monty57

I'm very curious why something as minuscule as Gerardo Parra taking a few grounders at first base during spring training can turn a fan base on its heads. Mostly that there isn't any other news. Other than the final couple of spots, the roster is pretty much set, and the final couple of spots aren't all that exciting. There isn't a lot of controversy at any position, and there aren't really any moves that need to be made. In such an offseason, little things like this will get attention. You are most likely correct, and this is pretty meaningless, but if it does become meaningful (i.e. Lind is out and Parra takes over first), then we're probably in trouble.

That's probably premature, as he's had only 141 MLB ABs. In 2,754 minor league ABs, he has a slash line of .299 avg / .335 OBP / .509 SLG / .843 OPS He supposedly has a good glove at 3B, so if he can come anywhere close to his minor league numbers he could be a good MLB player. There were only three MLB third basemen who had an OPS over .800 last year, and our own Aramis Ramirez posted a .757 OPS. I see no reason to believe that if given a shot he has the potential to be at least league average, and possibly even above average at 3B. Sure, he could fail, but if you throw in that the Brewers have no one else on the horizon to fill 3B when Ramirez leaves, I am really pulling for Jimenez to succeed. The 2015 Brewers have need at 3B with an aging Ramirez probably starting no more than 140 games (and I'd bet on the under there) and at 1B, as Lind has injury issues and can't hit LHP. But, with those needs I worry that Roenicke will find other players to take the PAs away from Jimenez.

Something we need if we are going to have Lucroy playing at first. In that light, the question is "would you rather have Parra hitting against RHP playing 1B, or Maldonado batting basically every day at catcher while Lucroy is our everyday 1B?" If that's the choice, I'd probably take Parra playing 1B vs RHP. But, I'd still hope one of Rogers/Clark/Peterson/Jimenez could play 1B instead of either Parra or playing Lucroy there every day. Of course, a healthy Lind is our best option, so I just pray he's healthy as none of the other options are very good.

It never hurts for players (particularly backups) to get some work in at other positions to see if they can help out there at some point in the season. That said, I think one of Clark/Peterson and one of Jimenez/Rogers are likely to make the team. so I would rather see these guys playing first base instead of Parra. But, Roenicke has said that he wants to get Parra a lot of PAs this year, and I think he means it. I just hope Lind is healthy, because if Parra becomes our everyday 1B vs RHP we're probably in trouble.

Nice story. Jimenez is one of my "I really hope this guy does well" players for 2015. He can play a big role this year as a backup corner IF, as Ramirez needs time off, and Lind needs to only face RHP. I hope Lucroy doesn't start every "off day" at 1B, as his body will eventually collapse. Having another viable option (Jimenez?) to platoon with Lind would be great. But beyond that, Jimenez "breaking out" this year would give us a much needed 3B for 2016 and beyond. Right now there are really no other options in our system, nor are there many good options in free agency, leaving a big black hole at 3B in the future. It sounds like Jimenez's glove is good, so he just needs to show that he can hit MLB pitching. I'm rooting for you Jimenez!

No, it means the finance department should take an educated guess on their projected revenues for the coming year. They then should determine what their costs will be (including "mundane" things such as paying the vendors, scouts, electric bills, insurance, property tax, operations staff, cost of the draft, etc). That will give them a projection of how much money is left over. They can either decide to spend less than that amount on payroll, giving them a "cushion" in case things go bad, and to increase payroll if things go well, or they can decide to spend over budget, borrowing against "franchise value" in order to increase payroll beyond what the revenues will likely allow. You argued that businesses "borrow to make more than the interest paid on debt." That is called Return on Investment (ROI). As I mentioned in the part of my post you did not quote, in order for that to work, your the rate of return ® has to be greater than your cost of investment (I). It is far from a foregone conclusion that increasing spending will guarantee a return on investment greater than the interest paid on the loans taken out. That was probably true in Attanasio's early days, when payroll was artificially low (brought there by the Seligs in order to sell) and upgrades to the stadium brought back significant return. We now have team record payrolls, and adding another $5-10MM in payroll may not even make the team better, much less sell more tickets/merchandise, etc. All it guarantees is that money is spent and if you have to borrow to increase the payroll, it guarantees that you will have to pay off those loans in the future, cutting into what the team will have for available funds in the future. You're going "strawman" on me with the $500MM vs $20MM argument. What we're looking at in this thread is whether the Brewers should borrow against their franchise value in order to add a few million to the team's payroll.

If someone can prove to me that spending an additional $5-10 million per year will guarantee the "3-5 playoff appearance and World Series appearances" people are trumpeting, then I am all for spending that money. I'm sure Attanasio would take out a second mortgage on his house to come up with that money if there were only that guarantee. However, there is no evidence to show that increasing payroll by $x will guarantee anything other than that they are guaranteed to have to pay more money to players. There are still 25 players on the team, so increasing payroll only means that those 25 players will make more money. Theoretically, you only spend more on better players, but we all know that's not the case. If we upped our offer on Sabathia, then the Yankees would have just raised their offer. Ditto Greinke. Ditto every other "A list" free agent. We cannot spend with the big boys. Rather, by increasing their price tag, we shoot ourselves in the foot by raising the price tag for everyone (except pre-arby guys) and end up paying as much for secondary talent as the premiere guys were getting 5-10 years ago. The payroll goes up, but the talent level does not. Now, for those who propose spending into the red, that adds debt. I understand ROI, but that means "R" has to return a greater rate than the "I" costs. That is far from a given, and often teams with big payrolls suffer lower attendance/revenues, because "I" does not equal "W" (wins). However, adding debt does assure that the debt repayment cost in future years rises, which means that money that could have gone to payroll, or to player development, or to some other useful cause now has to go to paying principal and interest on the debt accrued in the past. Continuing this for any period of time could be catastrophic. So, I'll re-assert that going over budget (playing in the red) occasionally, when it has a high likelihood of increasing your "R" by making the playoffs and selling tickets in a playoff race, is justifiable. Simply playing in the red because the value of the franchise value is rising is not.

I don't think you can compare franchise costs to individual living expenses. Living expenses is dictated by the amount of income one makes. There's a reason most people don't have any money saved up when they retire, and the top 20% line for Americans is having a net worth of around $200,000. Most people believe in spending up to or above their income, and don't believe that accruing lots of debt is a bad thing. This is also true with many businesses (which are run by individuals) and it's why most businesses fail. Individuals and businesses that don't abide by this norm tend to be the ones society dubs as successful. As much as I go on about the Brewers' payroll situation, I do think that Attanasio is good at making sure the team doesn't overspend themselves into obscurity.

Once in a while it can be beneficial, but not as an ongoing practice. Getting into the playoffs adds a lot of additional revenue, so in a year in which it looks like adding an expensive player at the deadline will get you into the playoffs, the additional revenue from the playoffs should make up for the increase in payroll. Borrow mid-season to pay for the player and pay it back when the playoff revenue arrives. That's a lot different than going into every year with a plan of borrowing money to make opening day payroll. I much prefer keeping a "cushion" in payroll so that you can add if necessary, but you will still be okay if things don't turn out the way you'd like.

Yeah, that's sort of like the people in the early-to-mid 2000's who took home equity lines of credit out of their ever-increasing home values so they could live a more expensive lifestyle than their income would allow. Or, another example would be Keynesians using debt-to-GDP to advocate for more borrowing to cover ever increasing expenditures. Income from operations should pay for your expenses. Any expenses above that leads to debt, which has to be repaid with interest in future years, leading to less money available at that time. Sometimes that debt can be "good debt," which pays for itself by having a higher ROI than the interest rate on the loan. An example was buying the advertising banners, where a one-time cost adds yearly to the income stream. Payroll doesn't fit that classification. Borrowing against the franchise value on a yearly basis to add payroll sounds like a good way to end up over your head in debt with your only options being to sell the team to pay off the debt, or to slash payroll to be able to cover your debt expenditures.

There are millions of people who dream of being a major league GM, and 30 positions available. The odds of becoming a MLB GM are less than the odds of becoming a MLB player. Not something you run away from because you don't like the way the boss operates. Then throw in Melvin's situation: He was let go in Texas because he argued against the owner's decision to sign A-Rod (a move the Rangers later realized was dumb, and they had to trade him away while still picking up a lot of his salary), so he's probably a little gunshy about being too public about any disagreement with ownership. Plus, he's ready to retire. He was set to retire a couple of years ago (coincidentally the year the Greinke and Marcum deals expired - go figure why he did those two two-year deals) and was convinced to sign an extension which I believe is over after this season. Why on earth would he walk away from a pretty good gig just because the owner likes to get involved. That just saves him the trouble of having to deal with Boras, which is probably a plus in his book. I like Melvin. I think the next GM is going to have a bit of an uphill climb, but some of the recent moves like drafting young, higher-upside guys and trading Aoki and Gallardo rather than watching them walk as free agents, will help the future some. I hope the next GM will be a good judge of young talent, as I think at least something of a rebuild will be in order in the not-too-distant future. But I also hope he is someone who understands how to deal with an owner who likes to "play GM." Attanasio's the owner, and it is his right to run his business any way he likes, but it certainly appears that he likes to get involved in decisions most teams leave up to the GM. That may or may not be a bad thing. From a baseball standpoint, this K-Rod deal looks like a decent deal. He's a decent reliever and it seems to be pretty cheap. I was worried about the Lohse deal due to his age, but so far he's held up, and if he can hold up one more year, that was a pretty good deal as well.

However, in this case it wasn't an assumption. There were reports that Boras was dealing directly with Attanasio, and I believe that was also the case last year. Nonetheless, that's still Boras' MO. Boras was quoted again this winter, as in past years, that signing "his" headliner FA (Scherzer in this case) is a franchise/ownership decision . . . presumably b/c of the mega-dollars involved (just like A-Rod signing in Texas, which was NOT Melvin's call or negotiation). Late in the winter, he takes a very similar approach to his upper-tied, still-unemployed clients . . . whom he usually refers to as "elite" as part of his sales pitch. This was discussed in the Transactions forum before K-Rod was signed. JimH posted the following from a JS article: Melvin wouldn't comment on the state of possible talks with the Phillies, but acknowledged the lines of communication have remained open with "K-Rod." "I don’t know if it’s active, but we still have conversations," Melvin said. "Mark deals more with that. (Agent) Scott (Boras) keeps calling Mark." While I understand that every owner signs off on big deals, I doubt that many simply circumvent the GM entirely and deal directly with the agent themselves. Also, I wouldn't consider K-Rod to be a "big deal," so I would think that the signing of a so-so reliever to a relatively low money free agent deal would normally not be something most owners would even feel the need to "sign off" on. If Attanasio trusts Melvin, and if he is not a "meddling owner," then he should simply tell Boras that he needs to deal with the GM. That he does not do that leads me to believe that he either lacks confidence in Melvin, or that he likes "playing GM" himself.

Given those facts, that hardly points toward a meddling owner. But in recent years on this site, those who are inclined to think Attanasio's a meddler inevitably seem to take any big-money and/or late signing a self-fulfilling prophecy or as further evidence of that perception. There was a quote from Melvin a few days before the K-Rod signing stating that he wasn't involved in those discussions, and that Boras was speaking directly to Attanasio. I find extremely it irritating that Mark A will keep bringing a known predator back and employing him to win an extra couple of games per season. Well, he's the same guy who is a buddy to the felon Michael Milken (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Milken), and trots him into the booth every year with a big smile on his face. Milken donates money, K-Rod helps win games, so I guess to Attanasio that outweighs any personal issues.

I like going after players who may have struggled and are still young enough to rebound. If they can be cheaply obtained, I like going after them as well, but the Brewers aren't going to hand someone like that the starting 3B gig. Really, that description could be tabbed to Sardinas, who will probably start the year behind Segura on the depth chart. In other words, if we had a decent option, I'd like a "reclamation project" as insurance with upside. Without a decent option, I hope we find a young guy who hasn't struggled, but is blocked in his current organization.

That was a joke right? The team would be so much worse after such a trade. I actually don't know where I would start to explain. Parra is an average at best hitter with maybe average defense in CF. I don't see anything positive out of such a move. He's looking at a scenario where the Brewers were out of the playoff race at trade deadline, so the remainder of the 2015 season doesn't mean too much. The big question would be for 2016, as Gomez is under contract through the end of 2016. Trading Gomez would likely make us worse in 2016, but if they think someone like Taylor will be ready, and if they got a monster return back for trading him, it may be worth it. This is probably best discussed in the Trade Forum, so I won't discuss any further here. I think you just trade Parra. If he is a stater he deserves to start. I posted before: if you NEED Parra to replace an injury in the OF then your year is likely kapoot. So trade Parra, get a decent prospect, and pray for health. Way too much risk there. It is very likely that one or more of our OF go on the 15 day DL at some point, and also very likely that they get banged up a bit and need a few days off. Not talking about a season-ending injury, just "normal" DL stints. Even without a LF platoon, Parra is set to get a lot of PAs. I had high hopes for Schafer as he worked his way through the minors, but he hasn't shown much at the MLB level. I don't know how likely this team is to make the playoffs, but they do have a shot. Giving 300-400 PAs to Schafer instead of Parra could eliminate that shot. If we needed the money to sign a huge upgrade elsewhere, I could see the logic, but that isn't the case, so I'm happy to see the team sporting a talented backup OF. He will be used.

I like Davis, but let's not make him more than he is. He's probably around an average MLB guy - plus power, low OBP, poor defense. We need guys like him, especially when he's cheap, but he's not the type of player that you put out on the field no matter what. He should get most of the starts in LF, but he will lose some starts to Parra, who is also an average-ish MLB player, just with a completely different skill-set than Davis. I guess I see it like this. If Braun and Gomez are healthy and productive, and Parra is starting regularly over them, then I'm upset. Not the same with Davis... he's just not that caliber of player.

It basically means we're trying to fit someone into the budget today at the cost of not being able to add someone to a future year's payroll. If we have $5MM deferred in a year, that's $5MM worth of payroll that cannot be used to sign another player. As to the "increasing payroll" theory, salaries will certainly go up along with payroll, so just because your nominal payroll increases, it doesn't mean you can afford more real talent. I think Attanasio is trying to get as much talent onto teams now as he can to have as big a chance of winning as possible, as he realizes they will eventually need to rebuild, so he's "making hay while the sun's shining." Edit: to add to the nominal/real comment... the only way a team's increasing salary matters in a real sense is if it is increasing at a greater rate than (a) other teams, and/or (b) player salaries. Since we know that bigger markets' payrolls are expanding at a much greater rate than the Brewers' payroll, and they are driving up the price tag on good players, the nominal increase in payroll actually allows them to afford less "real" talent. Thankfully, the pre-arby years exist, and in baseball's inflationary environment, pre-arby players are just more and more greatly underpaid.

Brewers are really hoping Jimenez is next Casey McGehee it appears. Honestly, I would not mind a: 2B Gennett SS Sadinas 3B Segura You lose a lot of pop in the short term however if Segura bounces back, Scooter stays Scooter, and Sadinas stays a high average slap hitter, that's three guys who can hit around .300 and steal some bases to help the team out. More realistically, they will make a trade as they did for Lind to find some to fill spot if Jimenez doesn't pan out. I really hope Segura can prove himself worthy of a starting spot. I still hope he can show more of what he had the first few months of 2013, but that's a lot more "hope" than "expect." He'll be our opening day starter at SS, hopefully with Sardinas at AAA, but I would not be surprised at all to see Sardinas take over as starting SS at some point this season, with Segura ultimately ending up as our utility IF/RH platoon for Gennett. Either way, if Arcia keeps on track, he looks to be our SS of the future, with that future potentially starting as soon as 2016. I agree with 'Stache that Gatewood appears to be most likely to transition to 3B, but he's still in the low minors. It will be interesting to see what we do until then. Ideally, Jimenez will come on strong and force his way into the role. If we're not competing this year, it'd be "easy" to trade away someone like Lohse or Ramirez at the deadline to a contender (hoping Seattle, Boston or Arizona are in the hunt) for one of the guys SRB mentioned. If we're in the hunt this year, it could get tricky trying to find a 3B for 2016 unless we decide to do something like trading Gomez before his final season. But that's a whole season away, and I'm excited that I get to watch Spring Training baseball on MLBTV today!! Here's to a good season.

I don't see Sardinas being with the team unless there is an injury. He'll start at AAA and get reps at 2nd and SS until someone gets hurt. I hope that's the case. He's young and would probably progress better getting everyday playing time in AAA than he would getting limited PT at the MLB level. Segura is close to playing his way out of a starting role, so Sardinas needs all the action he can get in case he needs to step into a starting role at some point this season. Let Gomez get the utility role to start the season. Is Maldy a lock? What about Juan Centeno? As much as I love Maldonado's defense, if this guys hits, why not give him an opportunity? Adds another left handed bat option. I like having three catchers on the 40-man, as it's pretty likely someone gets hurt throughout the season. Without a third catcher on the 40 man, an injury means that you either have to cut someone from the 40-man mid-season or take the risk of going with one catcher on the MLB roster. Maldonado has proven himself to be a perfectly fine backup, and now we have Centeno ready to step in when needed. Plus, as the opening post stated, Lucroy is hurt, and we don't know for sure yet when he'll be 100%. i would not be surprised if the brewers decided to option khris davis for part of the season Not likely. It's possible that Davis takes a fair number of starts vs RHP away from Davis, but I highly doubt he will be optioned. He's not a superstar, and has some warts (batting avg and defense), but he's young and cheap, and he's proven himself to be a MLB player. Optioning him makes little sense, especially when the player who would replace him would likely be something like a long man for the pen or a third catcher. Other than that, I agree with most of the first post. Parra and Maldonado are locks. Gomez (utility middle IF) and Jimenez (utility corner IF) are likely, and the final spot is up in the air.

I could definitely see them targeting someone else, but what I meant was that with the current franchise make-up, he and Rogers are pretty much the only options. Between those two, Jimenez can play the position well, while we don't know if Rogers has the glove for third. They'll have a lot of money coming off the books after 2015 (Ramirez, Broxton, Lohse, Parra), but it looks like they will have a lot of holes to fill. A lot can happen between now and then, but it would be nice if Jimenez could put together a good season this year and prove himself worthy of manning 3B in 2016. Longer term, I assume some of our young SS's will be transitioned to 3B.

I think Ramirez and Braun both would've benefited from more days off last year, but Roenicke put them in the lineup every day. Maybe this early announcement will be a not-so-subtle hint to Roenicke to give him some rest. I do wonder whether Ramirez would have retired if the Brewers didn't exercise their end of the option, or if he would have sought out a one-year deal elsewhere. As to the near-term future at 3B, I think Jimenez is the heir-apparent. He's supposed to be excellent with the glove, so if he can hit MLB pitching he should at least be adequate. I believe he's out of options, so he should be the backup corner IF this season, giving him a shot to prove himself.

Still, I don't understand Rosenthal dramatizing it by saying it's worse than PEDs. That's what reporters do, especially sports reporters. It's all about getting people to tune back in, so it's all about the drama. Report first, check facts later, if initial report was incorrect then issue a short statement recanting initial statement after the cat is already out of the bag. Oh yeah, and make sure to include plenty of personal opinion in your "reporting." As to Hamilton, I echo the sentiments of those wishing him well. His is an amazing story, and I hope it has a happy ending.

I'm sure a lot of the antics are done to control the pace of the at-bat, taking that advantage away from the pitcher. I'm sure pitchers get a little annoyed waiting for the batter to get back in the box, and that could give the batter an advantage. Of course, some pitchers do this too, walking behind the mound, playing with the rosin bag, etc. If baseball thinks fans are getting annoyed with it, then make a rule, but it could definitely have an effect on the "mental part" of the game. I know the world is changing and attention spans are dwindling, but I kind of like watching baseball because it does slow life down for a while. Life is hectic enough. I like to be able to kick back and relax with a baseball game on. I like to be able to talk with friends and family while the game is going on. I like baseball as it is, and don't think it needs to be changed. Maybe I'm getting old :-)

Anything to cut commercials down with I'm fine with too. I obviously don't watch commercials often on TV and I think it kills the in person experience. I'm not one to get up 10 times a game to get food/drink/bathroom and I'm not a fan of those who do, get the game going. They'll bring almost anything you want to the seat and if you need something get up once in the game and get while stopping at the bathroom, done. Making all games pay-per-view would do that. Personally, I'm fine with TV commercials paying the way so I can see the games for free. 9/11 was 14 years ago, time to ditch GBA on Sunday and holiday games. America has been a country for over 200 years, so we could probably get rid of singing the National Anthem. Jackie Robinson was a rookie in 1947, so we could stop honoring him. Some things have a lot more meaning than others, so we continue a tradition so that people do not forget why the tradition began.

I think baseball is more interested in appeasing the tens of millions of casual fans in the large markets than they are the tens of thousands of casual fans in places like Wisconsin.