monty57

NFL playoffs are all on the weekend, and the networks do almost all of their sports programming on the weekends. It works perfectly. MLB by its nature cannot put all of its games on the weekend, and there is no way the networks are going to give up all of their programming for a month to air the MLB playoffs. The only time a network does that is for the Olympics. To a lesser extent, CBS gives up some of a Thursday and Friday for March Madness. Of course, part of the ratings difference is that the NFL has one game, while baseball has five or seven in a series. If we had to watch five games in a week to see an NFL playoff series, even some Packer fans might find that they have something else to do during some of the games. However, when you add up the total viewership of all MLB games in a year vs the viewership of all NFL games in a year, I think MLB still does alright, and I haven't heard anyone associated with MLB complaining about the revenue that MLB is generating.

I would have agreed with you back in say July when he still was occasionally posting a decent start. Why risk turning off fans that suffered through the awful start in 2015, by subjecting them to more of Garza, the latest poster boy for what was wrong with the Melvin regime? If the 2016 Brewers are going to struggle out of the gate, at least have some fresh faces. The absolute best case scenario is if he pitches to some level of competence that a team out there will take a flyer on him if the Brewers eat 75% of his salary. Even then the return in talent back would be negligible. I'd rather risk a bit more and get someone who actually has an upside and who'll have a contract that isn't a deterrent to a deal. You're kind of defeating your own argument. If Garza couldn't resurrect his trade value, then why could Kennedy? Garza has a decent enough track record in baseball that a hot start next year could allow for teams to disregard his 2015 numbers, especially if there were any injuries hampering him this season. He has at least as good a chance of bouncing back as Kennedy. If you just want to dump Garza, I wouldn't be too upset by it, but I don't see any reason for dumping Garza (paying his full salary) and then adding on Kennedy, who has a high likelihood of being yet another bad contract, even if it is for only one season. If the fans are going to be put off by seeing Garza on the mound, they would be more upset by paying him not to pitch and then signing another veteran FA who stinks. To me, Garza is kind of a "stick with the crap you're stuck with" option.

While that may be true how does that help MLB create a larger fan base? It may help cable keep a few customers which is good for them but I don't see how that helps baseball. I also think the avid fans would just listen to the games. Unlike most sports, especially football, baseball is as entertaining to listen to as to watch. So I am not even sure cable is getting much customer retention based on having the games. Just making up numbers, but if Fox offers $1M to air on network and $100M to air on FS1, why would baseball take the $1M offer? Fox wants to get "bundles" to add FS1, and having the MLB playoffs is a good bargaining chip for them. They don't have that concern for their major network, so they pay more from FS1 to get it there. Eventually, i'd guess everything will be done on MLB.tv and MLB Network, but until the numbers make sense for MLB, they will sell the rights to the highest bidder.

Brewers can use at least one veteran for first four months of 2016. They'd be a lot better off with a buy lower guy like Kennedy than Garza as that guy. Even if Garza returned to respectable numbers and an ERA around 4, he's got little trade value. Kennedy's upside is considerably higher. But they still have to pay Garza, and they would be adding Kennedy's salary. I understand that big numbers get thrown around in baseball and we become numb to them, but there is a good chance that neither of these guys do well. In that case, the Brewers would just be doubling the wasted money this year. I understand that payroll will be down, and we could afford to eat another bad contract, but there isn't a big enough reason for me to want to take that risk. It kind of feels like going to Vegas since you have "too much" money in your bank account... who cares if you lose because it's just money, but think of how much you could win. Odds are you will just end up with no money. I'll agree with you that Garza will probably be dumped, but since we already owe him guaranteed money, I think we should give him a few months to see if he can straighten things out enough that some team would at least take some of his salary off our hands. The potential gain is big money savings and maybe a prospect, while the potential loss is negligent, since we aren't planning on making the playoffs, and we already owe him the money. Plus, it gives us a little "pitching injury insurance," and allows some guys who may need more time in the minors the time to develop.

The Cubs had no pitching, and had to fill out a rotation by taking fliers on veterans. The Brewers have talented young pitching, so they don't have the need to throw millions of dollars on a reclamation project. They have their "I hope he turns it around so we can flip him for prospects" veteran in Garza and they really don't need another. The next in line for "let's hope he has a big season and ups his trade value" is Peralta. The rest of the guys should have enough team control that we just need to get them innings to see how they play before determining what their future holds.

Looks like both Estrada and Lind exceeded expectations. Estrada had better results pitching and Lind was healthy most of the year. Win-win. Well said. Estrada wasn't expected to get a big return, but since the Blue Jays didn't really have a spot for Lind, and wanted to free up some salary, the Brewers probably got the guy who was more valuable at the time of the trade. Both players played well, which for the Blue Jays means playoff baseball, and for the Brewers means Lind can probably bring back a decent prospect in trade this offseason.

Monty, time to withhold your attendance skepticism. I've never been skeptical about Brewer attendance. Instead of "around 2M," I should have/meant to say "over 2M." I doubt they'll hit 2.5M, as the offseason ticket sales will be down after a losing season and won't get the bump they've received the past few seasons from the annual "name" free agent signing. Instead, we will probably see a "name player" or two dealt for young players, but the point of my post was that the team will still draw plenty of fans even in rebuild. I do, however, think that the worry of attendance dropping was a big motivator for Attanasio over the past few offseasons, and a big reason he made some of his free agent moves (notably Lohse and Garza). I've felt for years that this was the wrong approach, as I've always felt the Brewer fans will show up unless they feel the owner is trying to cheat them out of their money (like they felt at the end of the Selig's ownership). These are the same fans who cause opposing teams' cities to bump up their hotel rates and put Miller Lite on tap whenever the Packers or Badgers are in town... I have tremendous faith in them :-)

The thing I'm most happy about with Segura is that a couple offseasons ago he wasn't awarded a lucrative contract extension to buy out a season of his free agency. I agree, but I think Melvin is/was pretty good with extension offers. I think the reason Segura turned down the offer is that it would have looked much more like Lucroy's deal than Starlin Castro's deal. While he would still be too expensive even on a "Lucroy deal," it wouldn't be too big a burden on the team's payroll, and as you mentioned he could be a decent "super-utility" guy, even if he were a little overpaid. Actually, as Roderick pointed out, he will probably make more in arbitration in the coming years because he has been an everyday starter for several years (regardless of performance) than he would make if he had signed a "Lucroy-type" extension. That's the purpose of those extensions: the team guarantees the player money, regardless of how he plays or if he gets injured, so the player gives up potential money he may receive if he risks going year-to-year. With the way it has worked out, he might get enough in arby that the Brewers choose to cut him after the 2016 season, which they couldn't do if he had even a low-priced extension.

Good point about Segura, as he could be too expensive to be a utility guy. He could lose his job to Arcia early in the year (once Arcia won't lose a year of service), which could bring his price tag down some, but he would still probably be too expensive for a bench role. I think the Brewers' management did a good job trading assets this year, but Segura could have been his one "miss." It sounded like teams had some interest in him when he got off to a hot start, but the Brewers said he was unavailable. They didn't put him on the market until he cooled off, at which point no one wanted to give up anything for him.

Rebuilding from within while still putting a product on the field people will pay good money to see isn't mutually exclusive and it's the best way for this particular franchise to operate. Ticket receipts are going down next year regardless of what the team does, but I have faith in Wisconsin fans to understand what's going on with their team. At this point, I think most would rather see a team of promising young players than see the team throw money at so-so veterans. Doing something like adding a veteran 3B on a one-year deal is fine, but I hope we don't hand out any 3-5 year, eight figure per year deals this offseason. We should see around 2M fans through the gates next year, which is less than we've had in the recent past, but with a low payroll the team will still make plenty of money. I think much of this money will go into "infrastructure" (things like scouting and development), and some will be saved for the future, both of which will pay dividends down the road. Crash, good job on the initial post. I will agree with others that the weakest of the comps is Segura/Gennett, neither of whom have a lot of trade value at this point. Your point about trading them in the 2018 offseason is interesting. Arcia should take over shortstop in 2016 or 2017, so by 2018, Segura will either be traded, moved to another position, or used as a utility guy. Personally, I think they should shop him now to see if he has any value. If not, he should keep the seat warm until Arcia is ready, at which point Segura would be a good utility infielder. The other two comps (along with the moves we have already made) are why I am optimistic about the Brewers' future.

Re: "Pairing up" the pitchers No chance. As has been pointed out, it would be bad for the players' development, as they need to be able to pitch more than 4 innings at some point, so make them do it now. It would also kill their trade value (we are rebuilding), as no one would know what they were getting. Finally, it would cause mayhem in the bullpen. You're talking about 10 guys on set rotation days. Does that mean the other 2 or 3 guys pitch every day, or are we assuming that we will keep one guy in 5 innings every start and his "mate" the final four, no matter how either of them are pitching? This would turn really ugly really quickly. Re: Kennedy I don't see the point. We have lots of young pitchers who should be showcased in 2016, and the only reason we're sticking Garza in the rotation is that we owe him a lot of money and are hoping he gets some trade value back. Barring trades, I'd go with Nelson, Peralta, Garza, Jungmann and probably Davies, with a strong AAA rotation ready to step in for injuries, poor performance, or if someone is traded mid-season. If the money is really burning a hole in Attanasio's pocket, and he feels the need to spend some of it, find a veteran 3B on a short-term deal, and possibly a veteran catcher or 1B if Lind and/or Lucroy are traded. Otherwise stick with youth.

Would a Mexican team be paid in Peso's, or US dollars? Would currency exchange rate play into it? I know it plays into the NHL quiet a bit, especially when discussing salary cap issues and what not. Blue Jays get paid in Canadian dollars, so I would guess yes (at least they used to because I remember reading an article on it years ago when the Canadian dollar strengthened against the US dollar). If that's a concern for a potential free agent, they could easily hedge against currency fluctuation on a long-term deal. Personally, I'd be more concerned about playing in a high tax state vs a low tax state than I would about being paid in a foreign currency.

A team in Mexico is going to immediately acquire a massive fan base. Also, baseball can only expand so much in the US markets - steps in Latin America are bold, but obvious. I think it's inevitable that MLB eventually expand to Mexico, and Mexico City's immense population would seem to make it the logical choice. That team would immediately have more fans than any team other than maybe the Yankees. As to free agency, I would think a lot of Spanish-speaking players would like to play in Mexico, giving them an advantage for many of the players on the market each year.

I like that. It lets guys from other organizations know that there are positions open, hopefully allowing us to get the best people for the positions. It also gives the guys we let go more time to find another job. These are all people with bills to pay and families to feed, so it's good to give them the chance to find a new job before other positions start filling up.

I'm not too worried about "not tanking enough" this year. In 2012 and 2013, they won enough post-trade deadline that not only did they move their draft position to the teens, but they also gave ownership the feeling that they were really a good team that just had a slow start, leading them to spend on aging free agents. That isn't going to happen this year, so I'm fine with where they are sitting. Sure 3 would be better than 5, but 5 is a whole lot better than 15 and a Kyle Lohse/Matt Garza signing. After 2012, I heard Attanasio lamenting that maybe they shouldn't have traded Greinke, and that may have cost them the playoffs. You will not hear him lamenting trading Gomez, Fiers, Parra, etc. this season.

They need to resist the temptation to trade prospects for veterans, at least to the point where it empties out the pipeline. That might make for a longer retooling, but it's also something that could potentially sustain a longer run. Replenishing the farm when the opportunity arises wouldn't be a bad idea either. There's been precious little of that until recently. That's a great statement by Melvin. The high profile nature of professional sports (and the fickle nature of fans and the media) makes it a lot harder to make some of the moves a GM might want to make.

You have a much higher opinion of Maldonado than I do. I think he's a back up at best. Black hole with his bat. With SS/2B and 3B already below avg you can put another crap bat in the line up No, I have the same opinion of Maldonado as you. He is a defense-first catcher, and my comment was that with his experience he could do just as much to help our young pitchers develop as Lucroy. We are rebuilding next year, so I don't care much about anything other than developing the young players. Therefore, I don't care about his black-hole bat, or whether he would be starting for a playoff-caliber team. I care about his defense and game calling helping build up the confidence and knowledge of our very young pitching staff. There is no doubt that Lucroy is head-and-shoulders better than Maldonado, but right now the Brewers should be most worried about what makes them better in a couple of years, with little regard to whether or not we have "starting players" at every position in 2016. To that end, Lucroy needs to be traded. The question is just whether it makes more sense this offseason or sometime in the future.

I guess you just have to hope that he can use them as a learning experience, and getting shelled doesn't turn into a negative for him.

While you're not wrong. Why wouldn't we wait for them to rebound while playing for us and then sell higher a few months into the season? There is no contract situation that rushes us to trade them. Unless Lucroy demands a trade behind the scenes or something. I would definitely shop Lucroy to see where his value sits. I think he has enough of a track record that this year probably didn't do too much to hurt his trade value. If I'm wrong and people aren't willing to give up value, then I'd hold on to him hoping for a good season in 2016 to bring that value back. The reason I would look to trade him is risk vs. reward. Unless his trade value is really low right now, the only thing we gain by holding onto him is having a good player on a bad team. The risk is that he get injured or have another bad season, in which case his trade value would be diminished and potentially zero if it's a bad (career ending) injury. He just had a serious concussion, and that worries me. One more hit, and he could be forced to stop catching, and possibly retire. As to the argument that has been made that he will help the young pitching staff, I agree. However, our backup is Maldonado, who should be just as good at helping the young staff. If we didn't have Maldonado, that argument would hold more weight.

There are a lot of quality guys on your list only making league minimum. Brewers losing games but making money. That is going to be key. I Don't think attendance will fall much below 2M as long as the team is honest with the fans about their plans, but there will be a revenue dropoff, so the low payroll will allow for the team to get through the rebuild without worrying about losing money (and panicking into making bad FA signings to boost attendance). Think there is any chance trading a future starter for a quality bat? I hope not. They need to stockpile young starting pitchers, as many of them flame out or play their way into the bullpen. Plus, it's good to have "insurance" at the AAA level, as there are normally injuries to starting pitchers throughout the year, and it's not out of the question to see Peralta traded in the not-too-distant future as he's getting into his arby years and may not be around for the next playoff push. And then there's Garza, who is far from certain to play out his contract as a Brewer. I would love to see someone picked up or developed to be a 3rd baseman. Having utility guys play 3rd isn't the ideal situation. Me too. We have some more MLB players to trade, and could find our answer there. Long term we have some guys in the low minors who could transition to 3B, but not much in the short-term. Melvin tried getting a number of players and none have really stood out, but next year could well be a "throw a bunch of guys at the wall and see who sticks" scenario. I guess doing that with young guys in a rebuild year isn't the end of the world.

We are always going to limited by finances, and signing Greinke as a FA isn't likely. Or signing a pitcher to a $30M a year extension isn't likely. Again, we just have to deal the cards we are played. Being at the start of a rebuild, we should be years away from worrying about signing a free agent ace or trading for an ace. We're about looking at how much talent we can get in return for our MLB trade chips and whether we can take advantage of our high draft picks. Doing those properly should diminish the need to look outside the organization for our top players in the future. That said, when we are once again in the top of the standings come trade deadline, I hope we do not trade our Syndergaard for someone else's Dickey to increase our chances in that year. To that example, the Mets look like they will be a lot better for a longer time since they stopped trying to outspend everyone and instead made some shrewd moves to pick up a lot of young pitching talent.

With how our young pitchers have done, unless they hope Garza can regain some of his value by pitching the first half next season or you move him to long relief out of the bullpen, I'd say if you can find a team that can give you a halfway decent prospect and will take on a portion of his salary, you pull the trigger. I can understand his frustration to an extent given how his contract is structured, but he doesn't need to be pulling a drama queen act in the clubhouse and moving him would send a message it's team first. If they could find someone to take Garza, I'm sure they would jump at it. I don't believe they will find a trading partner, so they will put him in the rotation to start the season in hopes that he pitches well so they can trade him at the deadline. If he doesn't, then at some point they will cut him and eat the contract, but it's probably not worth it to eat that much right now just so someone like Cravy can be in the rotation. There is time to hope he rights the ship, and he has enough of a track record that a good couple of months to start next season could turn him into a decent trading chip. I would expect Garza to bounce back to his career norms next year more so than Crawford will. If that's the case, then why would you trade Garza? We can use a decent veteran starting pitcher a lot more than another corner OF. I don't think you can go too position blind because there has to be a spot in the Minors for them to play everyday. My opinion on this is that if the prospects are relatively equal, then you go with the position of greater need. If one of the prospects is far and away better than the other, you take him even if it is not necessarily a position of need.

I really do get they need to consider selling tickets, future TV contracts, etc. But a few years in a row of 75-87 won't exactly make people rush to buy season tickets. And that's exactly what will happen if they try to keep the team "competitive" instead of rebuilding. Makes me think of the saying "You win 60 and lose 60. It's what you do with the other 42 that makes the difference." Even in a rebuild, we're going to win 60-70 games, so I don't think the extra few wins we'll get from putting on a PR show of competitiveness will make that much difference in ticket sales. I think Wisconsin fans are great fans, and if the team is honest with them about their rebuilding strategy, they will embrace it. I actually think the fanbase will be more energized with good young players than they will with another 30-something, B-level free agent signing.

Welcome to Brewerfan Brewser5!

I would also add Lucroy to the "should trade" list this offseason. Having had some concussions, I am sympathetic, but that showed how easily Lucroy's value could go from getting a return similar to what we got for Gomez to having zero value. Having him on the roster next year will not make us a playoff team, and he's not going to raise his trade value any higher than it is, so we should trade him rather than take the risk that something bad happens. I don't think it will be possible to trade Braun this offseason with his back surgery putting up a big black cloud for anyone who may have been interested in trading for him. That leaves us with a logjam of corner OF, and probably means Santana will start the year in CF. This isn't the end of the world, but Phillips is a potential star, and should be MLB ready soon. It will be interesting to see what the Brewers do with him, as none of Davis, Santana, Braun or Phillips should sit on the bench. This will probably work itself out with an injury, or a mid-season trade of Davis or Braun. This situation is mirrored with Segura. I don't know what value he'd have in trade, but for the Brewers he is now a placeholder until Arcia is ready. I would like to see Segura moved for something of value, but if that isn't possible, I guess he'll be a utility player by the end of next season. All in all, it should be a big offseason, and the potential trades of Lucroy, Lind and K-Rod could set us up nicely for the years ahead. Hopefully Attanasio did his homework and Stearns makes the most of this opportunity.