monty57

Greinke is laboring a bit today against the A's. His total pitching line with the Angels is now 16 IP, 12 ER, 8BB, 14K. I'm glad when teams give up players for the Brewers' rentals, but rentals are a crapshoot. An .800 OPS hitter could be a 1.000 OPS guy or a .650 OPS guy over a couple of months. A good pitcher could be great or terrible over a couple of months. We got lucky with how well CC pitched, but that's not the norm. Unless there is a massive hole (like the Brewers trying to find a SS or 3B last season), I hope the Brewers stay away from making big moves for rentals when they're in the playoff hunt, and I will usually root for the Brewers to trade their pending FAs to a team with a desparate GM every time they're not in it. Personally I don't understand why more players don't sign guaranteed deals rather than waiting for FA. I agree, and I'm glad Melvin is open to the idea of extending "core" players. I hope he limits it in the future to making "Lucroy-type" offers to the players he pegs as "core" players early (while they're in pre-arby) and stays away from offering market value deals to guys in their final arby year or offering guaranteed deals to fringe players like McGehee. Locking up Segura and some of our pitchers to go along with Lucroy and Braun should build a nice "core" for the foreseeable future. Non-core guys will come and go. Enjoy them while they're here, but they're replaceable.

I think the Brewers could sport a $100MM payroll. However, I think they will be overly cautious in their assumed ticket sales. The operating budget will probably be lowered if people stop attending games this year (a sign that they may not buy tickets next year). The more solid numbers will come when the initial ticket sales start coming out and season ticket renewals come in. If a lot of season ticket holders fail to renew and initial ticket sales fall, then I think we'll see a substantial decrease in the 2013 budget. If the Brewers go on a bit of a winning streak here, maybe people continue to come out to the ballpark, so the owners make a little money this season, putting them in a better mood when deciding the 2013 budget. If most season ticket holders renew, and early ticket sales match 2012, then we'll probably see the payroll in the $90MM's. I don't see a $100MM payroll unless Greinke comes back because there's really no need for it, even if we have the money. Personally, I think some season ticket holders (the ones who bought their first season tickets 2 or 3 years ago) will fail to renew and we won't have as many early ticket sales as we have the past couple of years when we had the Greinke & Marcum trades one offseason and were coming off the playoffs in the other. These lowered numbers will likely cause Schleisinger to give a cautious estimate to Attanasio, and the budget will be lower than 2012 (which Attanasio and Melvin said was well over budget). The "extra" money - if it's there - could be kept in reserve for mid-season additions if we're in the hunt, or put into the owners' pockets if we're not. As I said earlier, this is all a guess, as the financials are closed to the public.

I don't get it. Texas is in America.

Thanks for the effort Torts, but all I could find was lists for FAs after the 2013 season as well. In clicking through some teams on Cot's, I did find the ultimate "Zack Greinke-style" trade scenario. Felix Hernandez plays for a non-contender and is owed $20.7MM in 2013 and $21.2MM in 2014. If Melvin really thinks (as some here do) that the 2013 Brewers are one ace pitcher away from playoff contention, and wanted to win during the "Hart/Ramirez window," I'd think Hernandez would be his ultimate target. Of course, trading for him would once again gut our farm, but for those who like "all in, all the time," there you go.

As far as what you may get in a trade, I look at the Pence deal to get a feel on it. To me, that return was pretty underwhelming, and you will probably get less for Hart in the off season and certainly less during the season next year. I don't necessarily think that's true. Everyone knew the Phillies needed to purge salary after signing Hamels, and that will bring out all kinds of lowball offers. Pence going on the market this season probably hurt the market for Hart at the deadline, but it was a one-time thing that shouldn't affect his value this offseason. I do think his value will go down significantly if we wait until next trade deadline, because then the receiving team will not get a comp pick for him. If we trade him this offseason, I think one season of Hart plus a comp pick should be worth a Segura-level prospect. If that's the case, I would certainly make the trade and let Gamel man first. If all we can get in trade for Hart is a lump of coal, then of course we don't trade him. In that event, I would still hang onto Gamel, as Gamel as a bench bat/backup has more value to the Brewers than he would probably get for them in trade. If any of Hart, Braun or Aoki gets hurt, Gamel is the first guy to step in (at 1B while Hart moves to corner OF if Braun or Aoki are hurt). So, as the primary LH hitter off the bench and primary backup at essentially three positions, he should see a fair share of PAs. In this scenario, I still wouldn't want the Brewers to extend Hart, as the Brewers can only afford so many eight figure salaries at any given time, and I don't think I'd use one of them for a mid-30's Corey Hart when we have plenty of options who will play the position for league minimum. I still don't get the "if we trade Hart, we're giving up on the season" rhetoric. It sounds to me like the "if we lose {insert Greinke, Fielder, Sabathia} we are never going to compete" cries I've heard over and over again. Who knows, maybe we trade Hart for a starting pitcher so we don't have to spend a lot of money on a B-level free agent. There are plenty of scenarios where the Brewers will continue on as a franchise without Hart on the roster. I think we're better off with Segura, Hellweg, Pena and $25MM/year in salary to spend then we'd have been by extending Greinke, and I think we'd be better off with a good prospect and $15MM/year in salary to spend then we'd be by extending Hart.

I'm starting to see some similarities to the 2010 offseason. I could see Melvin looking for top-of-the rotation vets with 2-3 years of "control" remaining, so he can do a "Greinke-style" trade. Does anyone know where to find a list of guys who will be free agents after the 2014 season?

RE the H&T posts on luxury tax: I agree that the luxury tax was a good idea by Selig and will dampen inflation to some extent. Just my opinion here, but I think multiple teams like the Angels will rush up to the luxury tax threshhold while the Yankees and Red Sox fight to get down to it (that's been happening for a couple of seasons). I think the small/mid market teams will all be able to spend more. However, Yankee and Red Sox fans feel entitled to the unfair advantage they've held for years. If I'm not mistaken, the TV deals for some teams is almost to the level of the luxury tax, so there will be teams pocketing well over a hundred million per season if they stick at the luxury tax level. I believe what will happen is that teams like the Yankees will get sick of having to play in an environment where they don't have a monetary advantage over everyone else, and they will willfully spend above the luxury tax just to regain their advantage. Right now, the "big spenders" are teams that know they have big media money increases coming there way. It's kind of like someone getting told they'll get a raise in a month, so they go out looking for a new house. Once the house is bought, they've already spent their raise, so then prices even out. They've got a new house and maybe a few new toys, and they settle into that level of lifestyle... at least until the next raise comes around. Since the other teams' "raises" are all bigger then the Brewers' (who were working from a floor of having the worst TV deal in the league), fairly or unfairly, other teams will see a bigger revenue increase than Milwaukee. Attanasio has done a wonderful job of increasing his revenue streams, and may have maxed out the revenue he can draw from the stadium. Now they are in a position where they are more dependant on the ebb & flow of attendance numbers. The CFO, whose name escapes me at the moment, has a big task in trying to estimate upcoming attendance in order to set the team's payroll budget going forward. My guess is that they will lower that estimate going into 2013 based on the team's performance this season. To summarize, I think we're seeing big inflation among most or all teams except those at the ultra top end (Yankees/Red Sox). This should continue until all teams have their new TV deals in place. At some point, I believe the teams at the ultra top end will change course to some extent, probably when one or both misses the playoffs to a team like the Orioles. At that point, they'll realize the way to get back to the playoffs is to quickly re-stock their team by spending over the luxury tax. To add to your arguement, I think Selig's best idea was making internet revenue shared equally among all teams. As more-and-more people watch MLB.tv on their iPads, and as things like AppleTV hit, it will level out the playing field more than anything in history. I'd guess within the next ten years most all programming will be somehow tabbed to the internet, and these local TV station deals will cease to exist. At that point, the Brewers will no longer be small/mid market. Again, just a guess.

Thanks, but i meant the 2013, 2014 and 2015 projections of salary and gross value like rluzinski did for Gamel above Theoretically, if you sign him to a market value extension, then you will pay exactly what his production is worth. If he gets better in his 32, 33 & 34-year old seasons, then you will have signed a "value" deal. If he regresses at those ages, then you will have paid too much. Salaries are going up around the league, and what Hart gets in an extension willl probably be significantly more than he's making now. Pence making around $10.5MM in arby and will be in his final arby year next year. When he gets $13-14MM in arby (or more likley signs an extension), Hart will be able to use that in negotiations, as they are remarkably similar players. However, I'd argue that the "what he's worth" numbers aren't really accurate, because the "what he's worth" figures don't compute opportunity costs of replacing him with a pre-arby guy and are inflated by big money teams offering monster contracts that aren't necessarily realistic for small/mid market teams. (rluzinski kind of addressed this in his Gamel "projection" above) Maybe Hart is "worth" $15MM in 2014, but does that mean he is the best option for the Brewers if Gamel or Morris can provide decent numbers for $480,000? If Hart's "worth" is something like $15MM, but he's only being paid $10.333MM, then wouldn't it make sense that someone would offer a decent trade package for a player who puts up good numbers, has an "excess value" contract and would net them a comp pick? What it really comes down to for the Brewers is what provides them with the most value: Keeping Hart for one more year and getting a comp pick for him, Extending Hart to a market value deal, Keeping Hart for the start of the season and trading him at the deadline, or trading Hart before next season starts where the receiving team would get the comp pick so he would bring back the greatest return.

As others are suggesting, it's kind of foolish to try and project the 2013 when it's August, 2012. The odds of the Brewers projected to have 90+ wins in 2012 is probably pretty low but 1/3rd of all teams are going to win or lose 6 more games than they are projected to. A team just needs to have to get to about that 85-87 win projection to start being a realistic contender. I'm not convinced that the Brewers' 2013 rotation will be the weak link. Here are some updated ZiPS projections: Fiers: 3.28 Gallardo: 3.68 Estrada: 4.5 Peralta: 4.65 You have to take projections of young players with a grain of salt, of course, but I'm actually excited about the rotation next year. That is a cheap and potentially solid group of guys there. Depending on what Melvin does in free agency, we could see realistically see an above average starting rotation at a very below average cost. "I hope you realize that if this many people are questioning the way you present some of your ideas, maybe there is something you could change." I think he's already convinced himself that any resistance he gets is simply a byproduct of his audience not being able to handle "the truth". Where we are blinded by fandom, his can see the light. Those numbers should come with a standard deviation, as the 3.28 projection would seem to put all the risk on the upside. I doubt he'll post a substantially lower ERA for the season, but he could post a substantially higher one. Am I wrong in assuming that there is a much greater chance of Fiers, Estrada or Peralta being over 5.00 then there is of Gallardo being over 5.00? It would be great if we just found a new ace in Fiers, but what are the chances his ERA inflates as the league gets to know him a bit better? My worry is that Melvin will look at numbers like these and he too will "get excited," leading to another Greinke-style trade, gutting the farm for another two-year "window." If Melvin "goes all in" and does another Greinke-style trade and then it turns out the Fiers and Estrada were "smoke and mirrors" this season, we've blown the farm and the "window" never even had a chance to open. Again, I prefer to hold back and let the young guys get some experience. Be patient, create some financial and roster flexibility and we should be able to be good for an extended period.

My stance prior to this season was I hoped they would compete for a division title, but if they slipped from the get-go, I hoped they would have a quick trigger finger to start selling, because I was scared of all the talent we would lose after the season. Remeber before the season I didn't know Marcum would get hurt and K-Rod would implode. I figured that trading Greinke, Marcum, K-Rod and maybe Hart would stock up our farm immensely. I assumed from the day Ramirez was signed that we would never be able to trade him, which is why I was surprised when the Dodgers not only showed interest, but seemed willing to pay the contract and send us good talent in trade. While going into this season looked like we could be competitve, and required some things to go bad for us to be completly out of contention by trade deadline, I think next season will be kind of the opposite. We'll go in with some talent on the roster, but we will need a lot to go right in order for us to be buyers at the deadline. Just like a bunch of things went wrong this season, a lot could go right next season. I just think we will need as much good luck for next season to end in playoffs as we had bad luck for this year to go so bad... does that make sense? A lot could change on the roster by opening next year, but I don't think we'll see a major facelift. The big decisions are on Hart - whether we trade him or hold onto him - and if we bring in a veteran (Marcum?) for the rotation. Smaller but still important decisions are on the arby guys, notably Gomez, Morgan, Loe, Veras and Parra as to which of them are worth the money they'll get in arby. Narveson is just a different story because of the injury. I would be surprised if Braun, Aoki, Ramirez, Segura, Weeks, Gamel, Lucroy, Maldonado, Gallardo, Fiers, Estrada, Axford and at least one of Peralta/Rogers/Thornburg aren't all on the roster next year. As long as all those guys are on the roster, we can make a pretty good prediction as to what our opening day lineup will look like. So, I prefer to hold back a little and let the young guys get a little experience under their belts. Since Hart will be gone after the season, and holding onto him means Gamel is a bench player, then I'd try trading him for someone who could help out for six years going forward. Other than that, nothing major. And yes, we could still be competitive even with trading Hart. I hope we are, because that means a lot of our young guys are hitting the ground running, which would bode really well for the future.

We're not "automatically the Astros." The question to me is really how much do we do to "go for it" next year. I certainly wouldn't blow things up, but if my choice were as simple as (A) Trade Hart for a Segura-type prospect, shore up the bullpen with so-so free agents and guys from the minors and give a one-year deal to a decent vet like Marcum or (B) Keep Hart and lose him after the season for the #50 draft pick, guarantee multiple years at eight figures to a B-level free agent starting pitcher, and trade some decent prospects for bullpen arms, I would take option A. Now, if we were in a different situation... let's say we had a couple of proven stud starting pitchers, then I would look at things a little differently. Right now, the odds of our making the playoffs don't look like they're good enough to spend our limited resources (in money and human capital) on substantial upgrades for next year. I hope the Brewers compete in 2013. That really would mean that Estrada and Fiers are for real, and Peralta/Rogers hit the ground running. I just hope they don't cripple themselves financially or by trading useful prospects in order to "go for it." If Melvin leave himself some financial flexibility, then he will know where an upgrade is most needed for the playoff run. Financial flexibility (and having prospects you're okay with trading) are a good thing. Melvin doesn't have to blow his wad before the season starts. He did this season, but hasn't in seasons past, so I think he realizes this.

Just my opinion, but I think they got pretty close to the assumed breakeven point with the payroll this season. That would be with them assuming a certain attendance (and parking, concessions, etc which go along with it). With the season spiraling downward, it's likely that attendance (and everything going along with it) will falter, leading us to take a loss. The "offsets" of losing part of Greinke & Izturis' salaries may or may not make the team profitable. I doubt it's anything catastrophic either way. However, if my assumption is correct, and $100MM or so is around breakeven with 3MM attendance at 2012 prices, what will be breakeven with less than 3MM attendance, but with the increased media deals? We can only guess, and from that guess we would then have to figure that the owners' group will probably not set the payroll at or near breakeven to start next season. Again, this is just a guess, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a starting payroll in the $80-90MM range for 2013, even with the new media money.

I don't believe you can honestly say the Brewers have no shot at contending next year. Of course they do. And I have a shot at winning Powerball. It's all about odds, and I have to decide whether it's worth putting all my money into Powerball tickets or whether I have other options for my money which would have a better chance for success. I have limited money, so what do I do? Of course the Brewers' chance of winning is better than Powerball odds, but it's the same concept. The Brewers have what they have, which includes a limited amount of money and human capital to "spend" if they choose to improve the 2013 roster for a chance to win it all. It is in defining the "end goal" and utilizing these limited resources in the most efficient manner to eventually reach that "end goal" that spurs debate. The ongoing debate on this board is in defining the "end goal." Is it to build a team designed for continual success or is it to build a team with a window of optimal chance. The window of optimal chance crowd believes the window has to eventually close, so we need to do everything possible to get a World Series title prior to the window closing. The continual success crowd doesn't believe the window has to close unless it is slammed shut by bad moves made while trying to "win now." Sure the Brewers have a chance of winning next year, but they're cetainly not favorites. I'd rather spend our limited resources on building for 2014 and beyond where I think the chance to win is far greater.

I fail to see the benefit of bringing him up now. They need any PR they can get at this point to keep people coming to games. They're probably going to lose money this season, and every person who doesn't attend a game is more revenue lost. Segura will be looked at by most fans as "the guy we traded Greinke for," so he may be worth going to the game to watch. Plus, if he hits and plays exciting defense, fans can feel like better things are on the way, so they'll renew their season tickets. Nothing like putting pressure on the kid. Dougie wants this time to audition Segura to see if he can be the regular SS for the Brewers next year or if he has to find another abysmal 1 year SS. While there's probably some truth to this, I'd like to think that Melvin had some kind of plan for Segura while he was trading for him. He should have known then whether or not he's slated to be the opening day SS in 2013. While there's a good arguement to be made that it would be better for the franchise to keep him in the minors until June (or whatever) 2013, it seems pretty obvious that he is going to be the Brewers' opening day SS next year. I think the only reason he went to AA is that Melvin wanted to see if he could save a couple hundred thousand by getting someone to claim Izturis on waivers rather than simply dumping him. If that was the plan from the start, I do have to give him credit for that move. I would've probably called up Bianchi and left Segura in the minors until we got another season out of him. However, if he is going to be the opening day starter next year, and it isn't going to cost us service time by bringing him up now, then I guess I'd rather see him up now to "get his feet wet" then have him learn on the fly next year.

As far as how profitable the Brewers were/are/will be this year, I don't know how to find that info. The Brewers are a limited partnership, so that information is not public. There are revenue increases which go to every team (national TV deals, MLB Network, internet, etc) and local deals (FSWisconsin). I believe the league-wide revenues are going up, which is why a bunch of teams are already spending it (see the Reds) and we're seeing a lot of salary inflation, particularly for high-end players. There was an article in a NY paper saying the Brewers old TV deal was $10MM/year, and the new TV deal (which I believe starts next season) will triple that. That's where the "extra $20MM" people talk about get that number. That doesn't mean payroll will go up by $20MM+, but that revenues may (if rumors are correct) go up by $20MM+. To relate that to other teams, the Angels new TV deal will pay them somewhere around $150MM, so they'll get around $120MM more than the Brewers just in the local TV deal. Now, that has to be offset by attendance. With the way the team is playing this season, it's likely that people will stop showing up to games. For this season, the ticket is already sold, so that revenue is banked, but things like concessions and parking will take a hit. Will this be 5%? 10%? That's what the Brewers are probably scrambling to figure out. Meanwhile, they were overbudget while projecting for a playoff run, which means that if attendance drops off significantly, they will probably lose a lot of money. That's where things like trading Grienke and even giving away Izturis for nothing can help the team at least break even. Projecting forward, the team will have the additional revenues mentioned above, but they will probably adjust the expected attendance down fairly significantly. The owners will have to decide if they want to risk losing money again (assuming they will probably lose some this season) in an effort to attempt to bump attendance with some free agent signings, or if they're willing to risk losing some fans with a lower payroll on young players. In the past, Attanasio said he would spend more if he could get a special player (CC, Prince), but only for that special player. I'd guess that was the case with Greinke, so I don't think it's safe to assume that all the money Attanasio was willing to pay Greinke will be used if Greinke's not in the picture. So really, no one outside of the Brewers / MLB know the exact numbers, so it's anyone's guess what they need to do to breakeven. I'd guess that unless they see some really big initial season ticket sales, they're going to go into next season with a conservative budget. With the new TV money, I'd put that in the lower end of the $80-90MM range. Note that with the inflation we're seeing, this will buy significantly less than it would've several years ago. According to Cot's, the Brewers are obligated to pay $52.433MM to seven players (Weeks, Braun, Ramirez, Hart, Gallardo, Aoki, Lucroy) plus Wolf's buyout. They have eight arby eligible players (Morgan, Loe, Veras, Gomez, Parra, Axford, Narveson, Estrada). Of those, I'd guess only Axford, Estrada and probably Gomez are "locks" to return. That would mean that we'd have around $60MM going to ten players, leaving $20-30MM for the remaining 15. If we assume somewhere around $500,000 for pre-arby guys, Fiers, Segura, Gamel, Maldonado and one other SP are probably "locks," (5 players, $2.5MM) and Green, Ransom, Schafer and a couple bullpen arms are likely. That's about ten pre-arby guys at around $5MM, which leaves around five positions to fill with $15-25MM. Signing a relatively inexpensive veteran SP (Marcum) and a couple of setup guys will probably eat up most of our "free money" going into 2013. So, without making any offseason trades, we'd probably see the team we're currently watching with some/all of Loe, Veras, Parra and K-Rod replaced with some other FA relievers and maybe someone like Schafer/Gindl on the roster instead of Morgan. Edit: couldn't count to five :-)

I was with my 6-year old, so I didn't get to watch as closely as I'd like and left after the second Garfield home run (this one to right center). He did airmail a throw to second, and on another SB the pitcher bounced it, and the ball bounced into and over Garfield and ended behind him. He did get to it quick enough that the runner didn't try for third.

I don't know if this is the place to post this, but I'm at the Wisconsin/Snapper game. Macias & Garfield go yard in the first. Garfield nearly put it over the scoreboard in right center. It wasa shot.

Segura's the SS of the future, which should be sometime next year, but Bianchi is guy they need to evaluate for his role next season. I would think Bianchi comes up and gets splits the PT with Ransom who's also auditioning for next year utility role. That's what I thought would be a good idea. Since Segura's already seen a few days on an MLB roster, and assuming he's here 'til season's end, he'd still be FAR from qualifying as a Super-Two, so the Brewers would still have 6 years of contract control after this year and three years before he'd be arby-eligible. I don't know the in's-and-out's of these dealings, but if it doesn't cost us service time, I'm alright with it. If we could've waited until June of next season and got another year out of him, while seeing what Bianchi brings to the table, I'd have rather gone that route. I worry that this is kind of a PR move to attract people to the ballpark in a lost season. I also worry that it means we're "all in" next season, so we "get his feet wet" this year instead of next.

You also have to consider the time value of money. The $25 mil he is scheduled to receive in 2023 is worth only around $18 mil in today's money and that's only considering inflation. I look at it like "90 days same as cash" / "No payments for a year" sales. Stores do these deals, fully willing to miss out on money now because they know it will cause consumers to buy more than they'd be willing to if they had to pay now. It leads to a "we'll worry about paying for it when it's due" mentality and causes people to go into bankruptcy when the bills actually arrive. Which happens more... teams extending guys at the end of a 7+ year deal, or teams trying to salary dump guys they signed to 7+ year deals? Logically it makes some sense, but in reality it probably allows GM's to spend themselves into bad situations.

I'm as excited about Segura as anyone, but I really hope he doesn't get the call.

I'm guessing that means Bianchi gets the call. Maybe he'll get more than 12 ABs this time around. We save a couple hundred thousand and get a chance to see if Bianchi can handle SS until the Segura Era begins. And Brewer fans won't be subjected to watching Izturis on a nightly basis.

And I don't think it's a good idea to do the Marlins thing, win then tank win then tank. We have an opportunity to keep a solid fanbase if we can just keep winning the next few years. I'm not sure we'd be able to handle a full on tank like the Astros are doing right now. What leads to a "full on tank like the Astros" is continually extending past-their-prime players in an effort to either (A) win now while {insert player name} is still in their prime and/or (B) keep fans in the seats by keeping the home-grown players, no matter what the cost. Doing this got the Astros one last playoff push, and then they were so old and expensive that they needed to dump everyone and start over. They are now bearing the fruits of trying to "keep a window open." This is what many of us are trying to avoid. I don't know why people keep thinking it's what we're proposing. Trading Hart and starting Gamel at 1B, Aoki in RF is not a Marlins-style blow up. It's simply trading a good player when we have in-house replacements in order to get a good young player or two who can help for a long time. Look how much simply trading Greinke should help our future with Segura, Hellweg and Pena. Trading Hart might cause a step back in 2013, but should help us have a nice group of talented, inexpensive players for the foreseeable future. One or two moves can make a big difference in the direction of the team.

This doesn't pertain to Greinke, but one thing the Brewers have on "their side" going forward is that Braun is a vocal proponant of young players taking long-term deals when/if they're offered. It never hurts a GM's cause when the "face of the franchise" tells the young guys to take the offer. I hope to see a number of "Lucroy-type" deals getting signed over the next few seasons.

we cant afford to just scrap one year (2013). I'd argue that trading Hart for a Segura-type prospect and going with Aoki in RF and Gamel at 1B does not constitute "scrapping a year." We will lose so many of the average fans who dont follow baseball as religiously as people on this forum do. I think thats one thing that gets overlooked and I sometimes do it to. Just the other day I was talking with my friends about sports, and I brought up the brewers. And people responded with "Cant wait for football season, lets just talk about the Packers." Im still in brewer mode and will always be, but im a diehard fan and will watch them and go to the games no matter what. This is a football state and the brewers cant afford to have one bad year where ticket sales decline and the money shrinks. I think your arguement shows that we are probably going to see a ticket sale decrease next year no matter what. I don't think they're suddenly going to show up simply because we don't trade Hart and/or Ramirez. Every year, from here on out has to be "The Year" and with Braun and the other veteran position players in our lineup, it can be. Even most big-market teams can only keep this up for so long before the strategy collapses. A long-term strategy in Milwaukee pretty much has to center on always having good, young, cost-controlled players making their way onto the MLB roster every year. With a lot of pre-arby/arby guys on the team, we can afford more big contracts. By occasionally trading some former "core" players as they age, get expensive and we have younger, less expensive replacements in-house, we can replenish the system and constantly have a malleable "core" group of All-Star caliber players surrounded by average/good players. Next year we'll go through our bumps with the starting rotation but if our bullpen gets revamped and becomes above-average, along with our strong lineup, we'll be in contention. I want them to keep Hart and Ramirez, and see where our team is at midseason next year. If a lot of "ifs" happen, we could be a playoff team. The biggest "if" is whether a starting rotation consisting of Gallardo, Estrada, Fiers, Peralta, Rogers, Thornburg, etc along with a completely rebuilt bullpen will make it to the playoffs. I think there is talent in those pitchers, but expecting all of them to play to a level that would get us to the playoffs is probably expecting too much. Then you have the fact that Hart is a free agent after the season. He probably has decent trade value now, as the receiving team would get the comp pick when he leaves, but his value will be a lot lower by next trade deadline. I don't think it's worth the risk of losing out on a potential future "core" player in trade on the hopes that the 2013 rotation will take us to the playoffs. What I believe will get the fan interest back up is playing exciting baseball and the knowledge that the players are young and getting better (like we had when Weeks, Fielder, etc we're emerging onto the Milwaukee scene). That gives fans hope that the future is brighter.

I'd like to hear more about why, exactly, people think we should or should not target a veteran SP in the offseason. What factors should influence that decision, how much, and why? I'd look to bring a veteran-starter-looking-to-regain-his-value on for a one-year deal. Marcum is the perfect candidate for this, but I'm sure there are others. This vet can fit into the 2/3 spot in the rotation alongside Gallardo, Fiers, Estrada and probably Rogers or Peralta. I'd let our prospects, such as Thornburg, be the "depth," as we'll have a lot of near-MLB-ready starting pitchers next season. The starter on a one-year deal will help solidify the rotation next year, will allow guys like Thornburg to get more seasoning in the minors, and can be flipped at the deadline if they're healthy and we're not in contention. I don't like going more than one-year because we have a lot of starting pitching on the horizon. If at this time next year, some of them fall apart, then we can always sign someone else long-term next offseason. If they continue to progress, I don't want a big money deal on the books for a starting pitcher who is blocking a good, young pitcher who could contribute for league minimum. Barring a total collapse to finish out this season, I wouldn't be upset if we went into next year with a rotation of Gallardo, Fiers, Rogers, Peralta, Estrada. However, I don't think they'll do that, as they'll want to put on some show to the fans that they're trying to compete next year. Signing someone like Marcum to a one-year deal is a pretty low-risk way of doing that. One question: Is it do or die time for Rogers? If he's not on the MLB roster, I think we may risk losing him, so it that's the case, I'd think he'll get the nod over Peralta if we go Gallardo, Marcum, Fiers, Estrada, Rogers/Peralta.