn FA. It would presumable affect future Super 2 status.

Are you counting minor league innings? Parra had 139 IP in 2003 as a 20 year old. Parra also had over 132 IP last year between the minors and majors. In 2006, Sheets had 128 IP between the majors and minors. Now it certainly is possible that those innings as a 20 year old were too much for him and may have contributed to his injuries over the ensuing seasons. So monitoring his pitching and health is obviously of high importance. I've made the comparison before: testing a pitcher's arm is like driving on ice: You can handle the situation just fine until you go to far, and then the chance of disaster is high. Finding the border between safety and danger zone, without ever getting into the danger zone is dicey. So it's best to dial back to where you know that you can control it, but then you have wasted resources (time, or IP, in this comparison).

I think quantity works when one team clearly has organizational needs, as the Brewers did in the Sexson deal. But it makese sense that if you are just offering 4A guys that don't improve the other's teams quality or depth, they aren't going to give you anything for it.

I was wondering why this was in the major leagues section. I didn't realize that a player in the minors that was injured got to accumulate service time on the major league DL. And a friendly little hint to all that were surprised: you can often put your cursor over a link to see the first details of the link. Something I learned while avoiding clicking to places I don't want to click into.

The team formerly known as the Devil Rays gave free parking for a season, IIRC, to try and boost attendance. I'm not familiar with any other owner recently giving away a free game. I'm not even sure why there's a discussion about paper loss, or interest, or debt, or "hiding profits" and I really don't understand why scummy has been introduced into the conversation. Just because a team wants to pay off its debt load doesn't mean it's not real and doesn't take away from the profits that a team makes in a given year. It would be one thing if Attanasio came out and said the team was losing money and had to sell off talent on the cheap and couldn't afford to sign any free agents. Instead, Mark is saying something quite different. He's saying the team is still looking to improve and he's said that the CC deal may put the team in the red this season. People are needlessly stating the obvious without actually addressing the point. The team is still looking to make this team better, even it means that this year's budget will be exceeded. I think that's great and I can't ask for anything more out of an owner.

No. It's nothing like it. It's treating an individual as an individual based on their words and their actions rather than assume a stereotype. Attanasio has done things to show that he is different than other owners. He has given fans a free game. He sits in the stands and talks to fans rather than secluding himself all the time in a luxury suite (some other owners may do it, but I don't think it's standard practice). There isn't any dispute that we don't have access to all the books to determine where the negative cash flow may be. But that doesn't really matter, and I'm not sure why people feel the need to point it out. There are franchises that pocket revenue sharing money and don't improve the team. They deserve to be criticized for failing to provide a worthy product. But that isn't the case with Attanasio.

All companies do that stuff. Privately held ones especially. Even Mark A. and the Brewers! They have all those darn loans still, right? Nobody is disputing this. The Brewers have made a nice profit in the recent past. They should make a nice profit in the future. In the Brewers fiscal year of 2008, they may spend more money than they will bring in. Assuming that is true, it's not going to stop the Brewers from making other acquisitions to improve the team this year if the team identifies a need and finds a match that makes sense. That's really all that is being reported. I guess there's a question of why Mark even mentioned it. I know some business owners that love the Brewers and love what Mark has done to improve the club. They will go out of their way to buy Brewers gear at MP because they know that in some small way that the Brewers and Mark will benefit from that. Maybe Mark is just letting us know that he appreciates the support the Brewers are getting and that the team is extending its budget this year to improve it more. He probably knows that by doing so, some in the community will dig a little deeper in their pockets to support the Brewers.

I am sorry if you are offended but the comparison to car salesmen and gullibility may get to the heart of the matter in a way that less sincere language couldn't. If you have to be insulting to prove a point, is it really a point worth making? The history of baseball suggests that you should not give owners the benefit of the doubt that they are telling the truth about their revenues. This is where we differ. I am going to treat Mark like an individual and not be prejudiced against him because of the actions of others. Mark A. and his partners may be taking a loss according one financial perspective That's all he said, yet some here still need to question it. The Yankees have been losing money for years, but the value of the team keeps going up because they are building the brand. Nobody is saying that getting CC is a bad financial move. The only thing that has been said is that this team this year may be in the red.

But believing a baseball club owner's representations about profitability makes you about as gullible as if you believe a car salesman's representations about the profit he's making. This seems needlessly insulting without actually making a point. If you look at your own links, it says that the Brewers operating income was $19.2 million before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization. If you add that to the $71 million the team spent on player payroll last year, we are right around the $90 million rough guess on what this year's payroll is right now. Yes, this team should draw more and make more revenue, but Melvin was making a general statement. Once you add in the interest, taxes, etc, it's still not unreasonable that this team will spend more in 2008 than it brings in.

Sherrill is an interesting guy. In the independent leagues until 26. He would obviously be an improvement over Mota, but so is DeFelice. In his career he has allowed a .370 OBP to righties, that's not really good. I think the fact that he is under control makes him attractive to keep and too expensive to get for the value he brings. He obviously had a very good year last year, but his career ERA+ is only 118 and just 112 this year.

You also have to take into account that Hart is a taller player. Taller players normally don't age very well. Is this based on something you've read, or just an observation? Because baseball players as a group don't age well.

I dont see the Brewers allowing his arbitration wins to go past the 2nd time. He will become too expensive to hold onto. He'll be gone after 2009. The Brewers spent $10 million to take a chance on Gagne and will be paying Suppan over $12 million the next couple of years. I can't see them trading away Fielder because they think they can't afford him. In 2010 the Brewers should have a cheap guy at catcher, they should have at least one cheap guy in the rotation and hopefully they'll have a cheap guy in CF as well.

Good point about the talent of the Pirates OF, but of course he wouldn't actually be a 4th OF. In a different universe where Braun is a Pirate, he could play 2B with atrocious defense and would provide more value than they are getting out of 2B right now. 50 OPS+ from Freddy Sanchez! Regarding Marte, I initially thought that a RH reliever would be more preferable than a lefty, but Damaso has been good against RH as well.

He's just laying down groundwork for ticket/food increases for next year. But he doesn't have to do that. The Brewers have been able to do that this year and past years while making a proft. I don't understand why people are so suspicious of this ownership group. I don't find it at all hard to believe that in 2008 the Brewers will spend more money than they bring in. I don't think it's that big of a deal either, or the team wouldn't have made the move to trade for CC. You have to keep in mind all of the other revenue as well though. Good point. Here is an 2001 article that looked at the books of baseball . Here is the total postseason revenue for teams that made the playoffs: Team Postseason Revenue New York Yankees $16,000,000 Arizona Diamondbacks $13,000,000 Seattle Mariners $7,392,000 Oakland Athletics $2,686,000 Atlanta Braves $2,629,000 Cleveland Indians $2,000,000 St. Louis Cardinals $1,488,000 Houston Astros $519,000 Chicago Cubs ($17,000) New York Mets ($154,000) from: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1305 BTW, if anybody is really interested in looking at baseball finances, that is the best series that I have ever seen.

I also strongly question that the Brewers would lose money this year, even if we miss the playoffs. Do you have a real basis to question him? This is the guy that gave Brewers fans a free game. I'm not aware of any other owner that has done that. I think a lot of people would be surprised at how much teams spend in non-player expenses.

LouisEly, the Brewers don't get to keep all ticket revenue in the postseason. If you would like the details the following article does a good job of looking at who gets the playoff revenue: http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2007/10/04/playoffs_not_ticket_to_riches/ The Tigers and Cards from 2006 got less than $7 million each in revenue for going to the WS.

Because the market is wrong. Market prices don't have to be accurate, they're flawed and very human. The marketplace for #3/4 pitchers is way overvalued. It is what it is, but that doesn't mean I'm stupid enough to buy into it if I was a GM. You can choose to not participate in the market, but then you won't be signing FA that are in demand. Suppan has improved the team while he has been with the Brewers. The relative certainty of Suppan's averageish inning eating is valued and thus costly. Melvin may have been able to try to pick up starters off the scrap heap, but he chose to imprve the team with a market deal and has received market value.

Probably the next in line is Chris Errecart. He is 23 and has an 887 OPS in AA right now and is their main 1B. The speculation about Prince being traded seems to be messageboard material, as far as I can tell. I'm not aware of the club even hinting that they have a desire to trade Prince in the next year or two.

Mark seems like a guy who enjoys owning a team, rooting or the team and promoting the product. I'd be fairly surprised that he could have spent $90 million while turning a profit last year and chose not to.

I have always felt that Suppan's deal was over-priced to some degree because of his success in the post-season with the Cardinals. Overpriced to some degree isn't awful. Just about any FA that's in demand will be overpriced to some degree. Awful is just not an accurate description of Suppan's contract.

I just can't believe Suppan has much value at all. That contract is just awful. Awful compared to what? His deal was market value. And he was a better pitcher than the team had available to them from the farm sytem. He made the team better, and will probably still do so next year.

Yes. Yankees have won 3 championships in the past 10 years, with Florida and Boston both having two wins a piece. Patriots have won 3 times in the past 10 years. Competitive balance seems fairly even to me, then, especially since the Yankees victories are one or two CBAs ago and the Florida and Boston teams are different enough that they weren't exactly the same teams.

I say trade him because I dont believe in signing players of his caliber. Instead of 12 million for Suppan followed by guys like Bush, McClung and Parra, I say pay another 6 million to get a guy like Sabathia or Sheets. It's a good idea to save money for the true stars, but there's no guarantee that the stars will sign with the Brewers. I wouldn't be surprised if the Dodgers or Yankees threw 6/$120 million at CC this offseason. If you can't sign the stars, but you can sign players that will improve your team for market value, I think that's a good deal to make. I don't think the Suppan deal will prevent the team from making any other move they want to make.