paul253

TNA was built in a really smart way. Start small, build up your own guys, sprinkle in some legit talent. Signing guys like Sting, Team 3D, Angle, Flair, and so on was a great idea. But once Bischoff and Hogan came alone they absolutely destroyed it. Forming Immortal was a good idea I think, similar to the NWO. And forming Fortune under Flair was a magnificent idea. People loved them because of the obvious comparisons to the Horsemen. But as usual, Bischoff doesn't know how to write storylines that make any sense. Flair abandons the very group he formed to stay with Immortal? Now Fortune is basically done. What sense does that make? Then guys who were fighting Immortal from the beginning, guys like Angle, Steiner, Anderson end up joining Immortal a few months later? That's the same mistake he made with the NWO. He has destroyed the tag team rank, just like he did in WCW. He's destroyed Team 3D and Beer Money, two of the best the organization had. The British Invasion is nowhere to be found. Neither is Ink Inc. Or Generation Me. I think one of the Motor City Machine Guns is hurt but I'm sure they're done. Meanwhile, just like in the WCW, now he is using non tag team members to be tag team champions. The only legitimate tag team left is Mexican America. I just hate how he does that. He has best friends constantly turning on each other. Like that hasn't been done before. And he's letting his home grown talent (Styles, Samoa Joe, Crimson, Daniels) waste away with petty little feuds. What I'd love to see done is this: -Build up the tag team rank again. That is a clear advantage over the WWE -More focus on home grown guys winning titles. I think Crimson would be the perfect World Champion right now. What is the point of making him a tag team champion? -Somehow have Ric Flair reform Fortune. Maybe Roode can stay out and someone can replace him, but I think stables are good for wrestling. And there's no reason for Flair not to be leading Fortune. -Create another belt, similar to the intercontinental belt, that up and comers or people who deserve a title shot could have. Crimson, Styles, or Joe could hold it now. If you want Roode or Storm to hold a single's belt it would make more sense to me for them to hold a belt like that first. -Forget these stupid celebrity story lines. Nobody cares about Snooki or PacMan Jones or any other 2nd rate celebrity. That was something I always hated about WCW. I don't care to see Karl Malone wrestle Dennis Rodman. I want to see real wrestling with real moves. -Continue to rebuild the X Division with it's own belt. Honestly I don't even know if there is currently an X Division belt. If there is Daniels would be a good guy to hold it. -Build up more home grown talent. I like what they did with Crimson. They don't have to be undefeated but they should be challenging the Angle's and Bully Ray's of the organization. TNA is moving too far away from what they were going for when they were originally formed. Bischoff is an idiot.

I wonder if Doug could get Lorenzo back. If the Royals aren't sold on him, I certainly still am. I like Cain too but before we give up something I think we have to see what we have in Schafer. I don't think either of them hit with enough power to be a corner outfielder, though the defense would be a lot better. At this point I think the system is too thin to be trading away prospects for guys that play positions we already have covered.

Isn't this going to have a negative affect on small market teams? Won't teams offer less for guys since they will no longer receive compensation for the guy they trade for?

I don't mean this to be a competition with the WWE thread, but I just can't watch WWE anymore. I was a huge fan in the late 90's early 2000's but I can't stand it anymore. Are there enough people who watch TNA to have a similar thread? At least enough people to see Hogan and Bischoff absolutely destroying TNA the exact same way they destroyed WCW? Like....the exact same way. I really fear the nonsensicle story lines are going to start driving fans away.

Every year there are a few prospects I really root for because it would be huge for the Brewers if they have a good year. This year I am especially rooting for a couple of pitchers. Everyone knows all about the big 4 in Jungmann Bradley Peralta and Thornburg, with Lopez not far behind them. But if Scarpetta and Rogers can take that next step forward it would be huge for us. It would also allow the Brewers to use some of their multiple draft picks on desperately needed hitting prospects and it would make it easier to select a HS pitcher if that's what they feel is best. It seems like the Brewers have been a little college pitching heavy lately, especially early on. I really like Rogers and still think he has ace potential if he can just get over those stupid injuries and show decent control.

I would assume that since KRod is still considered a "type A" free agent that the year long rule doesn't apply and we still get compensation for him. They won't have type As and Bs next year so I assume thats when the rules really go into affect.

Hultzen on the other hand would have sign 50 of those pics for me if I had multiple copies. I saw him sign at least 10 16x20's for someone and the guy gave him a bunch of photos Ha, maybe Hultzen gets a cut of every photo of him that sold and he was thrilled some guy bought 10 http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif I'm just kidding. Every guy is different which is fine. They can do what they want. But if there was a line of people I personally would only sign one item. And I'd try to sign for as many different people as possible.

Apparently the Reds have shopped Alonso to the White Sox. Does anyone have any idea what the were asking in return? I think Alonso would would be a great addition to the team, but I'm only willing to give up so much for an unproven prospect who can only really play first base.

Well it wasn't right that we got screwed for losing Sabathia as well. But keep in mind this is only for this offseason. Then next season it goes to the average salary thing. Yeah I know and that's why I thought the compensation system was a joke. I'm glad they changed it. But this is just one last head scratcher before the new system gets implemented.

I don't mean this negatively against anyone here or anyone that collects anything. But I would probably be upset with someone handing me something to sign, like a ball, when I know I've already signed a ball for them. I'd probably refuse to do it if I could. Unless of course I see someone who is clearly a parent with three kids and he has three balls to be signed or something like that. But if someone just shoves three items in my face to be signed I'd sign one and refuse to take the others. I'd have no problem with people making money off of my autograph. But if that's the case I'm going to try to get everyone their first autograph before I start signing multiple things for the same person. I'm not saying that's why Cole was a jerk. Some people just have ego problems or think they are above this kind of thing. Some people don't realize, or care, that without the fans not only would their autograph be worth nothing, they also wouldn't be making nearly as much money as they do.

That has more to do with "punishing" the team who signs the best free agents than it does "rewarding" the team losing him. Yeah thats what it seems like. But it doesn't seem consistent with me. The compensation for the better type A free agents is at best equal to and at worst worse than the compensation for the lesser type A free agents. For instance, if a team in the back half of the standings signs Michael Cuddyer, the Twins would receive better compensation than the Brewers would receive if that same team signed Prince Fielder. That doesn't seem right to me. I understand the need to punish the signing teams here, but you shouldn't screw the losing teams at the same time.

So doesnt that make him more valuable to us than Prince? Wouldn't it have made sense for MLB to list those six free agents to be listed (Fielder, Reyes, Pjuols, Wilson etc) as the guys whom the teams that lose him get the pick before the signing team? Think about it. We lose KRod to a team in the lower half and we get a first round pick no matter what. We lose Prince to a team in the lower half and we may only get a second round pick even though Prince is a better player. Seems kind of backwards.

So I've got a a few questions. MLB changed the status on several free agents, including KRod, that said the signing team does not have to give up a first round pick BUT the team that loses him gets a pick before the pick of the signing team. First, let's say a team like SF signs Prince Fielder. The Brewers then get SF's first round pick. But what happens if SF also signs one of the other free agents whose class was change (KRod for instance). Since SF does not have a first round pick anymore, would Milwaukee still get the pick before where SF's pick was supposed to be (For instance, let's say SF's pick was #20 but they lose it for signing Fielder. Would the Brewers still get the 19th pick even though SF no longer picks at #20)? Or do they get the pick before whatever SF's first pick is? Next, is there any chance that the Brewers DO NOT get a first round pick if KRod signs elsewhere? Let's say a team in the bottom half of the standings signs KRod. Do the Brewers still get a pick in the first round before that team's pick? Or do the Brewers get a pick before the signing team's second round pick since the signing team would not have lost a first rounder, rather a second rounder, under the old rules? For instance, if Houston signs KRod, would the Brewers get the first overall pick? Or would they get the pick before Houston's second round pick? The question I really want to know, which I guess is more of a comment, I'll wait on until I know the answer to these two questions. Can someone help me out?

It was 85 last year. Maybe 90 is realistic, but jumping 10-15 million dollars isn't, really. If it is a stretch to suggest that raising the payroll $10 million after the team went to the NLCS and is raising ticket prices again then I am going to be pretty mad.

Why is everyone looking to move Wolf? Other than Braun Gallardo and maybe Lucroy I'd move anyone on this team if the price was right. But I think people are so willing to move Wolf because he is getting up there in age, he's expensive and only has a year left on his contract and we have two prospects who look like they may be ready to replace him. Plus he's coming off a really good year, a year that will be hard to repeat, and his value may be as high as it's going to be.

It almost works out better because now we are guaranteed a first round pick for him. Hopefully Pittsburgh or KC signs him http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

That sign about the WNBA title made me laugh.

Perhaps we should just bring him back That's what I'm hoping for. Losing Hawkins, KRod and Saito would have a major affect on the bullpen. As far as the arby goes, I am almost resigned to the fact that Prince will net us a second rounder. I just hope that KRod gets us a first rounder. Two extra first rounders would just be a huge bonus to me.

Definitely the right choice. The four extra draft picks will really come in handy.

If the A's are asking for Montero plus, I have a hard time believing they would have taken just Morrison.

You simply cannot trade Axford unless you are absolutely blown away. I agree with that. But I'd be blown away by Kyle Drabek or any pitching prospect that has #2 or maybe even #3 potential. I always hear that closers are overrated, but look at the deals that they've been getting. That's why I say they are overrated. I think that we as Brewers fans have been spoiled over the years by getting lucky with closers coming out of nowhere (Jones, Wickman, Kolb, Turnbow, Torres, etc.). It seems that for the past 20 years or so, every time the incumbent closer falls on their face, someone comes out of the woodwork to pitch lights out. I think the more it happens the less you can claim it's lucky. Basically what you do is put your best bullpen pitcher as the closer. Most above average bullpen guys could get a bunch of saves and have an era around 3 if put in the closers role. This has been the Brewers' formula for finding successful closers in the past. But the fact that so many of these guys have fallen on their face is even more reason to trade Axford while his value is so high. I'd just hate to have a Derrick Turnbow type season from Axford because after that happens you won't be able to get anything for him, let alone a decent prospect. Remember my original proposal was based on KRod accepting arby. If that were the case, I'd also hope to resign Saito and I'd be ok with those two at the back of the bullpen.

I get the sell high but way to cheap, even though first couple Arby years he won't break the bank. KRod would not except Arby from us unless there has been zero contact for a team wanting him to close. Take the picks and run with the 40+ save close whos dirt cheap Yes but one bad year and his value is gone. That's the risk you take. I like draft picks as much as the next guy but if my choices are KRod and Drabek (or another prospect with #2/#3 potential) or Axford and 2 draft picks I'll take the first. Even if one of our picks turns into a Drabek type prospect, which the odds say won't happen, it will take at least 3 or 4 years for this pitcher to be ready. One year of paying KRod $13 million won't hurt too much, and depending on the prospect you get back it could allow you to save money by trading Wolf or Marcum. And yes Axford is good but KRod isn't exactly chopped liver. Plus, as far as the picks go, you could always offer KRod that one year deal next season too and see if he accepts. He may not want to work on a one year deal again, especially since he is getting old and only has one good multiyear contract left in him. My understanding is Krod cannot be offered arbitration under the new rules, players must be on the team for the whole season. Those rules are in place this year, correct? He can still be offered arby but for some reason the team that signs him doesn't have to give up a pick. The Brewers would simply get the pick before the team that signs him. I have no idea what thats all about but it is what is it. It doesn't really affect the Brewers at all. It may actually help them as more teams may be willing to sign him since they don't have to give up their first rounder.

It's too bad Braddock took a nose dive last season. He could have been the guy that allowed us to trade Axford.

Spend $9.5M more on a closer that does not project as well? He'll be fine for another few years. We may not make the playoffs without the way he pitched this past season. But I think closers are the most overrated position in baseball. Heck I'd be fine with just keeping K-Rod for the year at whatever arbitration costs us then letting him go. But if you can get a guy like Drabek for Axford, then I think you do it. K-Rod would be a nice insurance option for 2 or 3 years if that happens until someone else can develop into that closers role.

It seems like there's been a lot of hesitation from the Brewers about whether or not to offer K-Rod arbitration because they may be worried he will accept. Well what if you offer him arby, and if he accepts you trade Axford. I think John Axford is the absolute sell high candidate and could bring back a legitimate pitching prospect. I know Toronto is looking for closer help and another poster brought up the idea of trading for Kyle Drabrek. So what about a Drabek for Axford deal? Then K-Rod is your closer and you could either just keep him for the year or maybe offer him a three year deal for around $30 million. Thoughts?