Jump to content
Brewer Fanatic

Oxy

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    3,995

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 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 Oxy

  1. Oxy
    If people are more into the "sharing" side of things, I'd be WAY more into the Brewers and Twins combining organizations and flipping back and forth every other year as the Varsity "home" team, making the the other city the JVA team (as opposed to the AAA squad(s) being JVB and JVC teams). Multiple World Series Championships for both the Twins and the Brewers, I'm telling ya.
  2. Oxy
    Market size IS the reason the flow of money is a problem. It seems to be begging the question. A team in Jersey and Inglewood would be good for every baseball fan in the country (including all of those in NY and LA) and the MLB as a whole--both fans and ownership--except for the ownership groups of the Yankees, Mets, Dodgers, Angels and probably Philly. The question is whether a team in those locations would be good for the owners of those teams in those locations. I would say yes, as long as those owners run those clubs more like the Rays, Brewers, and Twins and not try to be like the Yankees or the Dodgers (Both the Mets and Angels have had this problem a little bit). A Jersey team probably makes more sense than another LA team. It's hard to get from Jersey to the Bronx or Queens, making it more justifiable than a park between the Dodgers, Angels, and the ocean. Vegas would probably make more sense than Inglewood if the object was to cut into the SoCal market.
  3. Oxy
    Yeah, that's the tricky part. The generations are too far removed now and the Giants and Dodgers have too much history established in their Cali locations to make a "move (in name only)" back to the NY area where they had a large fanbase already built in--but that would have worked great back in the 90s or so. Re-name/brand the Mets as the Dodgers, and put a team in the Meadowlands that takes the Giants brandname, and re-brand the teams in SF and LA to something more California oriented. It's too late for that, and the Mets are already "little brother" to the Yankees, so another team would have to endure being 3rd tier at best for awhile. Then again, there are probably at least 5 organizations scattered from Pittsburgh to Tampa to Kansas City that are about on that level already. The NFL did that very well when the "Browns" moved to Baltimore, but basically started a new franchise IN Cleveland that took the name and the history of the Browns--while all ownership and personnel moved to Baltimore to become the Ravens. Giants and Dodgers and the MLB should have done that instead of the outright move to the west coast.
  4. Oxy
    Nobody is moving anywhere. Yankees and Mets stay as they are. The numbers were completely made up, I don't know what those actual numbers would be. What I DO know, is that even the smallest markets in MLB are currently large enough to be viable--and yet the discrepency between the largest markets and the smallest markets is too big. Thus, the large markets are too large. Solution would be somehow breaking into those large markets with expansion. Put up a stadium in the Meadowlands, and another one around the new football stadium/entertainment complex going up in LA/INglewood for the Rams and Chargers and add 2 more franchises. The infrastructure is already in place in those locations. It seems like there should be a couple bored multi-billionaire baseball fans out there to make this happen.
  5. Oxy
    Put a team in Jersey, and split the TV markets so that only 1 team can be broadcast to every area (unless buying the whole MLB package in order to get out-of-market teams--whose money is spread to ALL teams). No team can broadcast to more than 15 million people within their "local" market--however those lines are to be drawn--and again only 1 team is allowed per 15 million people. If the gerry-mandering of TV markets is too laborious/argumentative, then do away with all geographical "lines" based on tv providers and let every consumer pick their own team they get to follow. As soon as 2 million customers have picked a team, that team gets "capped" so that nobody else can get all their games unless buying the full MLB package whose revenues get shared. (I have no idea what that number should be--from 2 million or less to 10 or even 15 million--whatever the range is so that TV revenue is not egregiously different between the smallest market and the largest market) Tell me where I am in error here? Technology has made it not-that- difficult to do something like this, and it seems to me like it would solve a lot of problems.
  6. Oxy
    What's not true?
  7. Oxy
    With our depth and Braun's age and nagging injury history, I don't have a problem with him coming off the bench against Righties a couple times a week. It's nice to be able to pick and choose when to use him in high leverage situations. That doesn't mean that he's a "bench player." This isn't the AL where that term might actually have some validity.
  8. Oxy
    It all depends on how close you are to competing for the playoffs/WS, and what your current 40 man roster talent looks like in the pre-arby/arby stages of player's careers. If WAR is what it says it is (doubtful), adding a 2 WAR player to a 79 win roster at a 0 WAR position is far less valuable than adding a 2 WAR player to an 89 win roster at a 0 WAR position.
  9. Oxy
    I doubt it would work, but it would be interesting if management and players could come up with a system to pay players based on their actual WAR (but please re-name the stat). Everybody gets a base salary and perhaps bonus' for every team win, then players get paid for their production. A 9 WAR player gets $25 mill (or some percentage of league revenue). A 0 WAR player and/or negative WAR player gets the base salary. Agreeing upon the parameters of the ultimate money stat would probably be a nightmare, but it could be re-evaluated every 5 years or so in order to reflect contemporary perceptions of value. I have no idea how team control and Free Agency would work in a system like this, but the free agency system is already so broken whatever solutions are made would likely be better than the current system.
  10. Oxy
    But if Yu try sometimes, Yu find Yu get what Yu need.
  11. Oxy
    Depending on if the Brewers feel that Shaw had a career year last year or if last year is his normal year. Selling high is not a bad idea if the return is also high (We probably should have traded Villar last winter...)
  12. Oxy
    viewtopic.php?f=70&t=29592
  13. Oxy
    What if we offered him 1 year, $40M?
  14. Oxy
    Excellent thread--thank you Brewerfan denizens. There needs to be expansion. And not necessarily to Mexico City or Montreal-- but to Manhattan, Jersey, Brooklyn, and another LA team. I'd prefer breaking up large markets and keeping the rules simple as opposed to adding all sorts of rules and clauses to try to redistribute revenue from large markets to small markets. This isn't likely to happen, but I'm not sure why not.
  15. Oxy
    Brinson and Phillips will be up in September. Perez is fine as a spot starter in left and center until then. If a DL stint is necessary for any of the 3 regulars, we'll bring one of them up to fill that everyday vacancy at that time.
  16. Oxy
    Because we are in 1st place RIGHT NOW and have at least 1 hole in our starting rotation?
  17. Oxy
    I'm sure he'll hit a cold snap again at some point, but he's definitely quieted the folks that thought he couldn't hit at the big league level. Right now he's at a .750 OPS and knocking a fair amount of XBH's. (and should probably be a gold glove candidate). If he finishes the season at a .750 OPS with 40 - 45 XBH's and keeps playing the level of defense he is right now, he's already a star. I was a skeptic. I am shocked at his production so far. I thought he could eventually become the type of hitter we've seen in the last month+, but thought it would be at least a few years down the road. It still seems like a bit of a mirage to me, but I'll take it. This team is full of stories like that. I can't think of one guy who is still on the roster who hasn't flashed brightly for a few games to put a W in the win column. Similarly, almost everybody has had their down times as well. Fun team to follow.
  18. Oxy
    The contact play giveth; the contact play taketh away. Hey im not in favor of it in most cases, i just like if it works It only has to work like 1/8 times for it to be "worth it"
  19. Oxy
    One less out AND one more run on the board. If they get thrown out 8 straight times now, then it evens out (or something like that)
  20. Oxy
    As a Packer fan, I can understand this mentality. As a Brewer fan, I savor every chance we get--however remote.
  21. Oxy
    I don't totally agree with this but if somewhat true than I feel like WAR (Wins Above Replacement) is being treated like the 2nd coming of Jesus. Current baseball statheads put WAY too much faith in that stat, IMHO. WAR definitely isn't perfect, especially for pitchers. The issue is there really isn't a perfect single stat you can use. WAR is something you go to because it is an objective measure with one single value so it is just easy to use. I can appreciate trying to come up with a composite stat- and I will even use WAR for that purpose-- but its name is an egregious misnomer. Batting average IS actually the percentage of ABs a guy gets a hit. ERA IS actually how many runs a pitcher gives up per 9 innings. WAR is NOT actually how many "Wins Above a Replacement" [player] that a player provides.
  22. Oxy
    4 straight wins with scores 8-5, 7-6, 6-4 and 6-5. I'll take it.
  23. Oxy
    Contact play scores another run and saves another out.
  24. Oxy
    Each pick has a slot value for signing bonuses. Players can cut deals with teams so they can get drafted higher. Signing for underslot leaves the team with a bigger portion of their bonus pool which allows them to spread it out more throughout the draft. If some sites like Baseball America and Bleacher Report had him picked as high as 5th or 6th in their mock drafts, why would he agree to a lesser bonus that what his draft slot calls for? I think that was only in the last week or two that he was picked that high in the mock drafts--and I think it was because there were rumblings about the Braves or A's cutting a deal for an underslot guy--like Hiura. I don't think many pure rating systems had him that high because of his bat-only nature.
  25. Oxy
    Can't he just go back to college, have an elite season with no off-field issues all year, and count on top-10 money as a senior? (Easier said than done, but at least he can threaten that) This is the major question I've had with the slot system. It seems like the hard to sign guys are all HS guys who want to go to college...but most of the college guys are juniors, so couldn't they play the same game? Or are they afraid that as a senior sign the next year a team would just give them a low-ball offer well below slot?
×
×
  • Create New...