Patrick425

Thanks for the link pitchleague, that is kind of what I thought. I can maybe see some sort of purpose for the one in the picture that Baldkin posted (maybe being the operative word in that sentence). However, watching some of the games in recent years, again mostly the college games, I see many players wearing bands that are even thinner than the ones posted in the pictures in pitchleague's post. Some that are no wider than a rubber band or vacuum drive belt.

This is more of a random question than a random thought, but I have wondered about this for the last 3 or 4 years and have never asked anyone until now. What are those thin bands that many football players wear (especially at the college level) around their upper arms and/or calves? I can't imagine any possible reason or benefit for wearing those.

It compensates clubs with lowest revenues and market size. Size of payroll is not a factor.

Yeah, I was going to post almost the exact same thing and I would never trade Axford for Gamel.

Yes, however, one could argue that some divisions are a bit tougher than others. The American League east is a tougher division to win than say the AL West and often times the wild card team from one division has proven to be a better team over 162 games than the winner of another division. There were a few years back in the late 70's, early 80's that I thought the Brewers were a better team than the winner of the AL West, but yet the Brewers were left on the outside looking in.

I'd be slightly more in favor of the one game playoff if they would get rid of the divisions and just have the top 6 teams from each team in the playoffs. I have also always hated the rule that you can't play a team from your own division in the first round of the playoffs.

You actually have to prove that it is a small sample size, not just believe it. I'm not sure how I prove that 4 years is a small sample size. I think you have a different definition of small compared to most people. Baseball has been around for 100+ years. I would say 4 is small relative to that. Even if you just look at the last 20 years of Free Agency, 4 years is relatively small. It doesn't mean that at all. It means going cheaper at a few more positions than normal. For the right player, it's a decent risk. So, you think that the Brewers could add Fielder next year without dropping anyone on their current roster and still maintain a payroll of around $90million? I think the math has already been done on that and it has been shown that this is not possible. Even if they are able to do this, my point is that if they had an extra $30 or $40 million to spend like some other teams, they could add Fielder and not have to worry as much about "going cheaper at a few more positions than normal". Fielder isn't currently linked to the Red Sox or the Yankees. What teams do you believe have endless streams of money? I didn't say that he was linked to the Red Sox or Yankees. I said that they dictate what he will be paid. They set the bar by signings they have made in the past. If the Yankees have overpaid for a guy like Texeria in the past, then Fielder and Boras look at that as the benchmark and anyone who wants his services needs to fork over that kind of money to get it. Beating up on strawmen is a pretty clear sign that you don't have an actual argument to make. Ah, the strawman card. People love to accuse others of this in order to shoot down their entire argument (To me that's just as bad as actually making a suposed strawman argument). Just because I make a sarcastic remark does not mean that I'm beating up on a strawman or that I don't have an argument to make. You stated that Fielder's contract will exceed his production. Maybe Gamel is a better "value", but I still would rather have Fielder. Barmes is probably a better "value" than Reyes, but I would still rather have Reyes at SS next year. A Honda is probably a better value than a BMW, but I would still rather drive a BMW. Just because you have a team full of "value" players does not mean you have a good team. It just means they did the only thing they could do with the limited amount of money they had to spend.

Well, if people are going to say you can't compare football's system to baseball's system (apparently all you need in football is a QB), then I don't think you can state that 9 games is the equivelent of 90 games. My argument is basically centered around what players are available to what teams. I'm also more concerned about competitive balance over the course of 10 or 15 years than I am with over 9 or 90 games.

I don't mind the extra wild card as much as mind the one game playoff. Really? A one game playoff in baseball? Yuck!

Has nothing to do with "fitting beliefs" Did you ever hear of something called "small sample sizes" and how they generally don't tell the entire story? This is a widely accepted idea. Well, you must know something about the Brewers finances that the rest of us don't. Everything that I have read states that the Brewers can not go to much over $90million. Adding Fielder at $20/mil per year or whatever it ends up being would pretty much mean they would have to trade someone like Hart, Weeks, or Gallardo. Also, yes I agree, he is seeking a contract that exceeds his production. He can do that because of teams like the Yankees and Red Sox or any other team that seems to have endless streams of money to spend that dictate the market and what every player will be paid. This is basically what I have a problem with. As I stated in another thread, getting excited about guys like Barmes year after year is getting old. Well, at least they can trade some of there prospects for....oh wait..they spent pretty much all those chips last year. Oh well, I'm sure Gamel will give us the same production that Fielder did.

Seems like it would have to be a pretty low cap for the Brewers to "be able to go 'over' the cap". Right now their payroll is at around $90 million and I get the feeling that they can't go much higher than that. If there ever was a cap in MLB I would think it would be around $150 (at this point anyways). I don't know enough about why caps do or don't work in other sports to make an educated argument for or agains them. Seems like there are caps in place in other sports, but there are ways around them. To me a cap should be a cap, no loopholes. I will never accept the argument that "the large market teams are always going to have an advantage, no matter what". It seems like this is the general sentiment of today's baseball fans. They have just grown to accept this current state of things.

I never stated that teams that spend money will ALWAYS win and teams that don't will ALWAYS lose. You are always going to have some exceptions in some years like TB, Milwaukee, etc. Regardless of whether TB is an expansion team or not, 4 years is way too short of a sample period. My point is that there is something seriously wrong with a system that has a gap of $150+ million between the largest and smallest payrolls and has a free agent system that all teams cannot afford to participate in on an equal basis. Even when teams like the Brewers start tasting success, they are forced to choose which players that helped them achieve that success they will keep. The rules for them are you can keep either Braun or Fielder, but you can't keep both. Or, you can keep both but then you can't keep your current starting rotation together beyond next year. So you better pray that those two top pitching draft picks that you had last year come through for you and that neither Braun or Fielder suffer any setbacks or injuries. In other words, there is absolutely no room for error if you want to continue to be competitive. Teams like the Yankees and Red Sox don't play under these same rules. That to me is what I define as a "substantial competitive balance issue"

I'm not sure what the solution is either. I just scratch my head at those who suggest that a payroll gap of $150+ million between the largest and smallest payrolls (and the large standard deviation of all the team payrolls) does not create a substantial competitive balance issue. I agree that the descrepancy between TV deals in different markets is a large part of it. Also, remember that If the Brewers and Yankees each draw 3 million fans the Yankees will take in an extra $150 million (concessions, parking, etc) just because they can charge more money per ticket in their market (at least based on this information: MLB Ticket Market Prices Higher in 2011. And that's before concessions, parking, etc which I'm assuming also all costs more at a Yankee game. (fixed link --1992)

Regardless of whether or not you think comparing the NFL to MLB is fair or if you think it's an apples and oranges comparison, no one will ever convince me that a system where payrolls range from $40 million to $210 million is a fair system. I does appear that everyone agrees that the larger payroll do represent an advantage for those teams, but I think it's a question of how big of an advantage. I think it's a huge advantage and others think it's small. Not sure how $150 million could be considered small or even $100 million or $75million. There is a lot that can be done with that kind of money. A lot more flexibility. I will agree that even if there were complete revenue sharing and each team had the exact same payroll, the Yankees would still probably have an advantage in the FA market because they are the Yankees. That, I would have no problem with, because A) If players want to play there because that is really where they want to play and not because of money, that's great and B) There would be no overpayment effect of FA's that trickle down to other clubs. If you guys want to continue to be excited about free agents like Barmes and Furcal (and Suppan!), that's great. I'm getting tired of it year after year. It was great getting Marcum and Grienke last year, but it stunk that we had to mortgage our farm system to do it.

Not sure when I ever said the Packers were a fluke? I agree that free agency doesn't work in the NFL as it does in MLB and I think this is a benefit to NFL fans. To me free agency doesn't work in the NFL because players are aware that they really can't make much more money by going to another team. As I pointed out in a previous post the gap between the lowest and highest payrolls in the NFL is not nearly as great as the gap in MLB. In the NFL the majority of teams payrolls fall in between $100 million and $130 million with the top payroll around the $145 million mark. There are no "Yankees" to drive up the salaries to a point where they become unaffordable to two thirds of the teams in the league. To me, this is the way it should be. Players play for the teams they want to play for and not for the teams that offer them the most money. How many times have you heard Fielder say how much he and his wife enjoy Milwaukee and how much they would enjoy staying here?

I had to chime in after watching the Packer game last night and some stats they threw up. It was something like 46 out of the 53 players on the Packers had never played for another team. I believe this was the highest ratio in the NFL, but still this is an unbelievable ratio and something you would never see in baseball. My original argument that baseball system is broken was based on the fact that every year there seems to be 2-5 top FA players that more than half the teams have no realistic shot at. Others have made the argument that this does not bother them because these FA's usually end up getting over paid by some big market team. Ok, I agree, but overpaid or not, it doesn't change the fact that these FA's are not available to all teams. They should be called restricted agents, not Free agents. I'd rather see them get paid what they are worth and have every team have a shot at them. Last night during the Packer game they were also talking about Rogers and his contract and how it will probably double in the near future. At no point did they make any comment about Green Bay, probably the smallest market in all of sports, not being able to afford him. I grew up watching Yount, Molitor, and Gantner all play together on the same small market team for 15 years. Two Hall of Famers and a very solid second baseman. What do you think it would cost a team today to keep those three players for 15 straight years? Do you think the Brewers could afford it? I would guess no, nor could probably over half the teams in baseball. Today, a small or mid market team in baseball might be fortunate (and skilled) enough to go out and makes a string of good draft picks (like the Brewers did with Braun, Weeks, Fielder, Gallardo, etc). As a fan of these teams you watch this and you cross your fingers hoping that they can strike paydirt before some of these players go off to look for greener pastures. I still enjoy the game, but for me it was more fun when most of the player movement was done through trades and not an unbalanced free agency system where some teams belly up to the table with two or three times as many chips as others. I prefer a system that would allow me the enjoyment as a fan to watch Braun, Fielder, and Weeks play for many years together. However, I guess I'm in the minority with this sentiment.

Ever notice how people tend to say much nicer things about other people after they die than when they were alive? Except of course if you have a name like Bin Laden, Gadhafi, Husein, Hitler, etc.

I can understand being a little put off by the hats and the multi-colored logo, but I don't think the color scheme for the uniforms is that much different than the Giant's colors, orange and black, which I like very much.

I pretty much agree with what Jim said. I am curious as to how these "profits" are spent. Are they generally used to support the athletic program as a whole, supporting those sports that may not be profitable, or possibly for stadium and field repairs, maintenance, and construction? Maybe I'm wrong, but my guess is that for public universities, it's not like these monies can be used to pad the pay of the athletic administrative staff, not sure how that works for private institutions. If they did start paying these athletes, would that mean they would have to increase ticket prices in order to support some of the other sports? How is all this "extra money" being spent now? Is this discussion coming up because some schools are making tons of money on football and basketball and don't know what to do with it? How about using it to help lower tuition costs for ALL students?

I know there have been on and off efforts in recent years to get a Northwoods team in Waukesha that would play at Frame Park.

Over the past 2 or 3 years the Brewers have offered an option to pay for the season tickets over a 4 or 5 monthly payment plan. You didn't qualify for the incentive if you did this, but I'm wondering if they are offering that again this year.

So, they don't do any broadcasts of these games anymore? I know that 4 or 5 years ago I was listening to an AZ fall game on my computer at work - Pat Sejak was one of the announcers.

Yeah, I don't know why either, it just annoys me. Maybe it's because his first and last name has three letters, maybe it's because they both start with J, maybe it's because he has two first names. To be fair to Brian, it annoys me when anyone says Jon Jay, so it's not just him. Oh, ok, so it's not just BA...well, that makes a little more sense then. Occasionally when my son or I here that name one of us will start singing "John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt, his name is your name too.....".

Diving for ball you can't get to means exactly what? The range issue is mostly based on that and that's why it's overblown. There is far more to the position than laying out for balls. Betancourt is very nifty around the bag turning double plays. His feeds to 2B are generally right where they need to be to facilitate the turn. His hands are quick when he takes the feed from 2B. He also showed the ability to handle tough throws and get tags down quickly on steal attempts. Offensively his approach has led to an average of 73 RBI the past 2 seasons. For a SS, that's productive. From the All Star break through the playoffs, he hit .279 and slugged .439. If you allow for the first half being an adjustment period in a new league, it's not unrealistic to think he'll hit .270-.275 and slug over .400 for a full season in 2012. Batting down in the order, his low OBP isn't as detrimental as it would be higher in the order. I'm not sure I would be willing to allow that the first half of the season was an "adjustment" period. Even if that's true, the fact that his OBP is generally only 20 to 25 points higher than his batting average is the thing that really troubles me. His complete lack of discipline at the plate is what is frustrating to watch.

And for the last couple months of the season it was Betancore. For some reason that really annoyed me, along with BA saying Jon Jay. For all the discussion about the proper pronunciation of Betancourt, I'm more puzzled by being annoyed with BA saying Jon Jay. Um...that's his name..right?