monty57

Danzig, I wholeheartedly agree with you that on the surface there is a lot more risk in the mega-deals going out to guys like Pujols than there is on a three-year deal. Unfortunately for the Brewers, the TV deal the Angels have probably means there is less relative risk to the Angels guaranteeing $200MM than there is the Brewers guaranteeing $30MM, as both equate to roughly one full year of the team's TV revenue. That is a big reason I don't think the Brewers can sustain a strategy based on getting their key players through free agency (or extending to eight-figure salaries), and why it hurts the Brewers more to lose a draft pick than it would hurt a big money team. But even moreso than the draft pick, my biggest concern over Lohse is simply that very few starting pitchers even make it to Lohse's current age. Almost none make it to 36, and many of those who do are either on path to a Hall of Fame career, throw left handed, or throw a knuckleball... Lohse is none of these. Giving a guy a three-year deal at 29 is a whole lot different than giving a guy a three-year deal at 34. As I said, I think the Brewers have to hope Lohse defies nature in order to make to contract worth it.

And I sincerely hope you are still saying that on day 1,095 when the contract expires.

I'm not as new to the forum as my post count indicates. I have seen the same people make the same ridiculous assumptions about Brewers prospects ever since the big 3 (Braun, Prince, Yo) graduated. I admittedly know nothing about scouting. I just know that everyone I've read who is paid to know something about scouting says we have a poor system, and it's mainly because we have a bunch of guys who project to be utility guys, middle relievers or back-of-the-rotation starters. The only high-upside we hear about is Peralta and the guys we drafted last year (which makes it look like they may have went away from the "high floor/low ceiling" strategy). This is why I think this year is pivitol for the Brewers, as some players need to step it up and prove these scouts wrong. If a couple of guys take that next step, it would help us out tremendously. As this is about Burgos and Fiers, I hope both find sustained success, but I think that expecting more than back-of-the-rotation careers for either of them is expecting too much. I will certainly be happy if we get it... I just don't expect it. If Attanasio has the cash to keep signing players of the caliber of Ramirez, Lohse and Aoki, and Melvin is savvy in his trading, it is possible to to build a borderline playoff roster by filling in the rest of the spots with high floor, low ceiling type of prospects. If that can continue while so many other teams are getting monster TV deals, then I will be impressed. Because yes, if we can simply go out and sign the best FA's on the market every year, then having utility players and back-of-the-rotation guys coming up from the minors is all we'll need. That this strategy has never worked in a small market, and has even blew up in the face of many big markets might be a hint that it's far, far better to "grow" your star players on the farm and pick up your role players via free agency.

You talk like people haven't looked at it. I think you need to raise your expectations a bit for posters on this board. There are many who follow the minors very closely. Some who follow the minors exclusively. We need our scouting and drafting department to draft stars now and then not just average or bench MLB players. It isn't just individuals who didn't pan out. It is our whole MiLB system as a whole that is weak. You could start with this thread. I think one of the big complaints is that the Brewers seem to have set their sites on "high floor/low ceiling" players. That would add to the certainty that we'd get MLB players, but they'd be role players and back-of-the-rotation guys. Our current farm system seems to be filled with these type players, but lacks guys who could be above average, much less star players.

Pardon me for not reading back but did someone really argue that he has a 100% chance of being good for 3 years or are you arguing against a strawman? Every year, pitchers lose velocity and as a result, effectiveness. I don't believe any aging curve suggests batters or pitchers should be expected to just fall apart, however. It happens, sure, but on average, they just fade each year. Every year, there are only a handful of starting pitchers age 36 or above, and they're often names like Greg Maddux or Randy Johnson. Because the sample set is so small, and that small sample is filled with freak of nature, Hall of Fame types, I doubt there's any way to get any statistically accurate reading of how age into the mid-30's affects SP other than to see when they retire. No scientific study done here, but by simply looking back the past 20 years or so (which even includes steroid-aided arms), it really looks like most pitchers are either retired or no longer starting by the time they are Lohse's current age (34), and almost none make it to 36, the age he'll be in the final year of the contract (turns 37 at the end of his final year). Right now, out of the 150 SP jobs in baseball, 17 are 34 or older, and seven (Pettitte, Hudson, Burnett, Kuroda, Colon, Arroyo and Dickey) are 36 or over. Signing starting pitchers through their mid-30's is kind of expecting to defy nature.

My only point was that whenever say a signing like Ramirez/Lohse happens or a socalled proactive trade doesn't happen involving a veteran, many here who were bothered by these things tend to lay all of their frustration at the feet of Melvin, while largely ignoring any influence which Attanasio may have on moves made or potentially not made. I don't think any of us here know just exactly how much influence Attanasio has had over the years on any number of things. My gut feeling is he doesn't micromanage moves to include small stuff like say signing Yuni vs bringing up Morris, but i do believe that Melvin has to first discuss and get final approval on any sizable moves, be it signings or trades. That Mark may also have taken the lead in some or even all of the Suppan, Wolf, Ramirez, and Loshe signings. Granted, i think that Melvin and Attanasio likely share fairly similar philosophies on trying to win now whenever they feel it's possible, but Mark just doesn't strike me as being like some owners who stay almost entirely out of baseball operations beyond setting a budget for a given season. He seems to enjoy being involved to at least some degree in how the team is constructed. This sure doesn't look to be a Packers like operation where Ted Thompson makes whatever moves he wants without any involvement from ownership. I think he may take a bigger hand than many think he does. This tidbit is from the article on the Brewers' site about the recent signing of K-Rod to a minor league deal: But Melvin downplayed the role John Axford's temporary demotion played in principal owner Mark Attanasio's interest in bringing back Rodriguez. It looks like Attanasio might be a micro-manager. Let us not forget that Melvin lost his last job because he argued with Rangers' ownership that signing A-Rod to a $250MM deal wasn't a good idea. Anyone think Boras knows this and makes plenty of calls to Attanasio's direct line? (K-Rod is another Boras client). On another topic, I've seen a number of posters here say something along the line of "he wasn't traded because he didn't have any trade value at the time." That's fine, but why then do we always offer that player an extension? If no one is willing to give us anything in trade, maybe we should take the hint and not extend them for multiple years at market wage.

Fiers hasn't done much good at all since the first time they put a ball in his hands in ST. If he's getting sent down, it's not with the intent to banish him, but for him to get on track -- to go "find his game" again -- because unlike Narveson at the moment and of course Rogers, he's at least healthy, which means they may well need to rely on him at another point this season, especially if Peralta & anyone who replaces Fiers in the MLB rotation struggle. He did well enough in MIL for long enough last year that it would be hard to imagine the Brewers just figuring he's done and no longer a potentially valuable asset. I just slipped that last line in quick because I had to run. Basically, what I was saying is that the Brewers realize Fiers is a back-of-the-rotation guy. He's going to be bounced around a lot, always fighting for that last spot in the rotation. When he's the best option, he'll be in the rotation, but he'll get yanked when he's not performing or someone looks like a better option. At some point in the next couple of years, he will be out of options and the Brewers should have a number of guys who are more talented than he, so he will either be moved to the bullpen or he'll go to a team without as much pitching depth that is looking for a back-of-the-rotation starter. That's what I meant by "AAAA purgatory." There are plenty of fringe players who find themselves in this situation. Some bounce back & forth, some never get the call, and some always seem to find a place on a MLB roster. Fiers did have some "lightning in the bottle" when he came up last year, so that can work to his advantage. If this were the Brewer farm system for most of its existence, he would probably be in the rotation for the next five years. However, we have more physically gifted players than him coming up through the minors that are probably going to push him out of the rotation before too long. He'll most likely get more opportunities to start for the Brewers, so I hope he's able to "prove himself" enough as a MLB starter over the short-term that the Brewers may be able to flip him for a useful piece when he's no longer one of the best options for the rotation.

That would be a nice deal PFx1. Segura would be guaranteed $16.5MM, so he knows he's pretty well set for life no matter what happens. By accepting the risk of guaranteeing the $16.5MM, the Brewers get a discount and get some FA years. They'd probably have to put some guarantees into the option years (automatically exercise if he hits a set # of PAs), but I think it's a good template to work with. And, at the end of the day, no matter how Segura plays, the whole guaranteed five years of the deal wouldn't cost much more than we would spend if we extend Hart for one more season, so the risk of guaranteeing those five years (as opposed to going year-to-year) is roughly the risk of signing an above average (but not great) FA for one year, or making a Qualified Offer to someone. The potential upside is far greater than that one-year deal.

By multiple accounts which i've read in the paper, it was Attanasio who handled the negotiations with Boras on the Lohse signing and at the very least he entertained Ramirez for dinner during those negotiations. Does that sound like an owner who would have been for his GM shopping Ramirez after the year he had with us last season and how Attanasio has mentioned that he'll generally side with a win now approach each given season unless the roster just looks really incapable of any chance to at least compete for a playoff berth? I was just stating that there was a reason for the posts regarding a possible Ramirez-to-the-Dodgers deal last season. Of course the Brewers weren't shopping him, but it was widely reported that the Dodgers wanted him and were willing to give up good talent to get him. This is hyperbole, but I would hope that if the Nationals called and said "we really like Lohse, we'll give you Strasberg for him," Attanasio wouldn't be so stupid as to turn it down simply because they just signed Lohse. If a team is willing to give you more than fair value for a player, take it.

Everyone has bad outings from time to time. Everyone looks "overwhelmed" at some point. Right now, Roy Halliday has a 7.63 ERA, Cole Hamels 7.56, Brandon McCarthy 7.47, etc. If you see a guy as a key piece to the future, you stick with him. I'd like to think the team has plans for Fiers, but giving him one outing as a starter, using that outing to shift the rotation around (moving him to the bullpen and going with a 4-man rotation) and then sending him to the minors doesn't really seem to me like they're looking at what's best for Fiers long-term. That's pretty much how you treat a non-prospect. I've said this before, but I think the Brewers realize the same thing most "prospect watchers" realize. Our "top prospects" aren't really "top prospects," so they aren't treating them as such. Peralta is the exception, so he will get more of a leash. I do think they should give Fiers more than one start to see if he can turn things around, but it looks to me (assuming this rumor is true) that Fiers has been banished to AAAA purgatory.

It's because of the injury risk factors, I see no reason for the team to not wait these full 3Pre Arb years of playing time before considering extending him. It is precisely because of the risk transferrance from the player to the team that the team can get a significant discount by extending early. If the team does not get this discount, then there is no reason for the team to assume the risk. That's why I didn't think San Fran did well in the Posey extension... it appears they paid at least market rate while assuming all the risk. When assuming the risk, you have to get a significant discount. Waiting until the player is in arby means you sign the player to a deal that is close to market value. That's not much different than signing a free agent. There's still a lot of risk, and now the player is a lot more expensive. Think of it this way: In the first couple of years, the player is making $400-500k. Not a bad salary, but if that player gets hurt, he is going to have to go out and find a job and work the rest of his life. How willing would you be to get the team to guarantee enough money that you should have a lifetime of financial stability? Many players (and agents) will jump at that chance, even if it means giving up a substantial amount of "potential money." As the player gets closer to free agency (A) he'll have some time under his belt that he's made $1MM+, so he's not as desparate, and (B) there is less risk (time) of getting injured prior to what should be your best chance at the biggest payday... Why take a lesser deal when I can play out this season and test the market? As to injuries, anyone can get injured, and I'd bet older players get hurt easier than younger players. Plus, if a player could get hurt either way (signing a long-term deal when he's in pre-arby or when he's already in arby), then logically the injury hurts the team a lot more when the player signed a more expensive deal than it does when a player signed to a less expensive deal. There are all different kinds of risk and they all have to be weighed. For better or worse, I think smaller market teams have to take the risk of signing pre-arby guys to inexpensive deals. It seems to be the only way they can have a large number of talented players and still maintain a sustainable payroll.

The amount of trade scenarios that were thrown around here involving Ramirez before he had even played half of the first year of his 3 year deal with the Brewers was what drove me batty. We're not the Marlins, and Doug doesn't run the team like the Marlins. To suggest that he's going to sign a FA, and then trade him 80-ish games into his contract isn't at all realistic. The worst part about it was that it was (for the most part) people that just didn't like the Ramirez signing. Well, obviously Dougie did, or he wouldn't have done it. Turning around and trading him right away just isn't his MO. We can discuss all day whether or not Doug's team building strategy is sound (I'm having serious doubts about that, believe me), but there's nothing in Doug's MO to suggest he's going to "sign and trade", so when people say they're throwing out serious/fair/honest trade proposals that Doug could/would/should pursue, let's look at Doug's track record, and see if that's even a remote possibility. You can call it dismissive, but truth is, there's no way Doug was trading A-Ram mid-season last year, and almost certainly wasn't going to this off-season. I also question how many GM's would have wanted Ramirez's contract. And before someone says "eat some of the salary", should the Brewers really get in the habit of signing FA's to play somewhere between 80 and 160 games, and then paying part of the next 2 1/2 to three years worth of their contracts, just to be rid of them? I believe all the Ramirez posts last year sprung up because it was all over the news that the Dodgers wanted him and were willing to overpay for him. The Dodgers were just sold to some high-profile buyers who wanted to make a splash in L.A. (which takes a whole lot more than making a splash anywhere else). They made a trade for Carlos Lee which he rejected because he didn't want to pay CA taxes, making them all the more rabid to make a "big name" deal. Salary is basically a non-issue to the new ownership. They wanted name players, and were willing to give up their top prospects (including MLB ready guys) to get them. It was discussed a lot on this board, and while one of the arguements for making the deal was the salary owed, it wasn't just some blind speculation by people who don't like Ramirez or Melvin. No one belives Melvin is going to start signing FAs simply to trade them away a couple of months later, so that's a big straw man. However, just because no GM signs players to multi-year deals with the intent of trading them in the first year, it is still possible that a unique scenario could arise where a good-faith offer is made and accepted, and a few months later, something unexpected happens leading to a one-time "out of character" response if it benefits the team.

I'll agree with this, and that is on Melvin. At the same time, Melvin did well in hiring Jack Zdurenciek(sp? I butchered that) the previous scouting director. Still, that's not what draws most of the ire around BF.net toward Melvin, who seem like they'd rather stockpile marginal young talent rather than pull of trades like the Sabathia, Greinke, and Marcum deals that brought us to the playoffs. If Lawrie, Escobar, and Odorizzi turn into all-star players, then those deals might turn sour, but right now they are looking like average-ish MLB starters. LaPorta was once in their category as well and what's he doing now? Actually, Dean Taylor hired Jack Z. Melvin kept him on board when he took over, which was a very good decision. No one wants marginal talent, whether it be young or old. While we could go on and on about the minutia of what was or wasn't done, the reason I recently became more negative about the future has been because I looked at the system as a whole and didn't really like what I saw. Our MLB roster is aging and expensive, while the farm is ranked one of the worst in baseball by pretty much everyone who ranks farm systems. Whether we place blame on trades that were or were not made, bad draft picks, or whatever, that's where we are. This at a time when the rest of our division looks set up pretty nicely for the future, and a number of teams are getting mega-TV deals which will make it harder for a "small market" team to succeed without a top-ranked farm. At the end of the day, much like the CEO of a corporation, the GM of a baseball team has to be held accountable for every aspect of the system. While I'm glad we finally made the playoffs and won some baseball, when looking back at what Melvin inherited (including Jack Z), it seems that it would've been nearly impossible not to make the playoffs at least once or twice, and we are now (to me) looking like we're on a downward slide. I don't want the Brewers to be bad, but I worry we're heading into a down period. The bright side is that we do still have some talent at the MLB level, and we saw with the Greinke trade that it doesn't take a miracle to bring young talent back into a situation. It can be done, and I hope Melvin finds more ways to add more young talent to the system.

if the last couple of draft classes don't make big jumps this year Yes, it is a very pivitol year, and we need a number of guys to prove the scouts wrong (and prove Seid right). Making a bad decision on who to hire as Scouting Director is probably at least as big a blunder as making a bad trade or a bad free agent signing. It's really the lack of talent in the farm system that has me worried. And by lack of talent, I mean lack of difference makers. We have plenty of guys who will be utility players, bullpen arms and back-of-the-rotation starters. This, more than anything, is why I've been negative on the future recently. I don't hate Melvin, I don't think our MLB guys are a bunch of bums, and recent play at the MLB level doesn't change anything for me. We simply owe a lot of money to guys who are getting past their prime, and we don't have star talent coming up through the ranks to help out. That could lead to bad times. I hope it doesn't.

But it is what a discussion board is about. If you don't talk about "gray area stuff," then you're just debating the box scores. That's not much fun. Arguing over things like whether a trade should've happened or who should start at first base are as old as baseball. The internet just allows us to discuss it with a broader group of people. I just responded to Russ' note on "selling high," and that if probably has a broader definition to some. I then noted scenarios that can occur where "selling high" is a possibility, and stated that those are scenarios that should be discussed (both by the Brewers brass and by us wanna-be GMs on brewerfan.net). To your points: Although trading Hart was discussed here, I don't recall any articles showing that Melvin was shopping Hart last season. To the contrary, IIRC Hart was asking for an extension at that point. With Hart's recurring knee issues, I still wish we'd have traded him, and certainly hope we don't extend him. I did see a lot of articles on the Ramirez-to-L.A. rumors, which must have had some merit, because Melvin commented that he didn't really want to trade a guy he'd just signed. The shopping Axford to Detroit thing was just wishful thinking when Detroit was begging for a closer. I knew it wouldn't happen, but I brought it up at the time because I hoped Melvin would look into it. With the passing of a few short weeks, I wish even more that he would've given them a call.

That's one way of looking at it, and from that viewpoint you are correct that it's more of a crapshoot way of making trades... hoping you're right and they're wrong. However, "selling high" could also mean something like trading a player when they have 1.5 years of "team control" left instead of 0.5, or trading when the receiving team would get a comp pick. In this instance, you have a high degree of certainty that the value will lower in the not-too-distant future. It could also mean "trading to another team's need." If someone else really covets what you've got or has an injury (or some other reason) that causes them to perceive a "need," you can generally receive a premium value versus a "normal" market. The term could also be used without making an assumpion on where the value will go in the future, but just meaning "the player has a high trade value." For instance, trading Gallardo now would be "selling high." Not necessarily "selling at the highest he will ever be," but selling when you could get good value in return. Contrary to popular belief, I don't want to trade everyone away, and I certainly don't want to be negative on the future. However, when one of the first two scenarios I listed above presents itself, I think they need to be discussed, as they can allow for you to either make a trade when you've got someone else over a barrel (potentially trading Ramirez to the Dodgers last year, or shopping Axford to Detroit prior to this season when they were begging for a "closer"), or make the trade before you get yourself over a barrel (trading Hart last year when he was having a good year and had 1.5 years of control left instead of waiting until he only had a few months of team control left and wouldn't have much trade value). The third scenario is probably best used either if you've got a ready-made replacement in the system or when you're ready to go into rebuild mode.

My bad. I thought they got some of Lucroy's FA years. I would definitely want to get an extra couple of years if we're assuming the contract risk.

I'm with you H&T. Assuming he stays healthy and looks good this season, I'd look to lock him up next offseason, trying to buy out two FA years. I wouldn't compare him to the Braun, Tulo, Longoria deals. I'd compare him more to the Lucroy deal, or as TLB mentioned, the Escobar deal. If he signs a deal like Lucroy, he's set for life, but it isn't a huge risk for the Brewers... the whole deal costs about as much as one year of Weeks or Hart. I think it's a bigger risk to wait until he's in arby and then have to extend him for eight figures per year. In order to stay relevant into the future, the Brewers need to do deals like this, and Segura and Peralta are really the only guys on the roster worthy of consideration at this point.

Kind of depends on what they'd get in return. There are a lot of scenarios that wouldn't be a "blow up" in which we could trade some talent and still be competitive. Since this is a thread about Gallardo, I'll look at him. With Gallardo's ability and remaining team control, I'm sure a team would give up some major talent for him, including a package built around an "elite" MLB-ready SP prospect. We've got a lot of pitching prospects who will become MLB starters & relievers, but are missing that "ace potential" guy. Gallardo is one of our two (Braun) pieces who could probably bring in an elite pitching prospect. I don't know that any of these teams would match up, but if we could get a Bundy/Cole/Skaggs/Taillon type prospect, we could have a decent rotation next year with Lohse, Estrada, Peralta, {top prospect}, {one of the many decent prospects we have}. Depending on how everyone progresses, that's not a bad rotation. I agree that Attanasio will have to be pretty hard pressed to "blow up" the roster, but I think he could be convinced to make a couple of trades that bring back MLB-ready talent. As negative as I may have seemed recently towards the future of the franchise, I don't think a bad future is imminent. I think that a couple of good trades would go a long way towards keeping us relevant on the MLB level, while getting us some good, young talent playing for league minimum... something we're sorely lacking.

I thought they said in the last telecast that it was feeling better and he was riding the exercise bike. I agree with Splitter's sentiment. If he hurt it the second time because he rushed back from the spring injury in order to make the Opening Day roster, I hope they let it fully heal this time. I don't want him rushing back only to hurt it again.

I said that I believe the Lohse move was done in part because of ticket sales. Baseball is a business, so revenues and expenses will always matter. Of course they believe that he will help this year's team, but they also have to have some trepidation about giving a three-year deal to a guy in his mid-30s. It's fairly likely that we will have at least five pitchers better than Lohse while he is still under contract. Not better than he's been the past two years, but better than he will be over the next few seasons. MLB teams have two goals, winning games and making money. Sometimes these goals correlate positively, and sometimes negatively. The Brewers certainly saw that they would be better this year with Lohse, possibly even sneaking into the playoffs, which was a real long shot without him. But they also saw weak ticket sales, and the signing of Lohse immediately boosted those sales. For this season, Lohse helps them achieve both of their goals (at least "on paper" going into the season). However, adding his guaranteed salary also pretty much guarantees at least a $100MM payroll next year, which is why I think we need to have a good showing on the field this year, or we will see at least one of our high-salaried players traded before next season, and as I mentioned above, he'll probably not be one of our best five starters by the final year of his contract. It was a deal to help which aids in the "right now," while adding risk in the future. I just have to pick on the "enough young banked-on pitchers not cutting it" comment. Melvin and company knew going into ST what they had in thier rotation. If they used spring training to determine whether or not they could count on Fiers, Narveson and Estrada, then they aren't as smart as I think they are. Rogers is the only "surprise" in that his fastball velocity was down, but he really was the biggest question mark to begin with. His negaitve was probably offset by the positive of Narveson proving his arm was healthy and Burgos pitching very well as a key starter in the WBC. They're smart enough that they didn't get blindsided by what they saw in spring training. we need to cycle talent until we can get to a place where we can sustain a MLB roster from within and look to FA to provide role-players, not key pieces to try and build around. Excellent post, Crew07, but I will add to this snippet that I consider waiting until a player is in their last year of team control before extending them to a market-value extension to be very similar to signing a free agent. I'm a huge proponent of signing players to Lucroy-type extensions. Assuming health and good play, I'd love to see them extend Segura and Peralta next offseason. However, I don't like extending a guy in his last season. If he didn't prove enough to merit an extension prior to his final year, then he's not a core guy to build around, especially at a market value rate. People focus on the prospects we traded away for MLB players, but a large part of the reason our system is depleted is that we rarely traded any MLB players away for prospects. We either let them walk as free agents, or we extend them when they're well into their arby years, guaranteeing eight-figure salaries through their mid-30s and foregoing the opportunity to re-stock the system with young, exciting, inexpensive talent. I was happy as a lark when we finally traded Greinke last year, and it seems most people here are very happy with that trade. I think there's a good chance that if we had pulled a few more of those trades over the years, they would've turned out okay as well, and our forward-looking situation right now would probably look a lot better.

There's plenty to be positive about: -Braun is one of the best players in baseball, and we are witnessing first hand what Brewers fans have not seen much... a potential Hall of Famer playing his career with the Brewers. -While I wasn't the biggest fan of the Gomez extension, it's not because he's dull. He is a fun (albeit sometimes frustrating) player to watch. -I've liked the Aoki pickup since we won the bid. Turning a negative around, Gamel's injury last year did allow Aoki to get everyday playing time to showcase what he can do. -Weeks is hopefully fully over the injury which slowed him down at the start of last season, so I'm hoping for a big year out of him. -This is a pivitol year to see how the pitching progresses, both with the guys on the MLB squad, and those in the upper minors. Some of these guys will "grow up" to become MLB starters, and some will finally allow us to have a homegrown bullpen. -Trading a veteran for some young guys brought in some exciting players. Segura is really fun to watch, and Hellweg has the stuff to be a good MLB pitcher. -Turning another negative around, we could have the opportunity to trade some more veterans for some more exciting young players at the deadline this year, which could really change my outlook on the future of the franchise.

faede, I agree that there is something there that could be in some way called a "plan," I just don't see it as really cohesive and well thought out. There's too much patchwork, and decisions seemingly made on the fly. Also, while it was executable when starting from a low payroll base with a lot of star-quality, inexpensive talent, during a period in which attendance and revenues were steadily increasing, it doesn't seem like an executable plan in a smaller market when the attendance and revenues are maxed out and may even decline (if we can't continuously maintain 3MM attendance) and we don't have much star-quality, inexpensive talent. It's a system that can work in the right circumstances for a short period of time, but not for the long-term. Let's move to the "real world" for a second. We've all seen businesses that have a good product, are "hot" for a short period, gorw faster than they can account for and then fade into obscurity. Why is it that restaurants close at an alarming rate, but McDonald's never close? Why is it that retail stores close all the time, but Wal-Marts don't? Both of these businesses are extremely efficient and have every aspect of their plan down to a tee. The astounding success of each of these businesses is not because either of them have better products (probably to opposite is true), but because they have created the better system. Whatever the field, the "winner" in that field lays down a long-term plan, has a systematized way of doing things, and doesn't put short-term success ahead of long-term goals. That's how efficient management works. The ability some have to "predict the future" and wipe out the competition is really the ability to implement a well thought out plan that can be systematized and run over and over again. I think there are teams in baseball that have implemented efficient plans and are using them to build sustainably good franchises. Efficiently run teams don't fill holes with last-minute patches, they realize where the hole is going to be well in advance of that hole opening up, and secure a fix before the hole ever opens. No matter what, they don't give up on their long-term plans. I don't think the Brewers are one of those. I think we had the opportunity to be one of those, started on the path to being one of those, but took the wrong turn and went for the "window." Just contrast what we've done with the Rangers, who are even further along then we were in the recent past. They refused to trade away their top guys for Greinke last year, because they knew they'd need them in the future, and they refused to give up a draft pick and a lot of money to sign a pitcher in his mid-30's to a multi-year deal (Lohse). They took a lot of flak for these moves, but they have a plan, and didn't let outside stimuli force them off their plan, even if it meant limiting their chances of the playoffs in one season. They're still stacked up-and-down their system, and even though they've maintained success for quite a while now, I could see them continuing on as a playoff favorite for the long-term, even though they play in a very tough division. They're kind of doing the opposite of what the Brewers do, and that's where I was going when I said I don't think we have a "well-thought out plan reaching well into the future."

Thank you, because you tend to take one little snippet out of a post and rag on that snippet, even if it's out of context. I assume from this comment after my previous post that you don't believe the Brewers' brass are worried about how fan perception will affect ticket sales, so I can't agree with you there. All business owners are worried about revenues and expenses, and I think it's a driving force for Attanasio. I just have to think that the Lohse signing was almost certainly done at least in part to keep attendance up, and it worked. The day he signed, ticket sales spiked. Most here didn't seem to think that signing Lohse turned us into a playoff favorite, and even you have admitted that you didn't like giving a three-year deal to someone of Lohse's age. All off-season, Melvin said he didn't want to add a third year to an aging vet, but he did it. At least part of this change in mindset had to be because of the lackluster pre-orders they were seeing in ticket sales. I doubt it was because they had so much faith in Rogers and Narveson that they were shocked when they didn't pan out. They have more baseball-savvy than that. As to my belief that they will need to dump salary if fans don't buy tickets... that's just common business sense. They base their budget (current and future) off of projected revenues and if the revenues aren't there, they have to cut expenses. A good portion of the team's revenues stem from fans buying tickets, and then spending money at the park once they get there. First, they project (guess at) ticket sales, then they see how pre-orders are coming in to see how close their projections were. If they're well below projections, the number crunchers start to get worried. If a few hundred thousand less fans buy tickets & come to the park, then they would see a significant revenue drop. The most logical way to cut expenses would be to trade away a big salary obligation. Right now, even this early in the season, I've heard a number of ticket holders who are questioning whether they want to go to the games. This is knee-jerk, and hopefully will be alleviated with some players getting healthy and other players performing better. But, if the bad play continues, there will be a lot of empty seats, necessitating the number-crunchers to re-figure how much they are willing to spend. As to why the team's performing poorly, I'm with you. Lots of injuries and bad pitching. As to the off-the-field "domino effects" from the bad play, I just try to look at it as a business owner. Facing the potential for declining revenue, the first step is to throw money at the problem (Lohse signing and Gomez extension). If that doesn't work, the second step is to circle the wagons and get defensive (trade away a big salary or two). Initially, it looked like step one worked, as sales jumped, but then the team started out poorly, so we'll have to see if that rebounds. I'm not saying they will "circle the wagons," I'm just saying they will do it if the poor play continues and people stop showing up at the park. It is far from a certainty that this will happen.

I don't disagree with you, but the question that popped into my mind is the reverse. If the casual fans were more baseball savvy a move like signing Lohse wouldn't get fans lined up like cattle to purchase tickets. That would change the behavior of the Brewers front office. Letting them know, we are okay with a down year or two if it means more sustainable and ultimately a better path towards a WS. And more money in the coffers. Win/win. But is it the chicken or the egg? I think the responsibility is somewhat split. But casual fans aren't that invested so it won't happen. Unless you live in St. Louis where everyone is a baseball genius at birth. Learned response (hence the Pavlov reference). Wisconsin's a sports state, but it's really a football state. People can answer the most obscure Packer question, but don't follow the Brewers nearly as closely. That said, they really like going to sporting events, so the Brewers need to market ("train") them why they need to go to the games. The Brewers lost a lot of credibility at the end of the Selig era, because fans thought they were making token moves to look like they were trying, while they were lining their pockets with cash. That may or may not be true, but attendance suffered, averageing in the 13k-15k range in the mid-90's. http://www.baseball-almanac.com/teams/brewatte.shtml The Brewer front office did a great job of marketing Fielder, Weeks, etc for years prior to their eventual ascension to the MLB roster, and the fans started showing up knowing that while the team wasn't good, better days were coming. By the time that "wave" of prospects arrived, fans were in an uproar, buying tickets to see those guys. We've had more than 2MM fans a year since 2004 (Attanasio bought the team in Sept 2004) even though we only won 67 games in 2004 and 56 & 68 games in 2002 & 2003. It wasn't winning games that brought fans out, it was that we had a defined strategy and the front office related that strategy to the fans. Fans were trained to come out to see the young guys play. Again, great job of marketing and letting the fans know your forward-looking strategy. Then that group started winning, and attendance steadily climbed, reaching 3MM in 2008's playoff year. Off the playoff fever, over 3MM tickets were once again sold in 2009, but we only won 80 games. Attendance slipped below 3MM (to 2.7MM) for 2010 as the team struggled to 77 wins. Then the big shift came. No longer were we told to be excited for young prospects (they only bring in 2MM fans and the owners are used to the revenues from 3MM). Prospects are now best used to trade for big named guys (why not, it worked with CC and the fans loved it). The Brewers now begin training the fans to expect them to be "big players" in the market... we can't expect an "unproven" guy to do it when we can just spend money or prospects to buy "proven" talent. While this has kept attendance in the 2.7MM - 3MM range in recent years, it has come with some costs - the payroll and future guaranteed liabilities have increased substantially, and fans now get upset when any move is made that isn't what a "big player" would do, like cutting payroll without signing/trading for a big name. No business can expect its customers to buy their product no matter what, which is why so much time, money and effort is spent on advertising. A big part of baseball marketing is letting the fans know your strategy. Even big market fans of the Cubs and Mets are buying into a "non-big market strategy" because it has been explained to them. I think the Brewers did a wonderful job in sparking fan interest after Dean Taylor changed their strategy, but over the years since, the Brewers have changed their model. They went from a good small market strategy to a big market strategy and now the fans are trained to expect the team to keep acting like a big market team. The obvious problem is that we don't play in a big market. It's not the fans' fault that they stopped buying tickets when it was announced that payroll was going to be cut. They've been trained that way. Since the Brewers really don't have a strategy to market, but they still wanted to spur ticket sales, they had to revert back to what they knew... spending money. Since I mentioned in the first paragraph that fans lost interest in the Selig-era Brewers because they thought the owners were making token moves at the MLB level just to keep fans coming to games, while the owners were lining their pockets, the current regime needs to make sure they don't give the Milwaukee fans the same notion. If we see ticket sales drop enough (with future liabilities virtually guaranteeing no less than a $100MM payroll next year), we will see some salary dumps happen this season... it can't not happen. The Brewers need to find a way (even with the injuries) to keep fans coming to the park in droves. Wisconsin fans are faithful, but it kind of looks like the fan base is getting a bit restless at the moment. Personally, I'd start telling the fans what the strategy of the team is not only for now, but for the foreseeable future. Let them know why they need to remain ardent Brewer fans even if injuries (or whatever) causes this to be a down year. Give them hope for the future. Of course, to do that you have to have a well-thought out plan reaching well into the future, and I'm not sure they do at the moment.