monty57

How many more years do the Brewers control Rogers? It would sure be nice to see him able to pitch healthy this season in a more "traditional" role than his 1-inning starts last season.

From McCalvy's "Brewers near tough roster decisions" article on milwaukeebrewers.com http://milwaukee.brewers.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20100314&content_id=8789564&vkey=news_mil&fext=.jsp&c_id=mil Macha finally admitted Saturday that Gallardo, Wolf and Davis are lined up to start the season-opening series against the Rockies. Two spots are officially open in the rotation and one in the bullpen for a slew of legitimate competitors. For the rotation, it's a four-man race led by Jeff Suppan, who made his third spring start Sunday against the Giants. Suppan is guaranteed $12.5 million, and for the moment he's lined up to start the fourth game of the season on April 9 against the Cardinals. That article really makes it sound like Suppan's going to be in the rotation to start the season, and Bush has a good chance of getting cut to save money. I guess the decision will come down to "is Bush $4MM better than Suppan," as they can save money by cutting Bush, so he'd have to be projected to be significantly better than Suppan for him to win the spot. As a fan, I hope they keep the best players on the roster. As an owner/GM, I guess you have to consider money, and they're probably going to try to sell the story that Suppan is as good as Bush, so cutting Bush to save $4MM is the right move for the team. I don't like it, and I'd much rather have them trade Suppan for any salary relief they can find, but I'm quickly believing that Suppan will be a regular this season. Also note that it says one bullpen spot is open. Whether it makes sense or not, I don't think they're going to put two of Suppan/Narveson/Bush/Parra into the bullpen. Barring injury, two will be in the rotation, one will be long man in the pen and one will be playing elsewhere (or sitting on a beach somewhere making $12.5MM).

Logan, I agree that we need all the depth we can get. However, we only have so many spots on the roster and most of our major league-ready guys are out of options. As I said, I'd guess someone will go into the season with some form of injury that will put them on the DL/minor league rehab list, allowing us to keep everyone. However, if our pitchers remain healthy through the spring, we have too many bodies for the number of available roster spots. I doubt we put two of Bush/Parra/Narveson/Suppan into the 'pen. Therefore, if we manage to remain healthy, we need to get rid of one pitcher. In that case, my choice would be to trade Suppan for a mid-tier prospect and salary relief. I might change my mind if we could get a decent AAA starter for Bush, as that would give us some necessary depth, but if the return is similar to what we'd get for Suppan, I'd much rather trade Suppan for salary relief and keep Bush, Narveson and Parra.

A Bill Hall type deal would probably be the best they could do with Suppan. Trade him for a moderately talented prospect to save $1-2MM in salary. If a trade occurs, I don't think anything will happen until late in Spring Training, as it would look really bad if they traded a starter and then lost someone to injury at the end of ST. Yo, Davis and Wolf are locks, and Parra's got far too much raw talent to give up on. In my mind, that leaves the final spot for Bush, Suppan and Narveson. I really hope they're smart enough to hold on to Narveson, so I think he'll go to the pen, meaning that barring injury Bush or Suppan could have to go. I think Bush will be a better pitcher than Suppan this year, and if it is possible to trade Suppan for $1-2MM in salary relief, I'd much rather go that route. That said, if I had to bet, I'd say that one of our pitchers will get some sort of injury during Spring Training, and will start the season on the DL, giving us some extra time to work things out. The extra insurance at SP will be a good thing as the season progresses. If we're fortunate enough to have all of our starting pitchers healthy at the end of ST, I hope Melvin and Mark A. are willing to eat some crow and trade Suppan even if it means eating most of the salary.

It worked for Counsell last season. He thought about having surgery in the Spring, but decided to play through it. Maybe not apples-to-apples, as he could continue to play with the injury. McGehee had a similar situation, and was able to postpone the surgury to the offseason. But you're right, most times you hear the phrase "or work on strengthening" it usually doesn't turn out well. A torn ligament in the pitching shoulder doesn't sound like something you could play through. Sucks for him, and as JohnBriggs started out with, it'll be hard for the Cubs to compete when they're starting the season with a tattered 'pen. With the sale of the team, and the terrible contracts they have out there, you have to wonder how much money they'll have to sign someone like Weathers.

Define "anytime soon." Most economists seem to believe we'll see inflation within 12-24 months, and most seem to feel we'll see a minimum of 4-6% inflation, with some calling for "70's style" inflation. We've started seeing the deflationary trend ebb, and consumer and industrial spending are starting to creep back up. The historically loose monetary policy and the ballooning debt will lead to inflation. It's not really a question of if, but when. Whatever the eventual outcome, it is pretty likely that we will see higher than normal inflation within the time frame of an extended Prince Fielder contract If we even saw a 4% rise in prices (and sebsequently revenue, although it's obviously not a 1-for-1 ratio) over the next five year, and we're at say $85MM this year, our future salary constraints over the next five years would be: 2010 $85,000,000 2011 $88,400,000 2012 $91,936,000 2013 $95,613,440 2014 $99,437,978 2015 $103,415,497 Of course it won't work exactly this way, but the magic of compounding will increase our payroll over time. During inflationary times, a fixed payment gradually gets "less expensive" over time. $20MM / year would still be a significant portion of our payroll five years from now, but it could be 20% vs. 25%. Of course, other salaries will go up during this period, but often the final years of long term contracts seem relatively small compared to what contemporaries are currently signing for. Since we've seen contracts going down recently (relfecting the macro economy), contracts signed 4 or 5 years ago (like Suppan) look really bad. In "normal" times, they don't generally look quite as bad. All this said, making a big bet on one player, even one the caliber of Fielder, could seriously hamper a franchise, so I hope the Brewers' management doesn't get the team into a situation where they can't afford complementary players or has to forego signing draft picks. I have faith that Mark A and Melvin have considered all of this, and won't sign Fielder to a contract that will cripple the team.

One macro factor that's being overlooked is that for the past nearly 30 years, we have seen low inflation, with essentially a deflationary period for the past year or two. We are VERY likely to see moderately high to high inflation in the near future, which will likely last for an extended period. Generally, a good thing to do when going into an inflationary period is to lock yourself into long-term fixed payments. This is probably diluted to some extent in that player salaries have risen faster than inflation over the past 30 years, but I think it's likely that nationally, if not globally, prices will rise significantly over the next 10 years. On a micro level, this includes ticket prices, concession prices, parking prices, etc., which would increase revenue and therefore allow for higher payrolls.

It's really funny if you think about it. 99.999999% of Americans would wet themselves if they were offered a contract that pays you $102 million to play baseball in Milwaukee for 6 years. Yet pro athletes.....nope....I want more. Sheesh. And 99.99999% of people making $10 / hour would wet themselves if offered a job that paid $20 / hour. It's supply and demand. Very few people can play major league level baseball and millions of people will pay to watch it. I really question how many tickets Braun and Fielder actually sell. The Brewers don't sell anywhere near the tickets they do now if the team is back to a sub .500 team. If we keep winning and Fielder leaves, I think we may take a small hit in tickets. Weekend games probably still sell out or close to it as the demand for tickets far outstrips supply. People didn't start to show up to Brewers games until we started to win. The Brewers have to decide whether they have a better chance to win with Fielder or the players and the money they have by not signing or trading Fielder. For some reason, this quote made me question why the Brewers don't promote their prospects more these days. I'd guess that a very small % of the fans could tell you who Lawrie or Arnett are. Granted we had a terrible MLB team when Prince, Rickie, etc were in the minors, but they were hyped and people showed up to see them when they were called up. Excellent point. I think some people forget how often prospects flame out, especially pitchers. At the very least for even elite pitchers, it takes a couple of years before they can be counted on to help you in the playoffs. Which is why I'd prefer trading him for some young players with MLB experience instead of a AA "top prospect." Yo Gallardo has a much better chance of having a good career than a recent first rounder who's now in high-A. The hard part is finding a team with a surplus of MLB-ready pitching that is looking to trade for Prince.

I read somewhere (milwaukeebrewers.com I think) that the Brewers' offer was lower due to their formula giving a negative for missing a year. Gallardo and his agent (Bobby Witt) didn't think he should get docked for missing a season. That's why the two sides couldn't agree on a value. The same article made mention to the Brewers having intial discussions on an extension, but the sides were too far apart to reach a common ground. To me, it doesn't sound like the Brewers are afraid to extend him, it sounds like they aren't willing to extend him to the price that Gallardo and Witt are looking for. The optimist in me hopes that the Brewers are low-balling due to the missed season, and will come up when Gallardo shows durability. The pessimist in me thinks that Gallardo may be asking for far more than someone of his experience/ability should reasonably be asking for, which would lead to year-to-year arby proceedings followed by free agency. If I were a betting man, I'd guess that the Brewers will once again approach Yo/Witt in the not-too-distant future (i.e. after the Fielder discussions have played out) and make an offer closer to what Yo/Witt are looking for once Yo's shown that the freak injury he suffered against the Cubs has no long-term effects.

I agree, Logan. I think the Brewers will put an offer on the table which is fair and which they are hoping Prince will accept, but I think Boras will convince Prince to test free agency. When and if that happens, I feel the Brewers will need to trade Prince (this trade deadline or next offseason) rather than lose him. As has been said, 5-6 years (each) of multiple good players will likely be worth more to the Brewers than one year of Prince.

Don't forget that Mark A. is a junk bond manager, and a good one. I'm sure he has a far greater understanding of this team's finances (past, present and future) than anyone here. In fact, I'll bet he has every revenue and expense stream, current and projected, with best case, worst case and probable case scenarios developed for each. I've had a very brief glimpse of TCW's model, and I'd just say it's probably safe to not doubt Mark A when it comes to the financial aspects of the Brewers. The methodology as I've seen it is to make sure you are still in a good position even if the "worst case" scenario comes into play. As an example, last year's injuries and underperformance was probably near "worst case" from a probable variance prospective, (meaning something ridiculous like everyone on the team getting hurt could have happened, but it's out of the probable realm) and we still ended up near .500 and I believe they turned a profit. I'd highly doubt that Mark A. will pay so much to Prince that he will not be able to field a competitive team around him. That sounds like something a tort attorney like Angelos or the seemingly-not-too-bright Mets owners would do. Rather, I'm sure Mark has combed through the numbers very closely and is pretty certain what he could afford to pay Prince and still remain competitive. All risk equations and revenue and expense streams will have been considered.

I highly recommend the MLB audio pack. It's only $15 and you get every team's radio broadcast for every game (regular season and spring training). I'd easily pay the $15 just for the spring games.

I think there's no way Gamel can win the job out of Spring Training, and I believe that the Brewers will keep him down in Nashville to try to get back the year of service time they robbed themselves of last year. Unfortunately, Gamel is going to be the one who loses out in all of this. At best, he'll be a free agent at 29 or 30, when he was supposedly the top prospect in the organization, and one of Melvin's "untouchables."

One good thing about having an individual, as opposed to a corporation, as an owner: If he really wants to, he can dig into his own pockets and accept a monetary loss from the team. Not many are willing to do it often, but it can be done.

But you don't get two first round picks. You potentially get one first round pick, and you get a supplemental pick. The Brewers lost Sheets and got nothing. They lost CC, Linebrink and Cordero and got 2nd rounders/supplemental picks. They offered arby to Graffy and noone wanted him, so he accepted (that wouldn't happen with Prince). I know I'm missing some here. On top of that, a draft pick has more risk than a player who has advanced through the system. There are a lot of variables, but losing Prince and only gaining draft picks would be disheartening... particularly if they aren't in a tight playoff hunt. The only way I wouldn't completely hate losing Prince for draft picks is if we don't trade him next offseason, and we are leading the division or within a couple games at trade deadline. My worry then is that the Brewers would go "all in" and make a huge deal for the playoffs, and in addition to losing Prince we'd also trade away some of our good minor league talent, putting us in danger of going into serious rebuild mode. I hope they're able to extend him. As my hopes for that are diminishing, I hope they either trade him this season if they're out of it or next offseason. They will get a good haul for him, but holding out for an unrealistic haul could end in disappointment. With the luck the Brewers have had with "holding out for draft picks," Prince would get hurt in his last month as a Brewer or the Yankees would for some reason sign him, Ryan Howard and Albert Pujols, netting the Brewers a third rounder.

Good point on the service time, Logan. It would make sense to hold off on calling Lucroy or Salome up for a couple of months to save a year of service time. TooLiveBrew, I agree, but I'm trying to convince myself that Macha's not as bad as I think he is. Plus I still believe that Kendall takes compromising photos of managers at the beginning of the season and threatens to use them if he doesn't play everyday. Most backup catchers see a decent amount of playing time.

Starters: Wolf, Yo, Davis, Parra and Bush Long Man/Spot Starter: Suppan Middle Relief: Vargas, Narveson, Stetter Setup: Coffey, Hawkins Closer: Hoffman 1B: Fielder 2B: Weeks SS: Escobar 3B: McGehee LF: Braun CF: Gomez RF: Hart C: Zaun IF: Counsell IF: Inglett or Iribarren OF: Gerut OF: Edmonds C: Lucroy The Brewers do not have enough SP depth to get rid of Suppan, so I see him as the long man until someone gets hurt, when he or Narveson will step into the starting rotation. Being a lefty, Narveson won't be a true "long man," and will get more regular work in the 'pen than Suppan. I think Villanueva and Heether will both be sent to AAA so that the Brewers don't lose other players who are around the same talent level (Narveson/Iribarren/Inglett). I'd guess Inglett will win out the race vs. Iribarren as long as Edmonds shows any sign of life, as he plays more IF positions. If Edmonds is completely terrible, then Iribarren will make the roster as backup IF/OF, with Inglett and Counsell as backup IF. Iribarren could provide more long-term value to the team than Edmonds, but if Edmonds can somehow still hit righties at the .900+ OPS level he did a couple years ago, then I think we've seen the last of Hernan as a Brewer. I agree with the previous poster who said that a big reason for signing Zaun was to tutor Lucroy at the major league level, and Lucroy should see 2-3 starts/week, which should allow him to continue to develop.

I get this picture in my mind that Mark A. has a big calendar on the wall with the day that TV contract expires circled. Every day he checks off one more day in the countdown until the Brewers can have a decent TV deal. He's mentioned it numerous times, and I think the Brewers have done a good job in adding different revenue streams, but they may be getting close to maxed out until a new deal is signed. Of course, Mark is a good enough businessman to know that he needs to keep an entertaining product on the field to keep the ratings up so that he can get maximum value for the next contract.

I don't know how much effect this has, but I'm 38, and when I was growing up, everyone played multiple sports. When one season was over, it was forgotten until the next year. I have friends whose kids are 15-20, and they've basically "specialized" in one sport since they were 7 or 8 years old, working on that one sport twelve months a year. Theoretically, that could lead to players being better at that sport, and "MLB ready" at an earlier age. Also, economically I think many teams are realizing that a 22-year-old who is probably never going to be a starter can be just as good as a 35-year-old waning former starter for about 10-20% of the price. And, you're seeing some players like Damon that got a big contract during the peak years and now fail to realize that the market has changed. Finally, there's no doubt in my mind that steroids allowed a lot of players to continue playing much longer than they would have naturally.

I agree it looks as though they have better depth at pitching this year, so if Suppan doesn't perform, he shouldn't stick around. However, they are still lacking starting pitching depth. It will be an interesting decision for Melvin to make... keep Suppan as long man in the bullpen to step into the rotation when someone gets hurt, or get rid of him to keep a more promising young arm, putting yourself at risk of another blowup when a couple of starters go down. Of course, we will probably have some injuries during Spring Training, so it's likely things will work themselves out prior to opening day.

I agree, snyttri. Reading that article really made me worry for Hardy. Depression can be a very serious disease, and it sounds like JJ suffers from it. Much of the "whining" and "excuses" could be because JJ suffers from the disease. Regardless, I hope the best for both parties in the trade. Gomez is now a Brewer, so I'll cheer harder for him, but I wish JJ well. Both players are probably better than they have played recently, but as a previous poster alluded to, this trade could be very lopsided in either direction, becuase either of the players could be really good or really bad in the future.

Agreed. Someone on the site has my quote from long ago in their tag line: The big market teams need the small market teams, because fans aren't going to show up simply to watch the Yankees play with themselves :-) I'm a capitalist, and in the business world, you try to destroy your competition and put them out of business. In baseball, you can't destroy the competition, as you're in a symbiotic relationship with them... if you destroyed the competition, you'd be left on a field by yourself. Instead, whoever wins the World Series starts out the next year at 0-0, just like everyone else. If it gets to the point that small market fans lose interest and stop spending their money on baseball, no one wins. I believe Selig has helped us get back to a "more fair" system. It's still heavily weighted in favor of a few teams/markets, but at least every team has a chance, even though they are at a disadvantge.

Baseball is doing incredibly well, and the team that is making the least amount of money recently has been the Yankees (but they have been increasing the franchise value). The Yankees making the least amount of money is probably due in large part to accounting. The Yankees making money means more money spent to smaller clubs. Therefore, the Steinbrenners (Yankees) charge themselves (YES Network) less money for the TV deal and they make the revenue with YES Network rather than with the Yankees, so that they don't have to distribute it out to the other teams through revenue sharing. Nice & easy way around the MLB-imposed "taxes" that owners who own their own networks can utilize. But I agree with you that baseball as a whole is doing well, and it's not overly likely that anything is going to change any time soon when baseball is raking in fans & money. Let's not forget that as much as we Brewer fans like to see our team on national TV, the ratings are at their highest when the Yankees play the Red Sox, so giving them an unfair advantage probably increases the revenue for MLB in their national advertising. I don't like it, but it's probably true.

In my opinion, the most glaring difference is that in football, all of the TV deals are national, and the TV revenue is shared. In baseball, most of the TV deals are local, with each team negotiating their own TV deal and getting that revenue. Some team owners even own the TV station, which allows them to work around MLB revenue sharing. The biggest advantage teams like the Yankees have over the Brewers is that they receive at least $100MM more per year from their TV deal than the Brewers receive. Therefore, the single biggest "fix" that could be done to the MLB system would be for the MLB to negotiate TV deals and share all of the revenue equally among all of the teams. However, the biggest problem MLB has when it comes to this is that the owners will never get together. What incentive do the Yankees have to agree to this? As long as the arguement is over a salary cap, the big market teams and the players' union are on the same side against the small market teams. If the arguement goes to TV revenue sharing, the players' union really wouldn't care one way or the other. So, it makes sense for the big market teams to keep the arguement on the salary cap, which is a situation they know they will win. I see the system working out as technology takes the next step. In the not-too-distant future, we are going to get our television programming over the internet. Bud Selig wisely insisted that all internet revenue is shared. Therefore, more of the television revenues will be shared in the not-too-distant future. I think Selig pulled one over on the big market teams with this move.

Exactly! They're human beings and last I looked, this is still America. Whatever they want to do on they're free time is up to them. And, putting clauses in contracts to dissuade players from doing what they enjoy is ludicrous too. The Brewers take the risk of off-season injury whenever they sign a player to a contract. They shouldn't, and we shouldn't, have the right to tell players how they have to live their lives within the law. It's their choice as human beings and that's the bottom line. Besides, Prince launched a bunch that almost knocked satellites out of orbit at the All-Star game and he had a pretty good second half. I don't really have a problem with Braun's participation. However, to your point, check out your insurance contracts, and I bet you'll see some clauses where they won't pay. Many businesses also put clauses in for what people do in their "off-time." For example, if a truck driver gets a DUI, he will lose his job. Yes, this is America and property rights and contract law still stand. America is not a land of do what you want whenever you want with no repurcussions. As far as "within the law," remember that you're talking contract law. A "real world" example would be that you have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but that doesn't give you the right to go into someone else's house uninvited... because it's their property. By signing a contract of employment, we Americans (which includes baseball players, even non-Americans) must abide by those conditions or face breach of contract. If a team puts a clause in to "dissuade players from doing what they enjoy," it is because what they enjoy is a dangerous activity that poses undue risk upon the other party to the contract without said party receiving any potential gain. Ask the Yankees if they're glad they put a "no basketball" clause in Aaron Boone's contract. They knew he liked to play pick-up games of basketball and were worried that he could get hurt. He did, and it voided his contract. Now, I'd guess Braun didn't breach his contract, so again, I don't have a problem with him "having fun," through his participation. However, if he had gotten hurt doing it, you can bet it would be pretty big news and these boards would be in an uproar. I would also bet that every future MLB contract would have a mandatory "no non-sanctioned home run derby" clause.