Ron Robinsons Beard

Well the Packers will win their Super Bowl in February, so them. Bucks won't be hoisting the Naismith Trophy until June, and the Brewers would be done with their championship run until early November.

IMO, Carter Kieboom would be an outstanding return for Josh Hader, but I am not sure the Nationals would be into it. I would be really disappointed if the Brewers took that Astros proposal (RHP Josh James and 3B Abraham Toro). It’s funny to see the voting between the two proposals is 50% to 50%. I am guessing a lot of Astros and Nationals fans are voting for the second one. Kieboom is a solid prospect, but he's still a prospect. If the Nationals want Hader, there better be more than Kieboom coming back, IMO. Put a package together centered around Kieboom and Fedde though, and I'm listening.

Ha ... good point. Edited.

For pretty cheap too. I get he’s rather go back to the Nats but I’d think the brewers would offer 8 million or so He apparently turned down several 2-year deals. Wouldn't be surprised if the Brewers had interest at that level. But the guy is coming off a pretty magical season with the Nats, and has made a lot of money in his career. So I get going back to where there is some comfort level.

There has been scuttle for awhile now that they were looking to move on from Renfroe. I get it. He's a pretty limited player who has likely already maximized his ceiling. I think Edwards is the big "get" here. That guy could be a top-of-the-order stud for a long time. Pham is a solid corner bat and great locker room guy. With so many young players, it makes sense that the Padres are trying to get some calming influence-type vets to put around them. Davies is that type of calming guy too, and will be a great fit for that staff and that park. Cronenworth is an interesting piece as well. The only guy in this deal I'm not a fan of is Renfroe.

Howie Kendrick off the board. Just re-signed with the Nats.

I personally would rather dream on a player like Smith putting up solid results, but with a low floor, than go with a "safe" option like Justin Smoak, who's likely to give you a .220 average, a lot of strikeouts and maybe 30 dingers. I kinda hope that Thames is still on the radar as well. I could see a potential Braun/Thames platoon if the team signs a corner outfielder.

Yea, but I feel like they have been terrible for the past 10 years. They have. But ... ooooooo, prospex!

Not necessarily. I think what some of us fans are worried about is whether we are making decisions to improve the team or making decisions in order for Mark A. and the rest of the ownership group to hit their profit margins? Obviously payroll is not everything as the Dodgers can attest to but I'd much rather the team sign good players that give us a 5% better chance to win the WS than try to get by on the cheap and hope whoever we find to fill spots can have a career year for us. Look at what the Red Sox are doing with Mookie Betts. He undoubtedly is a top OF in baseball and would make the Red Sox better next year if he stays, but they are shopping him because they're worried paying him what he's worth will impact the "budget." This is an example of a team actively trying to make their team worse in order to save money. This is the stuff that is maddening as a fan. Intelligently run teams attach a value to every player regardless of how much they have to spend. The Brewers aren't dropping valuable players simply to slash payroll. Take a guy like Thames. Is a straight platoon 1B worth over $7 million? The Brewers obviously don't think so, and I'm betting they believe they can find a solution that will either replicate Thames' production for less money, or they have identified a solution that will have a full time role at 1B, thereby providing more value. Any successful business wouldn't keep an employee on if their value or production no longer justified their cost.

Liked him ... so this is kind of a bummer. Might have had a shot at competing for the 3B job had he come back. Hopefully they have grander plans there, though.

That is a theoretical number until Attanasio decides to cash out and sell the team. The actual value of the team mean very little when it comes to cash flow. Taking a yearly loss is still taking a yearly loss. Oh thanks for explaining the theoretical number to me.....name a sports franchise that has gone down in value. Please do. As far as cash flow, no but you do know what does help cash flow, deferred revenue, financing capital improvements, deferred player contracts, etc. Oh i don't know maybe a sale of Bamtech where each MLB team got $50 Million. We don't know what kind of yearly loss it is, so its impossible to speculate unless we take a look at their books which we never will be able to. Am I supposed to think he is some kind of hero for going in the red for a couple years? Because I don't, I just think its a savvy finance person doing what they were taught to do. The man can do whatever he wants, we can choose to support or not support his business. Wasn't asking you to canonize Attanasio. Just pointing out that just because the overall value of the franchise has increased, it doesn't mean that there is extra cash around to start handing out more $100+ million player contracts. And you're right ... if you are upset that the team is not spending up to the standards you personally want them to, you can take your entertainment dollars elsewhere.

That is a theoretical number until Attanasio decides to cash out and sell the team. The actual value of the team mean very little when it comes to cash flow. Taking a yearly loss is still taking a yearly loss.

OK, so we push the payroll up to $150 million for a few years. But the team doesn't win a World Series. Then what? Push it to $175 million? $200 million. The fans that believe that the payroll is too low will never be happy, because it will never be enough. The Brewers are doing things the right way, and are in a good spot right now. Nightengale's tweet from earlier in the week that rival executives are saying that the Brewers are going to slash payroll is an indication that they are doing it right. Teams like the Cubs are incredulous that the "tiny market Brewers" are beating their butts on the field, and messing up their high-payroll windows. The big payroll teams tend to look down their noses at the small market teams, so when a team like the Brewers rises up and has some sustained success, it really pisses these "haves" off. And that's pretty great.

Did Haudricourt detail how he came to that conclusion? 1) The Brewers are a private entity and they don't have to report any financial details to anyone except the IRS; 2) There are thousands of ways for a entity to claim a paper loss while making a "profit" so if the info is being passed on by the Brewers, it isn't worth the storage space on a hard drive, which by my calculation is $0.00000002 This is the paragraph where it is mentioned: Some folks won’t believe it, but I have it on good authority that the Brewers actually finished in the red in 2019, a byproduct of stretching their opening day payroll to a franchise-record $125 million and taking it even higher with late-season acquisitions. Accordingly, Stearns is being careful with how he allocates salaries for next season and beyond. The article goes into detail on the team's finances. It is a pretty interesting read, albeit not super pleasant. But it is nice seeing a little evidence on where the team sits financially.

Haudricourt in his story in the JS earlier this week said the team finished in the red last season. Which means they did not make a profit. As much as we want them to spend, spend, spend, it doesn't work that way. Owning a baseball team is not a huge for-profit enterprise, but they shouldn't be expected to lose money, either. The naming rights and merchandise sales money are not much ... and those numbers are readily available. And when you drop payroll to gain money back, you end up losing attendance, merchandise sales and the like. With a small market team, it's about trying to find that happy medium. I think Attanasio probably went with the max payroll he was comfortable with last year, and took a hit in his pocketbook because of it. Can he handle that? Of course ... the guy is a billionaire. But he didn't get to be that billionaire by investing in enterprises that continuously lose him money. And no ... he doesn't "owe" any of us fans an increased payroll or superstar players. We as fans aren't owed anything. It is entertainment, and if you are dissatisfied with that entertainment, you have other options to spend your money on. The Brewers are doing a fine job managing within the tight constraints of a constrictive and unfair MLB economic environment. The difference between MLB and the NFL is that the NFL is all about the league and the shield, and MLB is all about the individual teams. Therein lies the difference. The big money teams will never all there to be true parity, so teams like the Brewers have to scrape up every resource they can, think outside the box, and if enough things go right, they might just get a bite at the apple every few years.

It's a baseball team, not a charity. The Brewers winning a championship isn't going to result in world peace and the end of disease and poverty. Look at the history of the franchise when it comes to spending big money on player contracts and temper expectations accordingly. Ok? I'm not asking for Mark Attanasio to solve poverty ([removed-no policits/socioeconomic commentary!]). I'm just not going to bend over and accept claims from any billionaire hedge fund owner in pro sports about being too strapped for cash to spend money on players. For what it's worth, in his article earlier this week, Haudricourt said it was his belief that the team finished in the red this year. Regardless of what you think of Haudricourt, he is more connected than any of us, so I have no reason to believe this not to be true. No one buys a baseball team to make money, but they aren't going to regularly operate it at a loss either.

I think a lot of us are just skeptical that the poor little Brewers sob story and their frugal operations over the years are also an easy way to keep making more and more money while saying "aw shucks, we sure tried". Every team's fanbase ... even the Yankees and Dodgers ... want their teams to spend more. Because it's not our money. But every team does have a limit, and the reasons' for the Brewers spending limits in particular have been pointed out repeatedly here. Would I like for the Brewers to go out and buy Gerrit Cole and Anthony Rendon today? As a fan, sure. But I also want the team to be well run, and those types of moves, given the market and financial constraints that are always going to be there under the current financial environment in MLB, are probably not the most intelligent.

He may be looking at a similar deal to what Moose got. Big contract for sure, but I think I like him for the next 4 seasons more than I like Moose. At some point, defense has to be considered for future signings. can you imagine the IGT threads when we start throwing up 3 errors per game? They've run some poor defenders out there in recent years, and have made it work. I don't expect that to change. I think may be a case of perceived defensive deficiencies being overstated. If the team decides that Castellanos's offensive value justifies his defensive issues, they'll throw him a contract offer. As far as we know they haven't done that yet, so perhaps they don't feel that way. But it wouldn't surprise me if he were a potential target. He checks a lot of the boxes they seemingly look for in players.

He may be looking at a similar deal to what Moose got. Big contract for sure, but I think I like him for the next 4 seasons more than I like Moose.

We acquired a top 20 prospect to play SS and you said how he’s just another Arcia. You complained that the Brewers are being cheap because they didn’t break the bank to bring Moose back on a long term. You then complained yesterday and said that the Brewers need to do something (because acquiring a solid rotation arm with 5 years of control and a starting SS for 6 years three days earlier is nothing?). And now today, we bring in a guy that is a top 5 offensive catcher in the game, arguably top 3. Who will also hit .275 with close to 25 homers. And gave up essentially nothing. Yet, you complain saying we should of brought back Grandal. We will be getting arguably the same offensive production for only $3 million instead of $18 million, keeping financial flexibility in the future, while opening up $15 million to be spent on other upgrades RIGHT NOW. Yes the defense will be worse, but you need to give and take a little to bring in additional talent for other places on the roster. And who’s to say he won’t improve defensively? What in the world would make you happy?? Obviously young, controllable MLB talent isn’t it. NAMZ!!!!!!!!! BRING ME ALL DA NAMZ!!!!!!

4.7 bWAR in 2018 OPS+ 2016 - 120 2017 - 112 2018 - 128 2019 - 121 Only 27 years old Yeah ... probably not the MVP-level hitter he looked like with the Cubs, but the dude is good. Offensively he's be a perfect for for this team. It would just be a matter of stomaching the defense.

Looking more into him, the injuries have really taken a toll. FB velocity sits around 90-91 now. He has the look of a prototypical power pitcher, but brings Zach Davies' stuff. Probably not a bad pass.

The problem I have with that statement is that it assumes that all MLB teams value particular players similarly, and that simply isn't true. I mean, isn't it just as likely that, for some reason, Preller and the Padres either value Urias much lower, or Grisham (or Davies I suppose) much higher than conventional wisdom dictates? Changing the numbers after the fact eliminates, or at least lessens, the idea that lopsided trades happen all the time in MLB. Why should Preller get a pass if conventional wisdom dictates that he got hoodwinked? In hindsight the deal may turn a few years down the road, but that wouldn't change the current valuations.

It appears that the Brewers may be thinking that way. Which is interesting because when Stearns came he made some moves and everyone assumed he valued good defense and versatility...now it seem like the opposite. I am sure he values versatility (who doesn't), but I think he really just wants the players that will add the most value regardless. A good small market GM probably doesn't fall in love with any specific attribute and instead will make a team however he seems fit in any given year. The one thing he has stuck to still is his unwillingness to invest in pitching. We will see if that stays true as the offseason moves on and he has some much money to spend it seems that Stearns takes an extremely pragmatic approach to team building, and you are right, the acquisitions are 100% based on analytical value. Heck, if there is some sort of metric that tells Stearns that Castellanos would provide more value if he was signed to be the team's everyday 3B, it wouldn't surprise me. If that's the route they go, though, it may be tough to find pitchers that want to come throw with that level of defense playing behind them.