BrewerFan

I don't know if I said this here, but Forbes estimates... which are just that, estimtes(though, I'd lend them more credibility) had the Brewers taking in a net revenue of 21M in 2024 and the Dodgers 25M. So... they can spend like that and still put more money away than the Brewers.

Yup. I wouldn't have made the argument otherwise. The best players in the world... want to play in the best LEAGUE in the world; So... that's absolutely what I think would happen. They would go to whoever drafted them and then play out their contract. As for not "having to post a player," they still seem to get posted.

The previous 3 seasons, Matthew Boyd had started 23 games, 141 innings and he got 2 years and 36M GTD. The Dodgers are paying Koepech 5M. They gave Knebel 5M coming off an injury and a terrible couple years. The Phillies then gave him 10M for pitching 25 innings and that was 4 years ago. I think you're drastically underestimating the market for a SPer like Woodruff, even with the injuries. deGrom got nearly 40M over 5 years plus an option at 37M after coming off two injury riddled seasons. Then threw 40 innings the next two years... and I don't think that's deterring anyone. I could keep going, there's Ben Sheets. He was a much riskier choice than Woody and he got paid 8 figures before he'd came back and proved he could throw the ball again. I think if he signs a one year deal, it'll be for more than the QO. I think WE offer the QO because it seems like a really good bet he'd decline it. The very cheapest I could see him playing for this year would be... 10M and that'd be opting in and that's because... I have an irrational belief that he loves Milwaukee and because Attanasio has said he's not only(among) his favorite players, but favorite people. But I know that's... not really going to drive his decision unless the difference in salary isn't that big. We will see though. You may prove to be prophetic. And if you are and he gets 5M a year... I REALLY hope we're the team that gives it to him.

The problem with this theory is... that's not really what happened. Guys who were dominant or even just good in AAA... they were better in the big leagues. Patrick, Henderson, Miz... not Gasser, but he was kinda in a tough spot(which is why he was the one guy we all pointed to and said he shouldn't be on the roster, but he was also like Snell, pitching his "June," for us in the postseason). I would feel better if it was just the Brewers got tired and they couldn't recover... but the fact is, their pitching was great. There isn't a bigger Turang fan on this board(I mean, unless his family is on here, but I like him a lot, that's the point)... but he was a huge catalyst for us all year and he did next to nothing. Frelick wasn't getting on base. Yelich was lost up there. And the Dodgers pitching was just incredible.

I just don't believe that's where MLB teams would look to cut. The most efficient form of developing cheap young talent. Yes, the majority fail. But you don't know which will fail until... they fail. Eric Brown Jr would likely have been taking up a roster spot while Adamczewski would likely be playing in independent ball? That wouldn't be a cheaper or more efficient system and we're still ultimately talking about a relatively small amount of money compared to one large FA. Well, the Dodgers aren't losing money, just the Mets. And no, they don't have an ultimate money glitch, they just have a ton of money. But my point stands, if the goal was only to make money... those teams could make a lot more money and spend a lot less. The Mets losing money wasn't really the point, it was more Cohen doesn't care about making money. I'm sure he'll adjust after he sees you can't just buy a championship, but I suspect they'll move more in the Dodgers direction of working to develop the best farm system AND paying the most. But maybe there will be a cut at some point. Or maybe the TV money will just keep going up as it's the one area where TV is actually growing, live sports. I guess we'll see what happens. That just seems like the least efficient place to cut. In fact, if there was a cap, I would guess the large market teams would spend even more on scouting and player development.... and the teams that do it now would continue to.

No, something very practical can be done, you're just making an assumption that Japanese players would refuse to play here. We WERE one of Sasaki's choices... but it was pretty obvious we weren't going to get him over the Dodgers. We've also had Japanese players here. A player like Sasaki who wanted to play in the Major Leagues SO badly that he couldn't wait another year when he would have signed a record setting deal(provided he stayed healthy this year in Japan).... you think he would have just not come over vs coming to Milwaukee for whatever time frame he was looking at? A draft... is very much a practical solution. Why would the NBA be bringing players from France and all over Europe to San Antonio or wherever, but that wouldn't be the same in MLB? I believe you'd be able to make the same argument about the Dominican Republic. Though... most kids in Japan grow up learning English... so you could argue that it's an even bigger culture shock for kids from the DR. They leave at 16, they're playing Stateside by 18, 19... if they have success.

I haven't done that. YOU said that the NFLPA has gone from a 65% of revenue share to a 48% of revenue share. I used your quotes so there wasn't any confusion. If you made that statement knowing it was wildly misleading and that 65% wasn't 65% of the whole pie like the 48% is then you were just being intellectually dishonest. Most appreciated. I just think we should try and stay on topic. I'm sorry, you started this thread by saying; And yet... where exactly did I say "the players should agree to whatever the owners want?" Just say what you mean. Discussions are much easier when you do that instead of create strawman arguments. See, now THIS part is closer... if you don't make up the whole, "the players should give the owners whatever they want," and play the big bad billionaires card. I said that more revenue sharing, a cap where you can spend to retain your own players similar to how the NBA has it and then a FLOOR... would be good. But to put a finer point on it, I said that the NFL's Collective Bargaining Agreement has helped the sport as a WHOLE grow their revenue and that's good for everyone. Not exactly "the players should give the owners whatever they want." I'm sorry, WHAT point are we even attempting to make or argue at this point? And it's not an arbitrary cap. It's based on the league's revenue. AT least as it pertains to Baseball. But then we went to Football when you cited what WAS an arbitrary cap where they just made up random exceptions and limits and used that to argue that the cap was the reason that their revenue sharing had dropped from 65% to 48%. LOL... sure! I'll... get right on top of that! To recap, you made the argument that the NFLPA's percentage of revenue had gone down drastically since they implemented a cap(you specifically used that time frame and the 65% number) and said it had dropped down to 48%. When I pointed out you're not at all comparing the same things as that 65% was not close to the entire revenue pie, you accused me of "mis-representing things you said," while claiming that I "inferred" the owners had not made more money...upon pointing out that Micah Parsons just signed for 47M a year where as Reggie signed his contract(which was actually VERY close to the richest in LEAGUE history, not just for a defensive player... hell, Parsons isn't even the top paid Packer. It was at THIS point you felt the need to change the discussion from the two principle points in a CBA, REVENUE and what SHARE of that revenue the players get and instead.... start talking about franchise valuations. If you want to waive the white flat... waive it bud. If you want to keep digging the shovel, playing the 'that's not what I meant,' even though it's exactly what you said card and then create strawman arguments to respond to me... I'll keep doing so. I will have to wait to get back to you as... I probably should get some work done, but I look forward to seeing how I have said that... MLB players should volunteer to play for the league minimum or some other equally foolish statement that I never actually made while you complain about being misrepresented!

I don't actually think you do. I think you had to with Hader, Gomez, Lucroy...Burnes. I don't really view Williams trade as the same. But we've got a good enough farm system that we can listen to deals, but we do not have to make one just to keep recycling talent. We have so much talent coming up and you'll get a high draft pick and what, ~2.5M in bonus money when we offer Peralta a QO after 2026? So you need to beat that offer by enough that it's worth taking a guy who I think is actually a really good #2 pitcher(not a true ace) from a 97 win team. If you get that from... again, the Padres keep coming to mind given how desperate they are and the SPers that'll be FAs. Plus, they like the flashy new trade every-single-time. Yeah, again yesterday one of those guys who "covers" the Dodgers by writing for Bleacher Report or whatever... after saying the Brewers could have signed Ohtani, Freeman, Snell, Yamamoto, people like that, he THEN listed the "cheap" options. Teoscar Hernández was one of his examples. The guy who signed with the Dodgers after he was surprisingly not given a QO by the Mariners in 2023 and signed a 1-year 23.5M deal. That's their... cheap option. Or one of them, Max Muncy and then... Sasaki were the other two examples. One of whom was likely going to get more than any Japanese players ever had he waited a year and come over as a FA instead of as a prospect. I'm not so interested in the "go for it" mentality with Peralta though. I think he puts up really good numbers that helps out more in the regular season than the post-season. I think we have good young pitchers, but he's not going to decide a series like Blake Snell(or even like I think Burnes/Woodruff WERE capable of doing). I just don't have a strong opinion on Peralta. We have a lot of guys who can starter, even more who can start and give you 4-5 innings regularly. If you get a deal with a really good prospect a year away and the value is really in your favor, do it. Don't do it just so you can check off, "got 2 top 75 prospects for pitcher with one year left." If we had the 20th ranked system, I'd do it. WE don't, it's top 5. Be open, but a draft pick isn't the worst case scenario.

I don't think you're getting a guy like McClean in any trade for Peralta. I think the only thing you can do is look for a guy who is a year behind McClean, try and figure out who the next version of McClean will be, try and pick him up. That's why I liked Mendez from the Padres. He's a guy with elite stuff, little rough around the edges, but big upside. I don't think Peralta gets you Williams+Tong... and as you'll see below, I'm not particularly interested in Baty as a center piece. That's for Skubal. For Skubal next year, I'd keep Peralta and trade Pratt, Pena, Henderson and that's more than they're proposing. Now this is a comically low ball offer for Skubal, but... I don't think Stearns is going to trade away those two young arms. Ok... Durbin had a BABIP about 40 points lower than Baty last year and we've got... 5-6 guys on their way up in the next year or two. I wouldn't be making a trade like this for Baty. And then moving pass Durbin-Baty which is REALLY much closer to a push(especially when you adjust for Durbin's .261 BABIP and Baty with a BABIP over .300 and their near identical value. You also have the fact that Durbin was new to 3B. But you have Wilken, Adams, Fischer, Made/Pratt can't both play 3B. I think looking at 3B/1B acquisitions is looking backward. You have guys who will be in AAA and you have guys in AA and you imperfect fits in Boeve, Black, Ortiz(who we're all writing off prematurely) if he's kicked off 3B...all while having 1B/3B lined up with Vaughn and Durbin. https://stathead.com/baseball/versus-finder.cgi?player_id2=durbin000cal&year_min=2025&player_id1=baty--000bre&request=1&utm_id=batybr01&utm_medium=sr_xsite&utm_campaign=2023_01_wdgt_player_comparison&utm_source=br So give me a couple of guys who throw in the upper 90s with an elite 2nd pitch and a 3rd pitch that needs work, a change up... the exact type of pitchers the Brewers seem to do their best work with. Otherwise, roll with Peralta and run it back.

Well... two things. 1-I think there's a very real chance people are going to be talking about how they gave up on Ortiz far too early a year from now. He's played two seasons. One at SS. He was a solid hitter one year, a very poor hitter the other year. DL Hall is also a very solid pitcher, BUT... of course you'd rather have Peralta over him. The Goal is to trade for a pitcher like Abel and then hope you can develop him. I'm thinking of... the Padres. A team with a need RIGHT NOW and a team that's always willing to trade their young prospects, but I'd trade Peralta for Kruz Schoolcraft, Humberto Cruz, and then the guy I really like Miguel Mendez. Mendez is a guy I think the Brewers could do a lot with. But if you're going to trade Peralta... and I'm more split on this than I was a month ago, if you do, you should be looking for pitchers who are on the same trajectory as Made, Fischer and that group. The Padres don't have much in their system, but they're desperate to win and they have 3 REALLY good young arms, that'd make the most sense. Then we could still have Edit-Priester-Someone I forgot about him Misi Patrick Myers Henderson Ashby Gasser And I would anticipate adding a pitcher. I think Dylan Cease would be perfect. Pony up, give him 3/60. I think he'd be better in Milwaukee. I don't think we're going to do anything and that probably makes the most sense. We've got a very good farm system, we DO have some pitchers who are on that timeline... I'm just saying, a couple of really high ceiling type arms who will be in HiA or AA next year... I love the position group of players we've got, I wouldn't mind seeing us add to the SPing.

And then here's the part where I tell you... this isn't a very good job of covering up that you didn't know what you were talking about when you claimed NFL players revenue had DROPPED from 64% to 48%. If you knew that was not an accurate statement, why make it? So they're "down" to 48% from 64%, but you were never talking about making an apples to apples comparison? Yeah, seems like I was reading EXACTLY what was right there. That doesn't make much sense though. If your point was that you were never said that it was from the same pool(and to be clear, the 65% was capped up until a certain number and didn't include most local revenue and was primarily driven by TV contracts and Gate reciepts)... then again, why even make the statement? What purpose does it serve So... that's really make this part of the statement irrelevant than; Meanwhile the players have never been more "wealthy." Everyone makes more! So... you're really not saying anything. I think the problem is that you did a quick search, saw the NFLPA originally agreed to 65% during the '87 strike, but you didn't realize just how much of the total revenue that DIDN'T apply to. None of that even a point of contention in the previous posts.... but it's also not true. Players have had years they've earned as much as 57%(of ALL revenue without a cap at a certain amount like your 1994 64% figure). But, again... when was this EVER the point of this thread/discussion? I'm also curious in what line of work do the employees or have the employees outpaced the revenue of the companies during this time period? This is a red herring and really not related to the MLB CBA discussions. Yeah... that's literally the point. It's a negotiated percentage. That's how you arrive at a salary cap, floor. You take a percentage of revenue. In the NFL, it's a MINIMIUM of 48%. The actual number is generally higher, but... that is the minimum percentage of revenue. And we're back to comparing Apples to Oranges. Why did we just randomly shift from yearly revenue and the percentage of that that players receive to estimated valuations of franchises? Is this even a serious discussion any longer? I suspect if you looked the average salary for an employee at MSFT or NVDA vs the valuation of the company... well, I really wouldn't care what you'd find, but I suspect you'd find the employees "revenue share" significantly lag behind the 4.7T dollar valuation. So...I don't know what we're talking about. We're comparing what percent of revenue they get PER YEAR. Not the valuations of the franchises. That's... totally irrelevant. You can't pay people with projected prices when and if you sell and what that price is PROJECTED to be... 1-How's that? Where did I say "non-football" revenue? I don't know what you're talking about. I mean, I was originally talking about BASEBALL and a wildly different financial structure than the NFL, but you choose to make some statements about the NFL that really doesn't hold much water. I pointed out that the 64% YOU were talking about didn't include most LOCAL revenue. They also literally capped how much of the revenue they could share(150M in 1994). So it really... couldn't be less relevant. It'd be like saying..."once they reach 8B, you don't get anymore revenue" in the modern NFL. You'll also have to show me where I said the revenue sharing didn't include "non-football revenue," or what point you're making here. And no, it's more the cost certainty of the NFL TV deals BLOWING up that the NFL players are VERY clearly sharing in, now at ~111B dollars and the NFL is almost certainly going to opt OUT of that in 2029 because it's not a big enough deal. But AGAIN, I don't know why we've randomly shifted the conversation from Revenue generated per year by a league to franchise valuations are. The cost of a franchise is elevated NOT just because of the money, but the scarcity. This really couldn't have less to do with the conversation. What's next, are we going to start talking about 12 month forward PE's for NFL franchises vs players salaries? An NFL teams percieved valuation from Forbes? Again, why are we occilating back between NFL valuations and how EVERY league determines players revenue... Revenue each year gets divided up every year. THAT is how the salary cap is decided. Not how much an NFL franchise is worth. Don't think I asked you to. You've made this an ENTIRELY different conversation about millionaires and billionaires in another sport with... partial truths and inferences that weren't made. You're saying nothing here. I haven't seen anyone say, "hey, I'm for Billionaires being able to get away with financial manipulation!" Are we still talking about Football(which for whatever reason has been the extent of this discussion) given the NFL DOES open it's books and have done so since 1993.... so I don't know what "financial manipulation," you're referring to here, but it seems like a larger and more disconnected political point vs a discussion on the economic inequalities in MLB. It's NOTHING more? So... a cap(And floor) and revenue sharing in the NFL(which is what the discussion was actually about)... that doesn't do ANYTHING but enrich owners? Has it dawned on you that MAYBE one of the reasons the NFL is so WILDLY successful is that pretty much EVERY NFL team can sign afford ANY player? Maybe that's part of the reason their revenue has just blown past that of MLB? That the very first day of the league year, EACH team is given a check, this year for ~400M dollars that covers the entire 280M salary cap? That every single team is on equal footing? A Cap wouldn't make it so a publicly owned team from a city of 100K people could be on equal financial footing with the New York teams, the LA, Dallas, Chicago teams? I was unaware that a cap ONLY served one singular agenda. I guess I won't read things that aren't there. A salary cap does literally NOTHING but increase franchise valuations. Absolutely nothing else at all. Would a floor then serve "no purpose" but to lower a franchises valuation then? I mean, that's the logical conclusion from such a broad statement lacking all nuance, but... I'm just curious.

I'm actually interested to see how much he gets. @TURBOmentioned it and... it is this feeling you get when he's your closer, you look, you see the 1.20 ERA... you see that he has thrown 2 changeup's that just dart like a whiffle ball, but youknow if they just don't swing at it and sit FB, they'll hit it... and they almost never do. I think intellectually, Turbo is wrong about it being a roller-coaster with him, but it FEELS like it. I wonder how much not having that overpowering FB to work off of will hurt his market value. He really should get 5/75 based on what he's done, but I think it's more like 2/28 or so. And I think... outside from trading for a guy like Duran or Mason Miller(who they'd probably pay 14M for a year or two) you're right. There's no realistic scenario in which we make our 2nd highest paid player a reliever. I don't really get the "BP is the last place I want to spend on," though. I'm looking at the position players who'd be a real upgrade? In theory; Bichette-Great hitter, .307 xBA, one of the best offensive MIFers. -13 OAA. Ok, make him a 2B, Turang to SS. ?That problem is solved. Now, just find a way to pay him 300M. Schwarber-Great. Totally worth it. Play Yelly fewer games, but have an OF of Yelich/Chourio/Frelick. You lose on defense, but you get a MASSIVE power hitter and OB machine. Probably 3/90 to get him to Milwaukee. Framber would be a great SPer. I'd love to see him in Milwaukee. Not paying a 32 year old 5-6 years and 30M a year(which is what it'd be for a "shorter" deal like 5-6 years. Dylan Cease? In theory, if you're willing to spend 20M, he may be the only guy I could understand(on a short term deal). Give him 3/45 and I don't think that'd get it done, maybe it's 3/60. The Brewers can do that and Cease has good enough stuff to justify that.. still don't think there's much of a chance he'd sign with the Brewers(and I think he'll get 9 figures even coming off a down year). Is there any other position where you can get an upgrade... on a relatively short term deal, 2, maybe 3 years where you're A-Not blocking a prospect(which would kinda be SS) or we have depth(OF)... but would make an appreciable difference?

I actually strongly disagree. I wanted Chapman last year(also a little bit Yoan Moncada, but mostly Chapman) and this year, I'd love Hensley or someone else. I don't think we're out of the woods with Megill and we didn't trust Mears in the NLCS. I think the shorter outings, the stint on the IL(which I don't think we do if we're 3 games behind happens) all contributed to that. That kid... MAN, he really has me set up for disappointment next year. I never lost faith.... that he'd be a great pitcher for us. I had very little faith he'd be a reliable arm out of the pen. Megill had that dreaded "flexor" strain that... should give you a little pause and Ashby may well be moved into the starting rotation. Now this isn't me advocating for Devin Williams, but it IS me advocating for a Ryan Helsley IF.. you could get him for ~8M or less. Kyle Finnegan may be an even better option with his GB heavy approach and likely cheaper price tag... though I'd bet each are out of our price range. The Dodgers seem like an obvious choice for Hesley at 3/45 or so and I'd guess Finnegan could get a 3/27 type deal.

Oh I thought I was missing something. That you'd have to be paying Minor League Players at a higher rate, but... I don't think this makes any sense. Cap or no cap, more revenue going to MLB players or less, we KNOW the more cost efficient way to find and develop talent in throught he farm system. You're not going to eliminate everything from the DSL to AAA. Now you draft a HS kid(which teams would VERY likely shy away from) and... what, they jump straight to AAA after a year going to the DSL? Also, professional sports don't operate under the same constructs that normal industry does...obviously(I know you know this). That's the whole point. If they did, the Dodgers would be spending 200M dollars and walking away each year with 300M+ in net revenue. MOST of the large market teams could spend substantially less and make substantially more. The Mets are losing a couple hundred million a year. I don't see a scenario in which MiLB players are impacted BEYOND the prospect of them reaching free agency faster. I mean, that's the ONE area poor teams don't skimp even now. They all spend and invest heavily on prospects. That's how they get their next stars. But... what's more, you'd also have to conclude that... you just largely be eliminating the farm systems. Where would you get prospects from? This would create an even bigger issue. Do players now go and play for an independent league and get to pick who they sign with? Because... Jackson Chourio and Jesus Made as 20-year-olds probably aren't picking the Brewers. They'll probably pick the same 6-8 big market teams... maybe the Marlins in Miami or the As in LV. You've got a really good outline... I just just vehemently disagree with the conclusion you're coming to as it pertains to the minor league systems.

Yeah, I think this is PRETTY close to how it's written right now, it's just written like the US tax code(that's apolitical). There's something in there where if you take the "risk" and invest in your own TV deal, you don't have to pay as much. So that's applicable for the Yankees and the YES network, but he Dodgers, they got that 8.8B TV deal and... someone more informed please correct me if I'm wrong, but they invested in the Fox News Regional network, so then they had to pay at a lower rate. I'm not exactly sure, but I know it's TECHNICALLY 48% of NET local revenue IS shared with different exclusions. The Dodgers have saved nearly 1B dollars by some cap that either happened by circumventing MLB rules or was a compromise with MLB, but they only pay out 130M(only)... whereas the Yankees contribute 200M, but keep 300M on top of that. But small market teams DO make a lot of money from the big market teams. It'd be FAR more preferable to just have MLB negotiate all the TV rights and then divide those up, have them split the gate revenue 60/40 like the NFL does(they exclude luxury boxes which is one reason Jerry Jones pissed off all the other owners when he showed a proposal of "Jerry World," then came back with ~20K fewer seats and 100 more luxury suites). How do you sell the LAD and NYY on that though? "Hey, people are exponentially more interested in watching you play because you're from markets 30X bigger than the smallest markets, so you have to split your money with them?" Then you'd come up with a Cap(not a hard cap, again, use a "Bird Rule," because the Yankees never should have lost Derek Jeter because they were up against the cap) and a floor and if the Nutting family doesn't like it... there's a list of big egos with bigger wallets who I believe would step in.

Or you're just really bad about reading things that aren't there. I thought it was a pretty simple statement that the sport and revenue had grown for BOTH the owners and players. Jesus... my posts are generally pretty verbose so people don't have to guess what the "implications," were, but YOU'RE telling ME that you really thought I didn't understand that the value of franchises had gone up when the 3rd richest contract at that time was 4.25M a year, but NOW the Packers are able to give their SECOND highest paid player... at the same position... 47M a year? Ya...ya really thought I believed that to be true, but that the valuation of franchises hadn't gone up since their 1992 values? LOL... that makes MUCH more sense than pointing out players AND owners had benefitted from the revenue sharing and CBA in the NFL as example by the smallest market in Professional Sports being able to spend as much as any team in the sport. You seem to have chose to re-direct this conversation from the fantastical notion that owners were giving players 64% of all revenue and now it's "dropped" to ~50% and instead... well, again, so there's no confusion about what I'm implying, claiming I suggested owners weren't making more money).

You gotta explain this to me as I don't understand. Why would it gut the minor league systems? Just make it the 40 man roster. Even the Dodgers don't have a ton of money in the minors. They get paid very little. Otherwise, I generally agreed with your post. I think you should put a cap in, you're just going to have to start at... like 290 and give teams a few years to get there(hell, I don't know what it'd start at, but it really wouldn't be fair for it to start at like 210 given the Dodgers, Mets, Yankees, Phillies... frankly, the large markets who really drive the sport(minus Chicago which inexplicably doesn't spend much money). Much smarter people than I will argue about this, but...I like the idea of incorporating some of the themes the NBA uses. Hard capping teams, etc... But you have to do more than that. You have to make the bottom teams spend more or there's just no reason for the MLBPA to go along with it... and while I'm ready to say right now "screw it, lets have a long labor battle," I'm already looking forward to next Spring Training and I'm pretty sure I'm going to feel MUCH differently the year Jesus Made is signed after 2 games so that we get team control as well as a draft pick for his ROY season. So while your proposal doesn't quite feel like it balances the field out, I don't think any will and yours at least helps makes things a bit more even.

Can you point to the part of the post where I inferred the owners WEREN'T wealthier now? I pointed out that the players were ALSO making a helluva lot more money now. You made some point that the players USED to get a bigger piece of the pie(then ignored how they got a bigger piece, but only of some of the pie) and then made an argument AGAINST something I NEVER said. By all means, I have no problems arguing, just... make it something I've ACTUALLY said. Don't hear what I didn't say.

But hey, good stuff. I wrote on here that I saw a WS run generated between 50 and 100M in revenue. I was skeptical, but... it makes a bit more sense now based on those numbers. Sorry to sidetrack from my rant

Yeah... I just don't know where that money goes to be honest. Brandon Woodruff now that he's proven his SHOULDER is healthy? One thing I love about the Packers is... nobody is buying a Yacht after a playoff run(I mean, maybe Jordan Love did, but generally speaking). That money goes into a "rainy day fund." How nice would it be... and probably a disaster, but in theory, if the Brewers were bought by Milwaukee County... with the guarantee that they could not take money from the fund and they appointed a board of directors? Or just... get interested in Baseball Paul Menard! C'mon... it's much more interesting now! Jimmy Haslem? I know I'm getting REAL tired of Dodgers fans on X saying "the Brewers could have signed Blake Snell, Ohtani, Freeman and Glasnow if they wanted." And then, one guy even had the nerve to say the Dodgers are able to get by with "cheap" players like Teo. For those who are curious, he'd have been our highest paid player when they picked him up on the scrap heap for a meager 23.5M dollars. This was a bit of an opportunity lost... to make some money, but the Brewers couldn't beat this Dodgers team. EVERYTHING went right in Gm1. A 410 Foot Double Play, they load the bases and throw the ball so far inside it's almost impossible to not get hit by it(not blaming Turang, it's called a reaction for a reason... but...damn it Turang, get hit). Mostly I'm just resigned to the fact that EVERYTHING has to go right for the Brewers and the Dodgers just need a moderate amount of good luck. If Snell or Glasnow or Ohtani wouldn't have been able to pitch or even two of them, they'd still be turning to electric young arms with stuff slotting in somewhere between Miz and Patrick, they just don't need to. Ohtani can go 1 for 20 and the Dodgers can weather that storm until he decides to have the greatest game in playoff history. Turang struggles along with Yelich and... we couldn't be able to buy a run with Tim Dongahy calling the game and a bank account the size of Elon Musks.

We really should be able to make a spot for Fitzpatrick on the 40 man. A big lefty like him... I can't believe we can't find a player on the 40 man with more value than him... or Murray, Crow. Fitzpatrick would be one guy I'd keep working on though. *Edit-Well, Crow also. Two guys I'd keep. I like Murray, but... I haven't broken down the 40 man to see who'd have to go.

I don't think they should do anything. It's not just Burke and Adams, it's Wilken and Fischer.... and Boeve and Black. And... we still have Vaughn, Bauers and Yelich as our DH. We went from next to nothing, paying Hoskins 18M as a last ditch solution to find some power at one of the corners, now we've got them falling out of our...pockets. This is to say nothing of Pratt, Made, Pena, all of whom could factor into 3B in the future or... the kid who just had a helluva rookie series and had some pretty competitive ABs in the playoffs in Durbin. So... I wouldn't do anything. Not at 1B nor 3B... not even at SS... OF, I'd keep the depth we've got and I'd have loved Eric Haase to stick around a year at C so we could promote Quero when we felt like it. Incidentally, another DH/1B option(maybe). William Contreras. Hell, at least DH. I don't know if Yelich was hurt, wore down or just... happened to suck in the post-season, but I know he's older and we'd probably get more from him in Oct if he played closer to 120 games the rest of the year. By this time next year, we may also be looking for a spot for Dinges as well.

I think when you face a Blake Snell change or a Yamamoto splitter, you're out in front of the ball a lot and... that can make it look like you're trying to pull the ball. I think they were just flat out beat by better pitching. Blake Snell is about as good as there is when he's right. In so far as I saw a real change, I'd say it was Turang, but I don't even think he was trying to pull it so much as... he just seemed to be guessing and looked like he did a year ago the 2nd part of the season when it looked like he was guessing up there.

I don't think most of the wealthy teams would want that. Boston, NYY, the Mets(who are already losing a lot of money).. the Phillies. The Cubs damn sure wouldn't. They don't want to share revenue with their players, they're not going to want to share it with the Brewers(and everyone else). I think that'd be the best for the long-term health of MLB, but... I don't think it'd be the best for the next decade. I also think you'd have to phase something like this in slowly... you can't just ask the Dodgers to give up 200M in revenue sharing with the commitments on their books. They owe 100M a year for the 10 years after Ohtani and Yamamoto's contracts are up. As a Brewers fan... that'd be great. But hell, I don't even need an equal piece of the pie. Just make it slightly bigger! Make it so signing Turang to an extension doesn't have a cascading impact on the rest of the roster(or... god forbid, William Contreras).

NFL players aren't down from to 48% from the 64% they agreed to. They got like 64% of 70% of the revenue. They didn't include local revenue, team naming rights... there's a lot of other sources of revenue that they didn't get a piece of. Luxury Suites I believe(one thing that makes Dallas so profitable). As for the owners never having been "more wealthy," Reggie White signed a 4/17M deal. Micah Parsons got a 4/188M deal. The NFL should be what MLB is aiming for. Meanwhile MLB players revenue% has been dropping for the last decade. It was at about 57% in 2015 and t's down to ~42-45% this year. I'd also say the owners can weather a missed year FAR easier than the players can and the small market teams that rely on the National TV revenue sharing... which is still paid out. It'll hurt in the long run, but... things can't get much more out of whack than they are now. The Players meanwhile... they make... nothing. I haven't got a clue how they're going to address this seemingly inevitable labor stoppage, but the Phillies and Bryce Harper's warm reception of the MLB commissioner would lead one to believe it's going to be a pretty contentious stoppage. The "fairest" situation to me would be something where a bigger percent of revenue is shared. Maybe teams like the Yankees/Dodgers have to share 30% of their net revenue, they get a cap. The cap would have to start high(~280M) and keep that in place for ~8 years. Teams can go over that to re-sign their own players, again, the "Bird Rule," type deal. Cap Floor- that'd have to be something similar to the NFL. You don't have to hit it every year, but you do have to average it out. Service time... Service time gets cut to 5 years(wouldn't like that). But my guess is there will be some ancillary changes and nothing too dramatic.