tmwiese55

I don't see how we'd be pursuing Ellsbury. He's overpaid and not good anymore. We have at least 4 OFs we'd rather play than him. But if they want to pay us in prospects to take on his salary to get under the tax that's a different story, you see those type of trades in the NBA all the time.

This is my take too. Spring training is rapidly approaching and his camp leaking this is telling the big markets it's time to put up their best offer as he has to sign soon. One of them will trump ours and that'll be it. I'd trust Stearns doesn't have a ridiculous offer on the table and that if somehow he did sign with us that we'd be ok with the deal. However, that also means the offer is very beatable and that's what I think will happen.

I've always just assumed they feel like MKE isn't large enough to support another team with them already having MLB and NBA. I think I just saw the Bucks are 25th in attendance in spite of having Giannis. To the best of my knowledge, the new Bucks arena is not being built to host hockey either. I could be wrong there, but if so you'd need to build a new arena and with the fight the Bucks went through that doesn't look easy.

Yes, that is correct. However they're allowed to go over the cap to re-sign their own guys, in this case Jabari. Yea it's a very tough spot to be in with Jabari. Seems like a great kid and obviously was doing well before the 2nd tear. However, two tears in one knee is a big deal and really no NBA player has ever really come back from it near what they were. But no one else has done it such a young age before either so he has that going. Personally, I wanted to trade him after he came back the first time and showed he was healthy due to fearing this situation now and that I thought his skills/position is redundant with Giannis and Mid already. And we desperately needed a PG at the time. And at this point I'd still be on the trade side as I'd just like to remove this variable from Giannis' prime. Essentially just cashing out and moving on, making the best of what we can get back. If he stays healthy and does well elsewhere good for him, I hope he does. But even if he comes back and looks great you still have the constant fear of a 3rd tear and 20+mil in dead cap space during Giannis' time here. That's tough for GMs to do though as if he blows up elsewhere it's an embarrassment to them.

The big fear on Jabari is that the Bulls are one of the few teams with massive cap space. All it takes is one team to give him a big deal and you have to match. I'm in agreeance that if he wouldn't sign a team friendly deal before the deadline back in November-ish that he should have been their top trade chip. Maybe he has been but nothing has worked out, who knows. I at least give them credit for not caving at the extension deadline and making him play out the year, past Bucks regimes would have just handed him 120 mil no questions asked.

Baseball does have a legit problem with younger people though. Sure, if I had to guess I would still expect franchise values to remain where they are or better for the foreseeable future. But it's not crazy to think with the next TV deal being much less and what seems like clearly less interest with young people there is at least a feasible path to values declining as the 45 and older people start passing. If you interact with many 25ish and younger type people, they're generally big on NBA and not on MLB. Of course that's just what I see, but I have a few different pockets of people I interact in those demographics and it's true to all, along with what I see on twitter and other social media.

The Patriots were lucky that a 7th round pick turned into arguably the best player in NFL history. The Packers were lucky that 2 HOF QBs either came out of nowhere or fell to them. The Astros were lucky that a 5'4" 2B turned into an MVP and that their buy low risk on Charlie Morton turned into one of the better playoff pitching performances in recent memory. The Royals were lucky that the A's choked in the Wild Card game and that they basically got to and later won a World Series with relievers and baserunners. At a certain point, you begin to wonder if skill is involved. Make enough smart risks, and 1 or 2 will pay off hall of fame level dividends. OK great. Point was Cy Young level for castoffs is very very rare and they had two at the same time, and that the Cubs would be in a much different spot if that didn't happen. We've picked up how many 100 castoff Ps the last 25 years and how many have become Ace level? 0. Essentially only one of their superstar mega prospects has panned out in Bryant and they've developed no young pitching. So say only one of those guys became awesome instead of two, they wouldn't have a title right now. So all the stuff that was in the plan really hasn't worked and got bailed out by two extremely lucky events. At this point they'd probably be chasing starters like crazy right now being forced to overpay and things would look very different. But yea of course, great low risk moves to grab those guys and paired them with the perfect pitching coach at the right time. Stars align sometimes and it did for them. Made a brutal signing in Hayward to boot. Lester signing is what is, you knew it would be good for a few years and bad at the end, just as likely will happen. Astros gameplan pretty worked exactly as it was laid out years ago. ETA: I just had time to re look at Hendrick's career. Seems my memory was way off for him, I had it in my head that he'd been up elsewhere and flamed out before they got him just like Arrieta. That wasn't the case. Just a later round pick that worked out. So that makes some of what I wrote a bit off but don't want to go back and re-do it all.

Epstein got very lucky with CHC to have Arietta and Hendricks go from castoffs to Cy Young level. Sure, smart pickups in the low risk sense. But still extremely lucky to have them become Cy Young level. Any realistic expectation for a bounce back for those guys would be just to become solid starters, Cy Young level is crazy good luck. And yet they pushed out the pitching coach for some reason. I'm glad MKE is involved with these starters, have to be in the conversation just in case their price or situation makes it viable for MKE. However, I'd be shocked if we end up with one. If close to signing here because it's the best deal on the table, their agent is going to call the big markets and tell them what they need to beat it or they're signing tomorrow and one will.

If I was an NFL owner I'd likely be looking at cashing out in the next few years. I'd probably try to hold onto some percent of ownership but in order to keep living with some of the perks and fun of it. But I'd guess their values take a big hit the next 15-20 years. Heck, the league could be gone in 20 years.

It is possible that franchise values could go down on all sports as the TV contract bonanza of the last 15-20 years goes away with cable dying. I wouldn't predict it, as I'd assume some other avenue shows up to make up for it, but it is possible once TV networks aren't capable of handing them billions. ESPN is losing money bigtime right now as they're overextended.

MLB players are paid the minimum for 2-3 years (usually 3), then see rapid acceleration. The average salary is $4 million and rising. Players do not make the league minimum for 6 years. OK rephrase to minimum for a few years and then drastically below market value on one year deals for another few years after that. I just don't see how a team owning you almost inevitably during minor leagues while you get paid nothing and then owning for another 6 years at drastically below market value is a good thing for players. Previously the trade-off of being drastically overpaid later was a reasonable balance, if that goes away it will be a problem. And this setup is not letting players hit FA until their past their prime, that's not a problem in the other leagues. That's what we're talking about here. NFL has it's own issue with not getting guaranteed contracts, they should have went on strike 15 years ago when the league was exploding.

In the NBA you'd have to take back comparable salary though. You can't just dump them for picks to get cap space. That's why you'd have to sign Jabari to have a contract to match up with someone else's contract in the LBJ example. Or why Chris Paul had to opt into his contract with LAC and then have them trade him to Houston. In your examples, if say DAJ decided on MKE. He could either opt into his player option and then LAC could work out a trade with us and then work out his extension with us. Something like Henson and Mirza and a future pick going back to LAC. Yea, NBA salary cap gets complicated.

I don't know if that's true. A baseball player can spend much of his 20's in the minors, come to the majors for six years through his prime and not get offered a big deal after "team control" is over. He'll make more than a "normal person," but not nearly as much as a NBA or NFL guy will get in his initial contract after being drafted. Actually, the way baseball is set up if teams stop giving dumb deals to older guys who have no chance of living up to them, then I think the union has painted the players into a bad position. Only the guys who are brought up in their early 20's and therefore hit free agency before their "prime" years will have a chance at getting paid anywhere near what everyday players in other sports make. bingo. If this trend continues this is going to be a big point during the next CBA. MLB: the league that forces guys to play for league min for like 6 years operating on one year deals is not the best model for the players best interests. What does make the MLB situation different to figure out than the other leagues is the minor league system and how to manage that control and development.

That's ridiculous, and the sole reason why the NFL and NBA have broken free agency models. The only fair free agency in pro sports is MLB. This article was well thought out. Some thoughts: -It's interesting to note that players are more concerned with perks than $$. -MLB needs to address the strategy of tanking. Nobody thought the Brewers were tanking last year, but perhaps MLB needs to have some policies in place where teams tanking teams do not get top picks. Perhaps a salary floor (like a cap) is needed. I'll get skewered for this, but I don't care if the Brewers win the World Series. I want them to be enjoyable and competitive. 75 wins in a bad season, 90 wins in a great season. I don't want to see the 1990's and early 2000's ever again! It's ridiculous to fans that teams feel they have a right to tank. The goal should be to build a competitive team AND a competitive minor league system--these are not mutually exclusive. I know the Marlins have had some good years, but this is insane that this is the 3rd or 4th major gutting of the franchise. What? I never thought I'd see a Brewer fan argue for a seemingly uncapped system. Your concern of competitiveness will be moot and the Brewers will be back to being bottom rung feeder team if that was the case like it used to be. I guess you can put in a floor to help it (which NBA and NFL have too), but without the tax impeding the big markets they'd have more power than they already do. I guess I don't follow at all how you think it's good for competitiveness to have some teams able to spend 250 mil while other like MKE can only spend 100. As opposed to the NBA and NFL who basically make everyone spend roughly the same. And if they do have situations that allow them to go way over in the NBA it has a massive tax penalty to help out the other teams, so it becomes pretty rare.

I don't see a way to cap space this summer to make a serious run at anyone unless somehow you work out a sign/trade with the team he's leaving. The dream is a Jabari for Lebron sign and trade, lol

Long term they have to find a way to cap and revenue sharing system reminiscent of the NBA and NFL. The tax has been the precursor to it, each CBA needs to just get closer and closer.

The only thing holding small/mid-market teams afloat is the player control aspect. I'd be ok altering pay in arbitration or pre-arb, although I think they get paid pretty fairly. Is there a current agreement in place for ratio of owner revenue to player salary? I'm guessing not since there's no cap or floor. I actually like the way baseball is set up. I would hate to see player control years decreased and implementing a salary cap and floor (which I see as the only logical step if players are allowed to hit FA sooner). Even if teams payed more up front in shorter term deals, I think that would resolve some of the "issues". I mean it's the teams that created the market by signing guys to ridiculous deals in the first place by giving them 6-7 years of guaranteed money and deferred payments in some cases. I guess I just have a hard time sympathizing with the players and agents on any level regardless how much owners are making. Markets can change, you're only worth what your employer is willing to pay..... it doesn't need to increase forever. Yea obviously that wouldn't be good for us. I was looking at it from the players and their unions perspective if this becomes a trend. Your last point I think is a good compromise, keep the control there but pay them more. Basically get them to arbitration a year earlier or something and off their rookie scale contracts where they're getting nothing (relatively anyway). All the posts after also made good points. We'll see if this is a one year trend in the coming years, tough to know right now. Take a Jimmy Nelson, Knebel, or Shaw type. Say they keep doing well, if this trend continues and you git FA at 31ish and no one will give you big money you'll pretty much have played your whole career for not a lot of money (relatively speaking of course). I know it's bad for the Brewers but if this trend continues I could see it being a big sticking point in the next CBA negotiating to find a way to get guys paid earlier.

Yea I don't think it's collusion so much as teams finally smartening up on how bad these deals are on the back end. That said, if teams do get smart and stop paying big money then the players need to do something about the arbitration/control years in the system. Basically it's been a tradeoff that for being ripped off their first 5-7 years they get massively overpaid afterwards. If they're not getting overpaid now, they need to do something to hit FA sooner or get paid more in arbitration.

At this point I'd just prefer Walker back than any big moves. HAve to think he's not seeing a 3rd year from anyone right now. And with the deal the Nats just gave the 2B the market is likely not what he hoped. Tough for us to know what's going on of course, but i'd like to find a way to get it done. It's not like they don't have the space to slightly over pay from what we want the next two years. 3rd year is a problem of course, but with his flex to 1B and 3B, if a prospect is knocking down the door and just better than him at 2B he provides good position flex to be a backup.

Yea Snell, Brogdon, and Middleton are great spacing and 3 pt threats. I know Mid's percents aren't great this year but that's because he's being used in Kobe iso instead of emphasizing catch/shoot 3s like modern offenses. All the pieces are there, other than needing a backup big to replace Thon, if they ran a real half court offense. Also, why would the Bulls give up Markkanen? And we did target a player like him in Thon, but he's terrible. It's great when the stretch big does pan out, great weapon to have, but if you look around at how many have been getting drafted the last few years vs how many have actually panned out the percent is bad. Mirza is also supposed to be doing that role but he's out.

Regarding Broxton, don't we simply remember that he was benched on our team last year? Can't be much value out there imo. Teams know that and they see the streakiness and the strikeouts. They know they can't rely on him as a starter, they'd take him as a flyer just like we did. That's about it

Well the logic is simply you'd rather keep Shaw than Thames if you had to choose. Both are descent OBP guys and Shaw is just a better hitter. What you're saying is more to why we just shouldn't sign Moustakas to begin with. But yes of course you'd get more back for Shaw

Heck, if we're determined to sell high on Shaw (likely for pitching or higher end prospects) I think I'd honestly rather sign Neil Walker for 2/20 to play 3B than give Moustakas 100 mil and be locked in for 5-6 years

If they did this I'd be hoping for Thames to be the one traded so that we're trying win now. However, I guess if you can get a legit starter back like Archer for Shaw then I get it. To me, I just don't think Moustakas is anything special to be spending money on. Has anyone actually looked at his stats? He's had one season above a .314 obp. And how fluky was getting 38 HR last year with a previous high of 22, and still only had a 314 obp. Now we're going to pay him 15-20 mil while he gets to his mid 30s? No thanks imo.

Henson is a backup caliber C playing a few more mins than normal backups. Giannis is a 4 and one of the best 5 players in the world. Of course they have no depth there but the starting front court isn't the problem. If I remember correctly their starting lineup, or possibly the lineup with the starters except Brogdon in Snell's place is one of the best statistical lineups in the league. I am shocked they haven't brought in any thicker C to take thon's minutes, that simple addition should drastically help the team because Thon is absolutely terrible. Still, this is the third year of this and they've remade the team and added players to the top of the roster several times, yet the results are the same. A middling record. The coach has to go.