paul253

http://www.baseballameric...t/news/2011/2612639.html I don't know if this link has been posted yet, but it's another explanation about the new CBA. I think this one is a little more clear in terms of the changes to the draft and international signings.

These draft changes are confusing. It seems like there should be a much simpler way of doing this.

I am also excited about certain guys, but much fewer and I'm very cautiously optimistic about them. I think Hunter Morris has a lot of potential, but he needs to start drawing walks. On OBP of ..299 isn't going to cut it, no matter how many home runs you hit. Same goes for a lot of guys (Prince, Gennett, Ramirez). I'm really hoping Khris Davis can bounce back from his disasterous Huntsville debut. If Hunter Morris doesn't pan out, I'd like to see Davis moved to first base. I'm really excited about the potential of Gindl and Schafer. Those two, plus Green and Gamel, are going to have a lot to say about Milwaukee's success the next few years. If they can play well the Brewers will be able to save a lot of money and focus on pitching. Pitching wise, obviously the big 4 (Jungmann, Bradley, Peralta, Thornburg) will be really fun to follow. I see Lopez on a similar path as Odorizzi, which means Arizona and Helena this year. Heckathorn and Scarpetta really need to show something this season. Scarpetta has got to start controlling the walks. Peralta did it last season and took a gigantic step forward. If Scarpetta can do the same it would be a real shot in the arm for the system. His time is running out. But I have to admit, my favorite player to follow this upcoming season is going to be Mark Rogers. No time left for excuses. This is his last year. He'll enter spring training healthy. I hope they let him start games and eventually get him up to Nashville once his suspension is up. Like Scarpetta, a good year by Rogers could be a real shot in the arm for the Brewers. I'm hoping good starts by at least 4 of Rogers, Peralta, Jungmann, Bradley, Thornburg, Heckathorn, and Scarpetta will allow the Brewers to start using more higher round draft picks on some desperately needed impact bats this year. Hopefully the Brewers can get at least 1 extra first rounder from the free agency of Fielder and K-Rod. I know I'm pushing my luck by asking for 2 first-rounders (I don't consider sandwich picks to be first rounders). I think next June's draft is going to be just as important as last June's draft in terms of the Brewers hitting on their picks.

I have a 2006 Cooper and Caldwell and Moore minis that I can trade. The Cooper does not have a box but the minis do. I'm just looking for either one of the regular Braun bobbles.. Prefer it not to be a retro or a Blue jersey. I also don't want to insult people with an offer, which apparently I did once, so if you could just tell me what you are asking that'd be great.

Braves I don't see them trading their young pitching unless they are getting a young player who they can control for about the same amount of time as the pitchers they would be giving up. But the Braves have an excess of it. I know they are looking to deal Jurrjens and have already traded Lowe, but I still count 7 starting pitchers they have right now that are able to start in the majors (Jurjens, Minor, Beachy, Hudson, Hanson, Vizcaino and Delgado). Plus they are looking for a power hitting corner outfielder. This is where the Brewers lack of depth in the minors absolutely kills them. They can't trade any pitching prospects because they desperately need them. And they can't trade their positional prospects because, well, they don't have any of them that are any good. I am not sure the Yankees will trade any of their young pitchers. They are going to need all of the pitching they can get as they have nothing in the majors right now other than Nova. And Sabathia. But my thinking is that if they don't feel Bentaces or Banuelos is ready they may be willing to trade them for someone like Marcum, who has had success in the AL East already. Resigning Marcum wouldn't be a problem for them if they wanted to do that. It doesn't hurt to ask.

How about Bentaces from the Yankees? He may need another year in AAA but Marcum for Bentances is a deal I'd take. If they miss out on Wilson you never know. And what about one of the plethora of pitchers from the Braves? Beachy, Teheran, and Vizcaino are probably too much too ask for but what about Minor or Delgado for Corey Hart? If I could make either or both of those two trades I'd take them.

It won't change your argument much but this is most certainly the case in baseball. Teams that think they need to rebuild sell off all of their good players and go into low price mode and put the money into their draft and minor league teams. A large percentage of the lowest payroll teams aren't really interested in winning (not all of them though). It's not that they aren't interested in winning or that they aren't trying to win. If that were the case, they wouldn't bother trading off their good players to try to get prospects in return. They'd just let them walk away in free agency and then replace them with anyone who is cheaper. But why is it that the bad teams are always trading away their good players? It's usually because the player is a pending free agent and the team either doesn't want to re-sign him because they don't think he's part of the future (they have a replacement) or they don't think they can re-sign him. It's not usually possible for a team, especially a small market team, to rebuild entirely with free agents. They have to build around the younger guys. That's why they trade for them. They trade for them because they realize that that is their best chance of building a winner. It's the exact opposite of not trying to win. They are trying to win. They just realize their chances of winning now are small and so they have to look to the future. I'd also be a bit dubious about using stats back to 1998 considering how many changes aimed at fixing competitive balance have happened since then. The numbers are right there, you can do anything you'd like with them. Let's look at the last 7 years then, since 2005: American League: The percentage of playoff teams with a bottom 5 payroll is 25%. They make up close to 38% of the league. The percentage of playoff teams with a top 5 payroll is almost 61%. They also make up 38% of the league. The team with the lowest payroll made the playoffs once and finished last in the division 4 of the 7 years National League: The percentage of playoff teams with a bottom 5 payroll is about 11%. They make up 31% of the league. The percentage of playoff teams with a top 5 payroll is about 43%. They also make up 31% of the league. The team with the lowest payroll never made the playoffs and finished last 4 of the 7 years. Here's another statistic: In 1998 the smallest payroll was about 11.5% of the highest. In 2011 the smaller payroll was about 18% of the highest. Things seems to be getting better but it's not there yet. Teams with higher payrolls are disproportionately represented in the playoffs and teams with lower payrolls are disproportionately underrepresented in the playoffs. Baseball is set up in a way that a team with a small payroll can compete IF they draft well and have a lot of good young players. But once those players move into the arbitration years and get expensive, it is harder for the small payroll team to continue to compete because the expensive players start to leave. In order to stay successful, they have to maintain the good young players throughout which is difficult. That's why you will see teams like Oakland and Minnesota and maybe TB go through a period of three years where they make the playoffs but then, after losing the core of their team, begin to struggle again.

It sure is nice to finally see some new names on this list. Ever since Lawrie, Odorizzi, and Jeffress were traded our prospect lists have been pretty pathetic. There is still a long way to go, but Jungmann, Lopez and Bradley is certainly a good start. Hopefully next year's draft will produce at least two more top 10 prospects.

Most times, if a team isn't spending money, it isn't trying to compete. So first you say there is no evidence to suggest that payroll has any affect on the competitive balance of the league. Then when evidence is presented that the majority of the playoff teams have a top 5 league payroll you just dismiss it by saying lower spending teams aren't trying? Since when does the amount of money spent on payroll directly correlate with how hard a team is "trying"? Do you see someone making that argument? Or is that another strawman? What exactly are you arguing then? Because it sure reads to me that you think Milwaukee could sign Fielder if they wanted to and can still stay competitive for the next couple of years. I acknowledge Milwaukee could technically sign him. But it's not realistic to expect Milwaukee to have a quarter of it's payroll tied up in one player. They don't have enough quality pitching prospects to replace the 3 starters that they surely won't be able to afford to re-sign. The whole point of this debate is that certain teams (Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, Phillies) could probably afford to do that and most other teams can't. And because of that certain teams have a built in advantage towards making the playoffs. You said there's no evidence of that but there it is a couple of posts down. Teams with higher payrolls are more likely to make the playoffs. Tying this in a little more to the topic, I don't think a salary cap is really the answer. Beside the fact that it will never happen, I think making changes to the draft, increasing revenue sharing (with the requirement that a certain percentage of the money received by a team in revenue be directly invested in team personnel) and increasing the luxury tax would be more affective.

Logic gets in the way of irrational arguments. The irrational argument that the Brewers can sign Fielder to a $25 million a year contract for 7 or 8 years and still have enough money to be competitive? As long the value of the contract equals what Fielder wanted, it wouldn't be a major obstacle. I don't think you can speak for Fielder regarding that. In order for the Brewers to be competitive in the near future, it will be highly important for this to happen. And that is true regardless of whether the Brewers signed Fielder. It is true, but it's also true that if they don't sign Fielder they'll have more money available to sign starting pitchers should their prospects not pan out like recent history suggest they may not.

Sorry for the long box, but some observations I made regarding the playoff history: American League since 1998 The team with the highest payroll made the playoffs 85% of the time over the last 14 years About 60% of the AL playoff teams had a top 5 payroll About 23% of the AL playoff teams had a bottom 5 payroll The team with the lowest payroll made the playoffs once (TB) and finished last in their division 57% of the time National League since 1998: The team with the highest payroll only made the playoffs 28% of the time, but if you include the top 2 payrolls, it jumps to 57% of the time (we can thank the Cubs and Mets for this) About 53% of the NL playoff teams had a top five payroll Only 7% of the NL playoff teams had a bottom five payroll The team with the lowest payroll never made the playoffs and also finished last in their division 57% of the time What this shows me is that teams with a top 5 payroll are much more likely (almost three times more likely in the AL and almost 8 times more likely in the NL) to make the playoffs than teams with bottom five payrolls. Teams with a top two payroll make the playoffs about 75% of the time total. Teams with the lowest payroll very rarely make the playoffs. Note: I started in 1998 because the link I found to total payrolls started that year.

Year AL Playoff Teams League Payroll Rank Team with lowest payroll NL Playoff Team League Payroll Rank Team with lowest payroll 1998 NYY Texas Cleveland Boston 2 3 4 5 Detroit last in AL central Atlanta Chicago San Diego Houston 2 5 4 7 Montreal 4th in NL east 1999 NYY Texas Boston Cleveland 1 2 5 3 Minnesota Last in AL Central Atlanta Houston NYM Arizona 1 7 2 4 Florida Last in NL east 2000 Seattle Chicago NYY Oakland 7 11 1 12 Minnesota Last in AL Central St Louis Chicago NYM SF 5 7 4 9 Florida 3rd NL east 2001 NYY Oakland Seattle Cleveland 1 13 6 3 Minnesota 2nd AL Central Atlanta Houston St Louis Arizona 3 9 5 4 Montreal Last NL East 2002 Minnesota Oakland NYY Anaheim 12 13 1 7 TB Last AL East St Louis Arizona Atlanta SF 7 1 4 5 Montreal 2nd NL East 2003 NYY Minnesota Oakland Boston 1 8 11 3 Kansas City 3rd AL Central Chicago Florida Atlanta SF 6 15 2 4 San Diego Last AL West 2004 NYY Boston Anaheim Minnesota 1 2 3 8 TB 4th AL East St Louis Atlanta Houston LAD 7 4 8 3 Milwaukee Last NL Central 2005 Chicago Boston LAA NYY 5 2 3 1 KC 5th AL Central St. Louis Atlanta San Diego Houston 4 7 11 9 Pittsburgh Last NL Central 2006 Detroit NYY Oakland Minnesota 5 1 10 9 TB Last AL East NYM LAD St. Louis SD 1 2 7 9 Florida 4th NL East 2007 Boston NYY LAA Cleveland 2 1 3 13 TB Last AL East Colorado Philly Chicago Arizona 12 6 3 13 Florida Last NL Central 2008 Boston Chicago TB LAA 3 4 14 5 TB 1st AL East LA Chicago Philly Milwaukee 2 3 6 8 Florida 3rd NL East 2009 NYY LAA Boston Minnesota 1 4 2 12 Oakland Last AL West LA St Louis Philly Colorado 5 7 3 10 Florida 2nd NL East 2010 TB NYY Texas Minnesota 10 1 13 7 Oakland 2nd AL West Philly Atlanta Cincinnati SF 2 8 11 4 Pittsburgh Last NL Central 2011 TB Texas NYY Detroit 13 7 1 6 KC 4th AL Central Milwaukee St. Louis Philly Arizona 9 5 1 14 SD Last NL Central

The reason not to sign him is that the money he is asking for can be spent in better ways. This is exactly the point. The Brewers have limited resources and have to determine where to spend the limited money they have. While Boston and New York don't technically have unlimited funds, they can certainly afford to pay most anyone they want to without having to sacrifice other positions like the Brewers do. Could the Brewers technically afford to sign Fielder? Sure. But that pretty much eliminates the possibility of resigning Marcum and/or Greinke. So for the Brewers it's either Fielder or Greinke and/or Marcum. The whole either/or is not usually a problem New York has. If the Brewers had NYY money, they could afford to re-sign Fielder if they wanted to and still be able to afford to re-sign Greinke and Marcum. The Brewers will have a payroll that is larger than the combined salaries of Braun and Fielder. They also have 23 other guys they have to pay. Stop being so technical about this. Yes, technically, the Brewers can afford him. But it would have a major impact on the rest of the roster and would mean a lot of other players not being here once their contracts run out. I've advocated in the past that the Brewers can structure a contract to anticipate future conditions. So maybe Fielder gets paid $15M in 2012, but it goes up to a higher figure when we will have 2/3 of the OF be cheap for years and the rotation includes a couple of young cheap arms from the farm. This is assuming Fielder agrees to that. He made $15.5 million this past year, so he'd have to take a small pay cut this year if he signed that contract. Maybe he would, maybe he wouldn't. And then you say we'll just have a rotation that includes a couple of young cheap arms from the farm, like it's a given that this can happen. I'm as hopeful as the next guy about our prospects, but let's not jump the gun. This is the organization that has developed all of two successful starting pitchers in the past decade. Jungmann and Bradley haven't even pitched in the minors yet and will likely take at least three season before you can count on them to be in the rotation. Peralta and Thornburg look good, but most people project them to be a #3 or #4 pitcher. You'd have to have a lot go right for this scenario to happen. Plenty of people keep bringing up money and saying there is a competitive balance problem I'm not going to try to argue about what other people said, but what I will say is that there is a competitive advantage issue. What I mean by that is that teams with the ability to have massive payrolls have a built in advantage over the teams that don't. Now just because they have an advantage doesn't mean they will win, but it certainly makes it easier. What I would like to see if that advantage be taken away so that teams like the Pirates and Royals have as much of a chance to sign the Pujols and Fielders of the world as the Yankees and Red Sox's do.

tThat's not a rule at all. The Brewers have the flexibility to afford Fielder for his production. He is seeking a contract that exceeds his production. The Brewers not keeping Fielder is a good decision, not something that should be lamented. Come on. You think they are letting Fielder go because it's not a "good decision" to re-sign him? Well why is that? Are the Brewers a better team with Mat Gamel at first? Of course not. The reason it is not a good move is because of the financial impact of it and the fact that 1) If the Brewers do resign him they are basically unable to afford Greinke or Marcum extensions and 2) They can't afford to take a risk on such a long term deal because if he gets hurt or starts to play poorly at the end of the contract they probably won't be able to replace him. Do the Yankees have either of these problems? Have they ever had to choose between keeping Derek Jeter or A-Rod? Have they ever been stuck with a crap rotation because they can't afford better pitchers? Did you ever hear of something called "small sample sizes" and how they generally don't tell the entire story? This is a widely accepted idea. This is exactly it. The Yankees and Red Sox are successful when they make good choices. That's the biggest thing that separates them from the Mets and other teams that spend without success. The major difference is that the Yankees and Red Sox can afford to make up for bad decisions a lot easier than the Brewers can. If the Brewers or Royals signed Carl Pavano or A.J. Burnett to the same contract the Yankees did do you think they could have just afforded to say "oops" and then signed someone else to make up for it? How long did Jeff Suppan's contract prevent us from making other moves? Also, making "good decisions" is a lot easier with money. Was it a "good decision" to extend Sabathia, or Jeter, or, or Rivera? Or to sign Texiera? Will it be a good decision to extend Cano? Of course. But again, it's a lot easier to make these decisions when you can afford to and not have to decide who to keep and who to let go. Here we are in Milwaukee debating trading guys like Hart or Marcum or Wolf to save money even though it may hurt in the short term. It'd be a lot easier if we could keep all of them and still offer long term contracts to Reyes and Ramirez and not think twice about it. And yes the Cubs are a shining example of what can go wrong if you don't spend money right, but I don't think anyone is arguing spending more money always equals more success. I just think there is a built in advantage when certain teams can afford all of the "stars" and other teams can't. Just like there is a built in advantage in the draft when you can take a chance on a certain player that most teams passed up on because they can't afford the risk.

I think you are in serious denial if you don't acknowledge that Tampa was an expansion team and was not managed well for years. I think you're missing my point. You can't just take a four year period and say "see everything is great". You have to look at the entire picture. The entire picture shows the Yankees and Red Sox with the highest payrolls most of the last decade and the Yankees and Red Sox generally making the playoffs. Sure every now and then one of them will miss it, and every now and then someone like the Brewers or Rays will make it. But you have to acknowledge their window of opportunity is much shorter. Who do you realistically expect to maintain their success more, year in year out? The Yankees or the Rays?

It depends on how much they're asked to pay. New basketball arenas have been costing over $400 million lately. You're right, Milwaukee taxpayers would never agree to that. But soccer stadiums are being built for about a quarter of that. So let's say they can build a stadium downtown for $100 million. They sell the naming rights for $15 million. Then they raise $50 million in private funds. If they taxpayers only have to pay $35 million (plus interest) it might not be a bad deal.

The Rays have made the playoffs as many times as the Yankees in the last 4 years despite a massive payroll difference. What about the ten years before that? It's easy to think that it's a problem, it's hard to demonstrate that it actually is a problem. The Yankee have made the playoffs every year except one since the playoffs expanded. I think you're in serious denial if you don't think money has a major affect on success. It's not the only thing that affects it obviously, as the Cubs have shown us, but it certainly helps. It takes years of good drafting and good personnel moves for a team with a payroll like TB to have sustained success. They have drafted well, but they've also had some very high draft choices. From 1999 to 2008, the lowest they picked was 8th. And that includes four #1 overall picks ('99, '03, '07, '08). Those were some pretty bad teams they had. Meanwhile they Yankees were in the playoffs all of those years except 2008 because they didn't need to rely on drafting.

I don't even trust Weeks at second. I hold my breath every time the ball is hit to him. I don't think my blood pressure could take watching him try to play shortstop.

I would absolutely consider trading Wolf if the market is there. If you can get a decent prospect for him, pitcher or otherwise (maybe a young third basemen or shortstop) I say go for it. This pitching market is exceptionally thin and the Brewers have two pitchers in Wolf and Marcum who might be appealing to other teams. Just once I'd like to see the Brewers trade someone away while their value is still high.

Does anyone have an extra Ryan Braun bobble? Not looking for anything special or any particular year. My 7 year old nephew wants one for christmas and I of course just sold the majority of my bobbleheads. I do not want to pay what it would cost for a retro or blue so just a regular white jersey would be great. I have a few mini's left that I'd like to trade for it but I'll also buy it if necessary. PM me if you are interested.

I wouldn't feel too sorry for them. They do get back a lot more salary flexibility too. They've still got a pretty decent club and money to spend to improve it. I don't feel sorry for them either, but the joke of the system doesn't discriminate. I wasn't laughing when Milwaukee got stuck with a 2nd rounder when they lost C.C. Sabathia, who at the time could have been considered one of the best pitchers in the game. Nor will I be laughing when Milwaukee gets a 2nd rounder when Fielder signs with a team in lower half of the standings. I like the idea of the compensation system, but it needs to be overhauled.

Rogers has always had an amazing arm. His success starts and ends with his control. When he started those few games in Milwaukee in 2010, he didn't walk all that many hitters. If he can limit the walks, I have all the confidence in the world that he can have success in Milwaukee. Remember, he was considered by many to be Milwaukee's top prospect heading into the 2011 season. Right now, he's mostly a cast off. If he can bounce back starting in Nashville this season it would be HUGE for Milwaukee. He'll be one of the prospects, along with Peralta, Thornburg, Jungmann and Bradley, that I'll be most excited to follow next year.

I'd be fine offering Reyes 5 or 6 years. He's only 27 and yes, he's been unhealthy, but he's still one of the best shortstops in of baseball. He won the batting title last season. He'd also bat lead off and allow for better use of Hart and Weeks' power by not having one of them hitting first. And later on in his career he could always be moved to third or second to save some wear and tear on his body. If we signed him to a $100 million dollar deal, I'd like to see the Brewers try to trade Marcum for a young pitcher or Hart for a young outfielder. I'd also still like to see JHJ signed as a backup/utility guy even if Reyes is signed.

If the draft was set up properly I could get away from the idea that large market, higher spending teams have the advantage. But the draft favors higher spending teams too. Everything from bonuses to compensation picks favors teams like Boston and New York. Teams like the Pirates, Brewers, and Royals have much less room for error than teams like NY, LAA, and Boston and because of that can't take as many chances. Think of it like investing money. If I have $10,000,000 I can afford to invest more and make riskier investments because even if an investment turns out badly, I still have enough money to make up for it. If I only have $10,000, I have to be really careful with how I invest it. One bad investment that loses money and I'm done for about two or three years. The person with $10,000,000 will always have the advantage over the person with $10,000. He may have more negative investments and may even lose money every now and then, but in the end, he's got it much easier. The draft needs to change. Big time. I'd say that even completely dropping the compensation rounds would be a step up. It was set up with good intentions but it doesn't work the way it's should. A compensation rounds needs to be based on the entirety off the off-season, not based on individual moves. If Boston loses a type A and signs a type A, why do they come out ahead a pick?

Doug Melvin told Adam McCalvy that Rogers & Scarpetta were awarded 4th option years. That would be great if Rogers can have an extra year in the minors. Assuming he's healthy, I'd let him start games in Nashville.