HiAndTight

Then "lead me to believe," what it actually is? Seems to me it's been pretty high and he's not doing it with the middle of the order. Plus, as a previous poster alluded to when he questioned the impact sac bunts/squeeze plays puts pressure on the defense as seen in last nights game in which a sac bunt in a 1-0 game at home broke the game wide open. The fact is I don't think any manager is ever going to be very popular in Milwaukee by hardcore fans...or any manager for that matter. People have made their clever monikers for every manager we've had the last several years starting with Yost and bashed them pretty relentlessly, and even after a guy like Morgan comes out and talks about most of the time him bunting in the 2 hole to move a guy over is his choice and not a called play, it falls on def ears and RR is bashed for bunting with your number 2 hitter. We won 96 last year, lost the 2nd biggest FA on the market this year and then the top pitcher on the market, and yet despite that, he's got us playing as well as anyone in the game, and 5 games out of the WC race. And likely a game or two out of the race at worse if Ax and K-Rod where even 90 pct of what they where last year.

My point was, if Gomez continues hitting next year like he did this year, it's not much higher than what his projection suggests he should. He's shown a nice tick in power but it's not like he's having some crazy breakout season. The whole selling high/low thing is just kind of overblown, IMO because most GMs don't think that way. If a career .750 hitter has a surprising .900 OPS season, GM's aren't expecting a .750 or .900 season the following year. In any trade, you're essentially paring your projection off against someone else's projection. If (using your example) you think the player is really a .750 OPS player who "got lucky," all it takes is to find one GM who thinks the .900 OPS is for real... that the player has finally "figured it out." GM's are human beings, and they act independantly of one another. They may all have the same "tools," but they don't use exactly the same projection methodology. One may trust a scout who says the player did something with his swing that means he'll be a .900 OPS player going forward, while another would put more credence in something like ZIPS, and yet another just says "he's always been x, so he will always remain x." GM's have all kinds of reasons they'd do things differently from other GM's. The terminology "Selling high/low" probably is overused, as most trades aren't "sell/buy high/low." I may be stating the obvious, but it's all about how the GM views his player and how he is going to act on that viewpoint. If the "action" is to trade the player, the next move is trying to find another GM who values what you're trying to sell and is willing to give up what you want. To topic, you are probably right that Gomez isn't really a "sell high" situation because his numbers aren't that out of line. Bill Hall or Casey McGehee would've been better examples of "sell high," as they came out of nowhere and put up big years. Using that past history, I would think Melvin would be more apt to try to extend Gomez than to trade him. I think GM's may also look at the fact that Gomez is also still just 26 years old. He probably should have spent another couple years in the minors, or at least been sent down when he struggled a great deal. As for your last sentence, I also would love to extend him. I'd love to sign Gomez through his age 30-31 season as I think you can expect 15-20 HR's, 30-40 HR's and a .770 OPS while playing GG caliber defense in CF, but even as a big Gomez supporter, I still don't trust signing him at the money he'll likely cost. Though I do believe the Brewers have and will have a LOT of money in the upcoming years for the reasons I've mentioned(relative to what they've had 2-3 years ago)...ie, our new TV deal, MLB's new TV deal with ESPN that doubled the amount MLB gets to 5.7 million, deals with Fox and CBS that should easily eclipse that number, the luxury tax which will either keep a team from spending in many cases or will put more money in the pockets of teams like the Brewers. That still doesn't mean that I think the Brewers should spend on Gomez what Boras will most likely want when he trots out the upsides for Gomez, his D, power, speed and the lack of power hitting CF'ers. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if Boras wants 10 million a year over 4 years for Gomez. God I dislike that guy.

They're basically just letting him "be Carlos Gomez" at the plate and not trying to have him hit high in the order like earlier in the season. Seems to be working. As far as paying him, I'm still not sure. The team does have other options for center field. I love Gomez, and I saw a change in him earlier this season for a good stretch before he got hurt....unfortunately that change was him hit for some power, but taking more pitches, swinging at fewer pitches, and becoming a player I thought could hit .280 or so with his wheels and a .325 type OBP. And he was until his hammy put him on the DL and he couldn't run full speed for a full season month. He lost several IF singles when he was hobbled. I wasn't sure if it was going to stick, and as one of his biggest fans early in the season, I don't really think it has. They have taken the reigns off him so to speak, but now he selling out on every pitch. He's a very valuable player. I'd personally say if he could put up numbers like he has this year(as an everyday starter) I'd pay him maybe 4/24. But do you think Boras will go for that? Elite CF'er with 20+ HR power and a .770 type OPS? I think someone will pay Gomez 8 million or so per year and I just don't think that's worth it. Unless Gomez decides he wants to stay here and the "Boras effect," doesn't skew the numbers too greatly, I think he is a guy you should shop around a little bit this off-season. I do have to say, if there is a guy to reward for playing the game hard, playing it right(not always playing it the smartest way, though he's really done a lot to eliminate those mental errors this season) and just pure love of the game, he deserves it. But with Logan Schafer I question the Brewers being motivated enough to really sign him for a multi year deal.

I think the thing to look at is that next year's opening day is going to basically be the team that's played so well to finish this year out. Marcum probably won't be back and I would hope most of the bullpen won't either but the starting 8 should be the same with Bianchi or Segura at short. That's a good point. Same starting 8 that's been one of the best in baseball as of late, a lot of REALLY exciting young starting pitchers who are extremely cheap. As far as the BP, I think you could flip a coin and a guy like K-rod could have a dominant season next year. Everyone wants a new BP, and I could just as easily see Axford, K-Rod, Veras and Loe being as good as they where last year(Veras in Pitt) after we got K-Rod and Loe was used right. Or it could go just as bad. Bringing in new BP arms is just a complete and utter crap shoot as everyone knows. What we need to do is try and not lock ourselves in next year with guys without options who can't be sent down in at least a few spots and bring in a decent lefty. Anyway, in trying to not go on and on, I think there are two things happening here. 1st of all, and this is what I said coming out of the break, August was an extremely easy schedule and perfect for the Brewers so unless they can keep playing well in Sept(and again, ridiculously enough, we're not even out of the race yet with games vs Stl and Pitt set to fall on it's face...though the Dodgers HAVE to be able to pull away...right?) I think their recent run was just them playing well vs a lot of bad teams. Which isn't a bad thing, but I think it may be giving us a slightly skewed opinion of what this team is capable of next year without the BP issue being resolved, and a veteran starting pitcher who's at least a #2/3 being signed. Edwin Jackson likely remains the most likely, but as everyone knows I'm still hoping for Greinke as with the lineup, better luck from the pen, and guys like Rogers, Peralta, Thornburg to go with Fiers, Estrada and company, we could have a very good 1-5.

I agree, aside from the fact that Burgos is already at 171 innings pitched, Stinson is apparently a guy the Brewers like, has thrown 30 or so fewer innings, and is likely being looked at as a potential reliever down the road since he does have a pretty good arm being able to hit 95-96 at times and a couple of secondary pitches that maybe they think he can develop and become a Marco Estrada type guy. I don't know. I just know that calling a guy up just for the sake of calling him up seems a bit foolish. The Brewers don't "owe," Burgos a call-up. I would agree, I would hope people in the organization who matter would give him a literally call and explain that he's already at 170+ innings and they value him and don't want to overextend himself. And we're not fighting for a playoff spot...although the players are, and that ridiculously easy August schedule I was touting coming out of the break when I was just hoping that we could win series until we got to it, ACTUALLY has us just 7 games back with teams ahead of us losing left and right, and several games left against those teams. It's amazing. I was trying to keep track of the Brewers last month of the season with these things in mind; 1-What do the young guys do, Rogers, Fiers, Peralta, Segura 2-How do our core offensive players do...do they end on a high note(and they certainly are). 3-Can Gomez prove he's worth a full time job next year(think he has). 4-How close are we to the 5th pick? Can we catch______ for the 7th pick? And they decide to go and play like the 2011 Brewers(though even still their BP is blowing the few games they are losing or they'd be just 4.5-5.5 games back). Hey, maybe there is something to a team finishing strong, winning 83-84 games after being over 10 games under .500. Maybe, like the Dodgers, it can give you some momentum going forward, and maybe even it can help you get a guy like Greinke to sign back on. But a top 5 pick sure sounds nice to this team with awfully low ceilings on position prospects across the board...or a true potential ace.

Heckathorn isn't a guy I'm particularly concerned with. It seems we have a guy like him in Kameron Loe, and I doubt Loe will cost much. If he could still hit 95 or 97 as he'd previously topped out at, then I'd be all for it. With regard to Sanchez, I've seen him pitch once...not really sure what to make of him. He doesn't have Marmol type stuff(catcher turned pitcher). But he's done well in the upper minors. As far as the BP goes though. I'd have half a mind to bring back the exact same BP this year as last year. Push it to the limit to see just how much relievers numbers vary from year to year. Of course I'm only half serious, but I would be happy to bring K-Rod back at 2-3 million. Loe's solid. Veras I expect to bounce back. He has good stuff. Parra...just baffled about. Kinda like hitters are when he gets ahead in counts and coaches are when he comes in and throws 13 pitches, 11 balls and then flips the ball to the catcher and stomps off the mound before the manager even gets a chance to make the call to the pen.

MelvinGord Ash mentioned him on a recent broadcast as a guy in AA that they really like and think has a lot of athletic ability when asked about the minor leagues. He was really in a very small group of players who he really sang the praises of. I think he was asked about Hunter Morris and his chances to win the Southern League MVP, and then Scooter Gennett, and then he went and added Kentrail himself. So whatever you think of him, it sounds like they're pretty high on him. Edit-It was Gord Ash on the 1st of Sept, the day before the minor league season ended.

Before Gamel went down, I would have been 100 pct on board with trading Hart(I'm still on board with it if it can bring back a pitcher similar to what Beltran was traded for when he went to the Giants. Wheeler IIRC. But despite being unapologetic Gamel fan who believes he's a guy capable of putting up an offensive season similar to Hart, but as a LH'ed bat, seeing Hart handle 1st and the errors he's saved and the way he's really brought this infield together with his 6'6 frame, I'd be more than thrilled to sign him to 2 year extension(which his agent I'm sure has already called him about and chastised him for saying publicly) for 12 million a year. You give Hunter Morris a couple more years to iron out any issues and make sure he's absolutely ready and IMO you play Gamel in RF. I think people forget about Gamel's athletic ability because he was moved to 1st, but with an improved Braun and Gomez in CF, I think Gamel could play the position well enough that his bat could carry him and give us a nice OBP guy in RF with the ability offensively of Lyle Overbay with a SLG about 30 points higher and a BA about 10(during his Brewer era). I still really like this team if we can get Greinke back, and I've outlined why I think we can spend the money to do that with the massive MLB TV contracts being signed and the revenue that will bring the Brewers as well as the 189 dollar payroll luxury tax which more and more teams are up against...not to mention our own TV and radio deals which kick in and the record revenues the last couple seasons from all streams. The lineup is really good, we need to take a shot on a reliever, a Carlos Marmol type perhaps, someone of that ilk and hope we got REALLY lucky in the Kottars deal and Axford bounces back. If those thing happen, I think this team could be back on course for a nice little window, especially since I don't think the NL is going to be that great in the near future, Nats notwithstanding.

It doesn't matter if he's claimed, they wouldn't have to give him up if the claiming team doesn't offer anything they deem of value. True. But I would imagine you'd be against offering him 13 or so million next year for the qualifying offer, and in letting Marcum go, you save a million dollars, and you get to see what you've got in maybe a third pitcher(behind Thornburg and Peralta who they've confirmed they'll bringing up) in someone like Burgos. There is SOME value in that. And I'm guessing a team that would claim him would be a team like Baltimore, LAD. I'd take a pitcher similar to what we got back for Kottaras at this point. A power arm with little value, but high ceiling. Fautino De Los Santos isn't LIKELY to be a shutdown reliever at the back of a pen, but he is a guy who in 40 games in the big leagues has 11.4 K's per 9 IP and is a pure power arm averaging 96 MPH. Of course he also walks more than 1 per IP(5 per 9) but still...all it takes is one pitching coach, one veteran pitcher, one thing to click and he COULD possibly become a staple in the back of your pen. At this point, 1 million and change, plus a 96 MPH fastball and a sharp slider with little control would actually be alright with me, even if my hopes may have been much higher 4 months ago. I'm just terrified or another injury to him that takes that already soft 87 MPH fastball(his average is actually about 86.8 or so) loses a MPH or two and now his fastball is 85 and his change is largely negated and the domino affect with his slider and cutter. I'm not a guy to cite Suppan with every potential long term signing, but in this case...it's applicable.

Since we we've been talking about it....... Just announced yesterday; http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-08-28/espn-reaches-5-dot-6-billion-deal-to-expand-mlb-coverage So with the revenue sharing by MLB, the Brewers will recieve a significantly larger amount of money from MLB, and MLB's playoff rights are also expected explode as their Fox AND TBS deals expire after 2013 along with ESPN's, and the windfall from those deals should be larger than ESPN's. So these are the TV rights I'm talking about, and you're no doubt correct that teams individual TV contracts in some cases are really growing, but coming back to my point, it all means more money for the Brewers and more competitive balance. I don't know if the new TV deals mean 20-30-40 million more on top of the 30 million that's expected to be added to our revenue next year, but it should be a nice chunk of money. The Yankees again, are now going to be penalized after 2013 for being over 189 million dollars...they where at 185 in 2004 when we where at 28. We, IMO, could easily be going into 2014 at 120 million and the Yankees scrambling to get as close to that 189 figure as possible(as I've already stated, they have to now decide what they're willing to pay Granderson and/or Cano, they're not bringing Swisher back as a result). And AGAIN, the competitive balance draft for additional 1st and 2nd round picks, the penalties for spending over your alloted budget... The only thing remaining is a international draft, and I really see no reason for the players union to not be behind that. It's similar to the NFL draft. Why would the Vets want to see big money go to a Cepedeis who is unproven, or the kid from the Dominican who I believe it was who got 4+ million as a 16 year old. Posting Fee's and Cuban defections getting outrageous sums. Beyond that, I don't know what more MLB can do for small market clubs short of the hard cap I mentioned. Anyway, just one domino in the three to fall as far as mega TV deals that will help along with the 189 number to vastly-vastly close the gap and allow for the small and mid market teams to compete for Free Agents, and retain their own MUCH-MORESO than before. And I do expect that in the next few years you'll see multiple teams cross that 200 million dollar figure, but in doing so, again, a lot of that goes into our pocket and they'll have to put more thought into it rather than just signing a guy like Rafiel Soriano to a terrible, 14 million dollar a year joke of a deal just so...well..hey, we have a a great closer if the greatest of all time who's paid about 15 million a year decides to retire. With an owner like Attansio, I think we'll be able to keep a lot more of the marquee type guys we really want. I also suspect that teams will operate somewhat like the NBA. Look ahead at who's going to become a FA and try and clear some payroll room. The Yankees and LA's, Boston's and Texas type teams will always be in the drivers seat when it comes to marquee players, but at least we're riding shotgun now....or will be IMO.

Reminds me of the stretch last year when the Packers put some beatings on a couple teams in which they fired their coach in back to back weeks. I don't recall who the teams where. I was thinking it was something like Denver and SF, but that can't be it obviously with Harbaugh. I must be getting my seasons confussed. Anyway, a couple coaches lost their jobs after Packers blowouts.

I think this is Braun's more impressive season to date, and in my opinion, there is little question about it. -The obvious distraction and pressure from the off-season saga with the drug test. He can say he didn't or wasn't going to put any pressure on himself, but that's typical BS talk. Not that I'm saying anything the least big negative about him, just that it strikes me as a standard statement from someone in that situation. -Prince not being behind him in the lineup. Granted, we all know that protection in a lineup is GREATLY exaggerated, but at least IMO, it's still at least A factor. It's impossible to quanfity how big. Just the pressure of knowing you lost a 200+ million dollar bat from your lineup in his peak and you'll have to pick up the slack if you don't buy the protection issue. And yet, he has the second highest OPS of his career, AFTER leading the league the last two years at .994('10) and .986('11) with a 1.001 OPS, second only to his 1.014 rookie season which was the most spectacular rookie season I'd ever witnessed until Mike Trout and his 102 runs, 41 SB(5 CS) and league leading SLG and OPS with 25 HR's while playing plus defense from a guy who wasn't suppose to be a big time power hitter. But I digree. He's at 36 HR's which puts him on pace for 46 HR's, 115 RBI's without having great production in front of him...not that it's an important stat, but one voters use. He's also on pace for nearly 30 SB's again, which with his leg issues this year, though not serious, but nagging, is impressive. Infact, it's impressive, he's been able to continue to steal bases like he has. You often see a guy early in their career(see Hart) with good SB totals, but then they nearly disappear(Weeks is another to a lesser degree). And while he's not a great or even good LF'er, he's become a very competent one. I know the value in that is low, but it's just yet another area in which his game as continued to progress. This is his 6th year in the league. I can't even imagine what the market would be for him had he not signed with the Brewers? I think a team like the Red Sox, particularly in the position they're in right now would have gone as high as 10 years 300 million. Same With Tulo. Imagine if the two hit the market at the same time. The Red Sox may have broken a FA record with about 600 million in Free Agent contracts! Of course that's useless conjecture, but it's just incredible what we're paying him and I suspect with all the money pouring into MLB teams right now(The new TV deal just announed yesterday that doubles MLB's money from ESPN and giving them one WC game) and the increases in the local TV revenues, I think Braun's going to eclipes his contract significantly...

Ok, so to me that reads a firesale. It's really semantics. You don't agree with firesales, but more importantly you don't agree with teams putting themselves in position for firesales. But you'd trade Hart and everyone else except a handful of players who are in their mid 20's. However your utopian way of building a team just isn't realistic. Obviously on a spreadsheet, or even if you're building a team over the long term a 4 WAR player at 32 doesn't have the same value as a 4 WAR player at 26. However your whole recycling in new talent only works if you have the talent to recycle in. And beyond that, I can't recall a WS team in my life that didn't have some players who where past the years you would keep a player(save for the rare situation) of 30-32. Yes, it would be great if we could be the Rays and have a constant flow of young talent coming through our system, not ever have to pay guys like Corey Hart and trade them at this stage and then just seamlessly replace them players who are simply younger without a drop off in talent all while building an elite minor league system. But your criticism of Melvin because he hasn't been able to meet your expectations by building an elite and deep farm system while continuing to replace talent and never signing(ideally not signing) players in their mid 30's to contracts except for the rare case means you're hitting on an exceptionally high number of draft picks and again, there are two teams in baseball that even come close to meeting what I think is an unfairly high bar, the Rangers(who most certainly sign players to large contracts after their pre arby and arbitration years are up) and the Rays who I'm almost certain WOULD if they have another 50 million in their payroll. As for "that poster that you've had on ignore, yet responded to," I recall you getting upset because you bemoaned Melvin's terrible track record for in-season trades and we argued over what player, what move, what he had done that had come back and proven to be a bad move for us. You keep harping on what Melvin would do, and how he wouldn't sell and how bad his track record is and got upset with me for asking each time what trade did he make that was bad? I think exceptions can get a little bit over the top. It's not realistic in my opinion to take a 100 loss team, build it into a team that eventually makes the playoffs twice in a 4 year span and all the while maintains one of the elite farm systems in the game all while letting players go ALMOST regardless(you did say except for the rare exception citing Braun) when they hit 30-32. The problem with that is you're going to perpetually have a team that's inexperianced and if you're lucky enough to replace them somehow with equal players making 500K rather than ever paying for a good but not great player and you're going to have to deal with the issues that come along with that, ie, the 2008 season when it seemed the entire team tensed up during Sept and most our RH'ers where swinging at sliders 3 feet outside.

It just seems like it's more than Macha. He came up under Yost and had some very good starts, and then struggled for maybe a start or two and that was it, he was back in the pen. I'm not saying had he been given a consistent chance, he'd have been a #2 or 3, but I think he'd have been a really good back of the rotation type guy who could have had some great outings. I just noticed, he had an 11.4 K's per 9. That was the year he had like 4-5 REALLY terrible outings, but was pretty dominant the rest of the time. In fact, I thought he started out the season the first couple months with ridiculous numbers. I don't know, I think his time with us has probably passed as our he doesn't really fill any role in our rotation that several guys can't in the next couple years as he's a 4/5 type guy for the most part, and he really doesn't offer that upside that those same guys he'd be fighting for a spot with do. Our chance to maximize his value was in '06-'10. Oh well....

I've never been a big Hart fan, and have expected him to fall off the last several years, but he continues to put up big numbers. But I wouldn't even begin to discuss 4-5 year deals at 13-14 million per year. He put it out there that he'd be open to a 2 year deal, talking about how that'd be 10 years with the same organization. I'd look at a 2 year maybe 24 million dollar extension and a vesting option for a 3rd year. But I don't think 14 million or 5 years should even be discussed. Though he has really looked incredibly comfortable at 1st base this year given the time he had to get re-acclimated to the position.

You'll be awaiting such an apology for quite some time as I haven't got a clue what you're talking about. There was nothing confrontational for the point of being confrontational, and I fail to see how I'm using hindsight in anyway at all in this post. You might want to be cognizant of how you generalize someone's posting and consistently jump into conversations in which you're not really a part of. I would consider that confrontational for the sake of being confrontational. What's more, if you're truly trying to do "good," for the board rather than just trying once again to "put me in my place", there's a nice little private message icon up there. What's more, "civil," conversations, don't usually entail, "I've called you out several times," nor do they pretend they're speaking for the entire board. Those tend to be more hypocritical conversations. Nor do "civil," conversations usually entail someone consistently following me around the message board from link to link picking these petty, frankly pathetic little arguments. You want to talk about confrontational for the sake of being confrontational?

This nails a lot about Marcum that scares me. I don't think anyone can question his effectiveness when healthy. But sinking money into him at this point is a risk. If he looks okay at the end of the year, I'm okay with a reasonable one-year deal - $6-8 million. Maybe even an option if he's open to it. But I wouldn't do more than that. And again, not to be a broken record, but there is a pitcher sitting out there who consistently, AL or NL, goes out, pitches 200 innings plus, throws 95 MPH(averages about 94 I believe) and is moved from team to team. I'd much rather spend money on a pitcher who throws hard and is a traditional power pitcher. Yeah, I know Marcum has good K numbers, but I don't think he should be given additional credit for getting K's despite not being able to throw hard as was kinda suggested. If a guy has an off night, give me 95 down the middle rather than 87....which goes without saying. Which is just another reason anything over 2 years would be totally out of the question for me... One SMALL caveat, we are in a position though...at least IMO, where having a veteran who might miss a month on the DL due to a sore shoulder isn't the biggest deal in the world when we've got so many young pitchers who can come up and make a few starts, a number that will be even greater this time next year...hopefully. Nelson, Jungman, and if they can break out a bit, Bradley and Hall could be added to the 6-7-8 we have now.

Sheets is going to get a heck of a lot more than that if he keeps pitching how he has so far. I'm not just saying this because he's on the DL now...though he went on later in the day when you posted this, but when you said that, he had given up 14 ER's in the previous 16 IP, and his velocity was decreasing. And he hadn't pitched in two years. I don't know how much Ben Sheets would have gotten if he'd stayed healthy the last month+ going into next year, but I doubt any team would have given him a "heck of a lot more," than 6.5 million over 1 year when he'd thrown 6-7 good weeks of baseball in three seasons(that's IF he'd have stayed healthy.)

This nails a lot about Marcum that scares me. I don't think anyone can question his effectiveness when healthy. But sinking money into him at this point is a risk. If he looks okay at the end of the year, I'm okay with a reasonable one-year deal - $6-8 million. Maybe even an option if he's open to it. But I wouldn't do more than that. I really doubt Marcum would take a one year deal below the QO, but if he did, it likely would have to be loaded with incentives to pay him significantly more if he stayed healthy all year and maybe a vesting option he controls for a second season. Not now when he's back and pitching pain free for what will probably be about 6-8 more starts. He'll be able to show teams he's healthy, he's got a good track record before this year of 195 and 200 IP with a very good ERA and he's been good this year when on the bump. But I think 3/30 is about the max and I see that coming from a KC type team, or Seattle. Not the usual big spender.

I have no doubt teams will go over it in the future. I just question if a team is at the luxury tax if they'll look at a Josh Hamilton type player and decide to spend 500 million dollars on him rather than 250 because they have to pay dollar for dollar in the luxury tax. The luxury tax wasn't meant to keep teams AT 189 million, it was meant to punish them for going over it, and spread out the money to the rest of the teams. The most teams going over it, the more money the Brewers will have and the Royals, the Pirates, etc..etc..etc.. One last thought on how it's moot because they'll just spend that much more on the minor leagues(not totally sure where they'll spend it exactly in the minors with the new limits on how much you can spend in the draft, but I digress), posting fees(which again, it's pretty rare that's a significant issue and a international draft is almost certainly on the horizon) and scouting(the one I with respect find the most ludicrous because that's been the biggest discrepancy since baseball has been around, but also something I don't expect to have a huge impact as the Yankees have been spending a lot more money scouting and spending on international talent than the Rays, but who's produced more from within)......major league baseball has already basically given the small market teams an extra draft pick in the 1st or 2nd round, while drastically cutting back on the compensation picks, which tended to favor the bigger market teams while ALSO limiting how much a team could spend on their draft. So I think MLB has done quite a bit beyond major league baseball and major league salaries to even things out. The Red Sox can't sign Will Middlebrooks for a couple million anymore in the 5th round, the Tigers can't sign top 5-10 talent in the mid to late 20's because of their agent. I remember arguing a few years ago with a "friend," of mine that the Brewers payroll would hit 95 in 2011, 100 in '12 and 110 in '13. He vehemently argued with me and told me this market could never support a 100 million dollar payroll(never as in right now, I didn't take it as in at any point in time). Well, we very likely would have been at 110 this year if we'd been in the race, and we're adding 30 million at least in JUST TV money next season, forget the radio deal which I have no idea if that adds millions or 1 million or what, but that also expired and is a new contract, and we've increased ticket prices. And according to Forbes, the closest we're going to get to an accurate accounting, the Brewers have not only NOT lost money in the years in which Mark A suggested they MAY do, but they've made out quite well, none better than last year. I'll also be honest, I studied finance in school, and one of my professors whom I still keep in touch with was a former accountant for the Milwaukee Brewers, and much of what I'm saying is coming from him. Not all, but some. Of course when I initially said it, it was mocked(not here). But now that we've not only hit the numbers I've predicted when we where spending 80 million and people thought THAT was a lot, but exceeding them, I think they have a bit more merit.

I don't know how much the gap is closing. Yes, the Brewers triple their TV contract, which is an increase of $20M. But everyone's TV contract is going up and the Dodgers increase I'm sure is more than $20M. So how does that close the gap? If the big markets do hold their budget to the luxury tax, that just means those owners pull in that much more net profits or decide to put it into their minor league system, scouting, foreign player postings, etc. So you think that if a FA comes on the market and you have 6-7 of the big market teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, Rangers, Phillies..etc..etc..already up against the luxury tax, you don't think it'll play a role in how competitive a team like the Brewers can be when paying a player for them is dollar for dollar, but for those teams at the luxury tax is twice that? For example Greinke for the Brewers is 5 years and 100 million for example, but for the Yankees, a team already talking about having to make tough decisions on who to sign with Cano, Granderson and the prevailing thought that they'll let Swisher walk due to the luxury tax, it'd be 5 years an 200 million? You don't think THAT closes the gap? Plus the revenue sharing when it comes to online rights, playoff TV rights, a number that is expected to increase a GREAT deal bringing much more balanced revenue sharing in the next decade or so. That is what I'm talking about when I say the gap is closing. I don't know how anyone could argue it isn't when there is a luxury tax ready to be put in place, the Brewers had a payroll of nearly 110 this year, the Yankees are trying to cut costs to get under it, and the Brewers have the means now to increase their payroll, while the big market teams are going to be faced with either paying the luxury tax....which puts more money in our pockets, or not spending money. A couple of teams are getting massive TV deals. Great. To look at that and miss the rest of the picture is short sighted GamelToe. So the Angels got a 3 billion dollar TV contract. So what? Aside from the fact that they've spent a great deal of that on Pujols and Wilson and are still just a couple games over .500, how does that change the situation we've been in for the last 20+ years when salaries started to inflate? Now at least they can't spend whatever they want without penalty, there is revenue sharing, and that number continues to grow, and again, as I said, many expect the online rights and the playoff rights to blowup in the next decade. As far as putting more money in the owners pockets, I couldn't care less about that, and Mark A has shown that's not his primary motive either(though he's certainly making a LOT of money on the growth of baseball after doubling the value of the Brewers and making more than 200 million in less than 10 years). I care about when Free Agency comes around, the Brewers will be better positioned to sign players, keep their own players and the big market teams will be hamstrung by the luxury tax. I just don't see how you can look at the way baseball is trending and say that things are getting worse for small market teams when Selig has done several things to level the playing field as much as he possibly can short of actually implementing a hard cap which would likely mean we'd go about two years without seeing baseball as the players would almost certainly strike. Perhaps this though makes a cap plausible in the distant future. And finally, with regard to how this is just going to lead the bigger market teams into having more money for scouting, international talent, etc..etc...that's really looking for a way to try and not see the obvious and significant benefits of everything that's happening, not to mention, there has been talk about an international draft. I guess I just don't get the negative reaction. It's like some want to just throw their arms up and say, "baseball isn't fair." Yeah, we all get that, but it's getting a lot MORE fair. It's moving drastically in the right direction and things are getting significantly better than they where. In 2004 I believe we had a 28 million dollar payroll while the Yankees had a 185 million dollar payroll. Now we're over 100 million and almost certainly will be well over 100 million while the Yankees are scrambling to try and stay under 189. There will ALWAYS be teams who will be able to spend more money than the Brewers. Even if that 189 million luxury tax threshold stayed in place for 25 years and the Brewers where up against it and even over it, there will always be teams who will be willing to spend more. But everything done as of late sure as hell helps, and I don't see how people can argue that things are getting worse rather than unbelievably better in the last decade and as a result of Selig. Look past the regional TV deals. There's a lot more going on than that. Edit-When you mention we're tripling our TV deal and we're still only getting 20 million more, that number from what I know is about 24 million, but I was also talking about the additional 10 million we'll be getting from MLB, a number that I, again, expect to grow by leaps and bounds in the future.

No, but if you want to dismiss this, you DO need to go through a list of players who have gone so far out of their way to make it public that they'd take a under market contract for a shorter period of time(two years? If he has another good year next year, 30 HR's, .270/.340-ish, he'd get 4-5 years at 60 or so million) and THEN talks about how getting every last dollar isn't important. You take one line about how he wants to stay in Milwaukee and then you say, "pftt, others have said the same as well," totally ignoring the rest of the...really over the top stuff he says about staying here. If anyone's EVERY sounded sincere about staying here, it's Hart. He's come out and said it only has to be two years and he's not looking for every last dollar, AND that he wants to be one of the rare guys to stay in Milwaukee. It's almost like this incessant need to take everything and try and make it as negative as possible. You are still on record as saying we'll cut payroll nearly 30 million next year, right? Even with another 30 million coming into our revenue stream(at the very least)? CC, Prince, and Greinke all said it, but they didn't sound as sincere as Hart (according to you) so they don't count. Ok. You can buy into the "really over the top stuff he says about staying here" all you want. I'm just going to stick with the trend and base my opinion off that. If Hart actually signs for a discount, then the sincerity is indeed legit, and it will be great for the Brewers. The track record of guys saying they want to stay put, and hinting at taking a home town discount in order to stay put - who actually do so, is few and far between. Tough to treat Hart any different. I agree with this. If he actually does sign for a discount, I'm all about keeping Hart aboard, but even at market value (because of how jacked up the market is) I think the Brewers should pass on him (or more/less deal him) because of what they have in waiting. ACTUALLY, not a single one of the players in the first bolded part EVER went to management and requested that they NOT be traded and then signed a below market contract. Remember, Hart signed his deal shortly before Werth, a similar player signed a contract for over 120 million dollars. So that may be the worst comparision I've ever heard. Greinke when trade talks where going down didn't go to management and say, "I don't want to be traded, I'll sign for below market." I forget, but maybe Prince did that. We all know with his agent it's possible HE approached the Brewers about a two year extension months away from Free Agency and said it wasn't important to break the bank. Sabathia also NEVER said anything remotely true. All you're doing is taking players who said they liked playing here and where "open," to staying if they where paid top dollar when they hit free agency as opposed to coming to the team during trade rumors and not only asked NOT to be traded but asked for a two year extension AFTER doing the same thing a couple years ago when he signed for well below market value. So again, you're just flat out making things up when you try and claim that Greinke, CC OR Prince said anything even remotely similar to what Corey Hart did. Frankly, if you're talking about a two year extension and one in which Hart says he doesn't need every last dollar, I think it'd be hard to overpay him. And we can stop with the "this player would make 3 pct of this player," type of argument. Where does that leave us? Without any players making 10-20 million dollars? There is a reason Hunter Morris isn't a top 100 prospect and Corey Hart is a multiple time all-star. So to just say, "meh, we can replace him for cheaper..." C'mon. I've never been a huge Hart fan, but a .270/.340 25-30 HR a year hitter who helps out your IF defense like Hart does and has(which has been just incredible this year) comes out and says what he has, and you just list other FA's who've left and make no logical attempt to distinguish between the vastly differences. Edit-For the record, I wouldn't be on board with giving him 2 years at 15 million per, but 2 additional years for 11-12 would be fine by me. And please don't use Gamel as a reason not to after you've already declared him a bust. Be overtly negative if you must, but at least do so consistently.

What does TC07 have to do with a post by monty? I thought it was self explanatory. He was the one who initially argued that it wasn't a fire sale if we made the aforementioned moves, which moved me to argue that it would in fact be a fire sale. So it was a discussion about what does and doesn't register as a fire sale, and since it was TC07 I was debating the definition of a firesale with, I don't see how you don't get how he'd play into it. Go ahead though, throw out an opinion rather than nitpicking a pretty obvious post. Would that in your opinion, trading away virtually any viable trade options, motivated by money OR a rebuilding process constitute a fire sale? I think that's a lot more important and pertinent to the discussion than wondering why I'd mention the person I was initially discussing this with and who himself says that he's repeatedly said it WOULDN'T be a fire sale.

No, but if you want to dismiss this, you DO need to go through a list of players who have gone so far out of their way to make it public that they'd take a under market contract for a shorter period of time(two years? If he has another good year next year, 30 HR's, .270/.340-ish, he'd get 4-5 years at 60 or so million) and THEN talks about how getting every last dollar isn't important. You take one line about how he wants to stay in Milwaukee and then you say, "pftt, others have said the same as well," totally ignoring the rest of the...really over the top stuff he says about staying here. If anyone's EVERY sounded sincere about staying here, it's Hart. He's come out and said it only has to be two years and he's not looking for every last dollar, AND that he wants to be one of the rare guys to stay in Milwaukee. It's almost like this incessant need to take everything and try and make it as negative as possible. You are still on record as saying we'll cut payroll nearly 30 million next year, right? Even with another 30 million coming into our revenue stream(at the very least)?

Perhaps the two of us disagree and I may have a different opinion of firesale. My opinion of a fire sale is when your in a position where your team has valuable players, but isn't winning and you want to start a rebuilding project and you deal away your tradable assets. I think both in reality are applicable. But if you traded Aram, Weeks, Hart, K-Rod,Marcum and Greinke, and "anyone else of value," that's a firesale, despite the fact it isn't due to financial reasons. And these players where all players that TC07 was advocating trading if we could get players in return.