Patrick425

But I was really starting to enjoy hating the Cards (I generally don't hate other teams, so this was somewhat new for me. This year just sent me over the top.) and LaRussa was a big reason for my hatred. I guess I can still hate them as long as Carpenter is still on the team.

Well, I could say the exact same for you. It's obvious that we both think each other's perception is off. That you state it as if it's a fact shows a bit of arrogance on your part if you ask me.

I understand that you never said that money wasn't an advantage, just like I never said that a small market team could never be competitive. However, you seem to be downplaying just how big of an advantage the big market teams have. Imagine if the Brewers had the ability to raise thier payroll by $50 million (which, by the way, would still be about $70 mil below NY and $30 mil below Philly). They would be able to retain Fielder, long term Grienke, and be in the market for Sabathia. I don't know about you, but that would make me feel a lot better (not just a little) about next year. You stated that there are different ways to improve your team. I believe you mentioned trades, building a farm system, or going through the FA market. Doesn't it bother you that the 3rd option is really not viable for the Brewers but is really only an option for a handful of teams? Doesn't it bother you that every off season there are 2 - 4 free agents that the Brewers and many other teams can't even begin to consider? Doesn't it bother you that the Phillies have the option to add a guy like Cliff Lee to their roster without giving up anyone in return, while the Brewers only option is to give up their top prospects if they want to land this type of a player? The term "all in" was used a lot this year to describe Melvin and the Brewers. You never hear that in reference to the Yankees, Phillies, Red Sox, Mets, White Sox, Giants, because they are all in every year. Every year their fans can believe that their team has a legitimate shot at winning the World Series. Doesn't mean it will always happen or that they will even make the playoffs, but they never have to fret about only having a short "window of opportunity".

Maybe you are correct in regards to QBs being a huge factor in the NFL, but at the same time how are "small market" teams like Indy and GB able to retain these great QBs year after year? That's my argument and I firmly believe the salary cap is a huge part of that. If that's not the answer to why these teams can continue to keep these guys, I'd like to know what is. Why is there never any talk of Green Bay possibly losing Rogers to free agency? How were they able to retain Farve all those years? NFL team salaries pretty much range from $80 million to $140 million with 19 teams being between $100 million and $130 million. Doesn't this sound like a much fairer system than one that has team salaries ranging from $40 million to $210 million. I'm not sure why everyone is eager to find all sorts of reasons why there is greater parity in the NFL that are not payroll related. To me it just seems logical that you are going to have a more level playing field when there is less deviation between the team's payrolls. Why is this so hard to admit? Easy it is one player that they have to lock up and it is a lot easier to lock up one player than it is multiple players. If Rodgers absolutely hates Green Bay he may leave for free agency and will get about the same as he would from any other team in the NFL as he would from the Packers. The only thing that allows Green Bay to do this is because they can afford to tie up 15-25% of their player salaries in one player unlike any other small market team in MLB. If a small market team did this in MLB they would have to rely on their farm system for the holes while in the NFL it really wouldn't matter as they would be relying on that one elite level talent if that talent is a QB. The recipe for success in the NFL is draft or trade for an elite level QB if you do this you will be competitive as long as that QB is healthy. There really isn't a more level playing field in the NFL. If you can prove that there is a level playing field because of the salary cap go ahead and do so but I have found that that the NFL would still have the same recipe for success if it had a salary cap or if it didn't have a salary cap. You are still talking about one player the salary cap doesn't help a team keep a player on their team. How did the salary cap help the Packers keep Farve all those years?So, you don't think that a sport that has a team salary range between $80 million and $140 million (with the majority of teams falling between the $100-$130 range) is inherently more competitive than a sport who's range is from $40 million to $210 million? You don't think if a handful of teams in the NFL had the financial ability to raise their payrolls to $200+ million, while the Packers and others were financially restricted to staying below $130 or so that Rogers could get paid far more somewhere else?

A horrible sportscaster for Channel 6 (I think? - or channel 4?). His full name is Tom Pippins. I believe he worked for ESPN in it's very early years. I'm not one to rip on announcers or sportscasters, but he is an exception.

Saw it last week with my son, have to agree with this assesment. We both enjoyed it, but I don't think my wife would at all. Where do you live? edit: Clicked on your location in your profile and it brings up a dentists office on 15th and Greenfield. Now I'm really confused by your comment?? Even without that information, it's clear you have access to the internet. Couldn't you order the DVD online when it comes out regardless of where you live?

Maybe you are correct in regards to QBs being a huge factor in the NFL, but at the same time how are "small market" teams like Indy and GB able to retain these great QBs year after year? That's my argument and I firmly believe the salary cap is a huge part of that. If that's not the answer to why these teams can continue to keep these guys, I'd like to know what is. Why is there never any talk of Green Bay possibly losing Rogers to free agency? How were they able to retain Farve all those years? NFL team salaries pretty much range from $80 million to $140 million with 19 teams being between $100 million and $130 million. Doesn't this sound like a much fairer system than one that has team salaries ranging from $40 million to $210 million. I'm not sure why everyone is eager to find all sorts of reasons why there is greater parity in the NFL that are not payroll related. To me it just seems logical that you are going to have a more level playing field when there is less deviation between the team's payrolls. Why is this so hard to admit?

So, if Attanasio were to state that the Brewers were going to increase their payroll to $150 million next year would that excite you? Would you think that would give them a better opportunity to be successful than with their current payroll of $90 million? I'm not sure how you could possibly answer no to that with a straight face. In your example in you last post you conveniently left out Philly and NYY (the top two teams in terms of payroll and two of a handful of teams that drive and control the FA market). You keep bringing up period of 2 years or 4 years. I would be willing to bet that if you compiled the data over a 20 year period you would find that the majority of teams in the playoffs over that period come from the top 10 payroll teams each year. Maybe even the top 8.

They don't really have to worry about the Yankees until they get to the playoffs. Ok the Phillies (who they have to play in their league) had a payroll of $170+ million last year. The point is, it doesn't matter what league they are in, they are at a clear disadvantage with the money they have to work with. If they are using the money to just put in their pockets, then yeah, that's an issue. If they are using the money to pay off debt or for other expenses other than payroll, I really don't have an issue with that. This is also true in the NFL. There are teams that aren't competitive every year, even with all the revenue sharing. That's my point. Under true revenue sharing, you are going to have less teams that are going to be competitive every single year. There will be more parity like you see in the NFL (although for some, partiy is an ugly word for some reason. Never understood that.) The farm system exists to make the major league team better, and trading prospects for players that will improve the team is one way to build a playoff team. On the other side, Boston hasn't made the playoffs the last two years, the Mets don't make the playoffs on a regular basis, the Dodgers haven't made the playoffs in the past two years, the Cubs haven't made the playoffs the last 3 years, etc. Wow, Boston hasn't made the playoffs in two years! Those poor people. I can't imagine what they are going through! The Mets and Dodgers owners have some other financial issues (Madoff, Family divorces). I'm not saying that having a large payroll guarantees that you will make the playoffs. Bad decisions can still be made, no matter how much money you spend. However, if you don't see the disparity and advantages a team with a $150 million+ payroll has over a team with a $60million or $70 million payroll, I'm not sure what to say. Would you rather that the Brewers have a $90 million payroll or a $170 million payroll like the Phillies. I'll take my chances with $170 million. I find a system that pretty much excludes over 2/3 of the teams from FA's like Fielder, Pujols, Sabathia, etc to be broken. He's one player, and many here feel that he won't be worth whatever contract he signs. That doesn't seem to be a problem. Not sure if you noticed, but I named 3 players there and those were just examples. Every year, there is a top tier of FAs that 2/3 of the teams in baseball have no real chance of landing. To me that is just wrong. Once in a while a team like the Nationals or Florida may land a big name, but it's a huge gamble. If that player gets injured or does not pan out that is a signing that will hurt them for next 5-10 years. Teams like the Yankees and Boston can afford to make mistakes. They will just go out at the trade line and draw from their "farm system", picking up a player that some small market team can no longer afford to pay. Yes, this sounds like a fair and competitive system. The Brewers had no problem locking up Braun for all those years. They had the ability to lock up Gallardo, Weeks, Hart for future years. When is the last time the Packers were not able to keep a player that they really wanted to keep because they could not afford him. I'm talking about a real impact player. If baseball had the same type of revenue sharing system that football has, the Brewers would have a much better chance of keeping Fielder (along with all the players you mentioned). If you want to say that others are fooling themselves, you should have a coherent argument. I think the argument is pretty coherent. The difference between the largest payroll team and smallest payroll team is about $175 million. Even if you think these teams are using NONE of their revenue sharing money towards payroll, there would still be a $140 million difference if they did. You don't think anything of that. I do. If you don't think that there is a definite and clear advantage to big market teams in baseball, then you must have just become a Brewer fan this year.

Teams like the Pirates take all the revenue sharing and pocket it and dont put it directly into the team. A salary floor would help that money go into the team since the revenue sharing would be spent on team salaries and thus raise their payrolls. I'll don't understand how people can make these claims. What proof do you have that this is the case? How do you know their current payroll would be even less without revenue sharing? Do you know what they get in revenue sharing? I'm not sure that this information is even made public. All the numbers out there seem to be educated guesses, but no one knows for sure. Look at KC. Their current payroll is around $36 million. Let's say they get an additional $30 million in revenue sharing (which I don't think it's that high..I could be wrong). Let's say they pour that all back into their payroll. That gives them a payroll of $66 million. That's still less than 1/3 of the Yankees payroll. There is a problem with baseball and I think people who say there is not are just fooling themselves. People always point to how many different WS champs there have been and teams like AZ, Milwaukee, Colorado, Tampa Bay, etc that have all had recent success. The problem is that there are windows for these teams. If they don't strike during these windows of opportunity, then who knows when they will have another opportunity. Teams like Milwaukee have to trade away their farm system in order to have some success, while teams like NY, Boston, etc, can pretty much be guaranteed success every year under the current system as they can continue to buy any talent they need. I find a system that pretty much excludes over 2/3 of the teams from FA's like Fielder, Pujols, Sabathia, etc to be broken. How can you guys rip the NFL? I don't see anyone fretting over the small market Packers ability to keep Rogers in future years. They had no problem keeping Farve for all those years. There is not this constant moving of big name players through free agency from one team to another. Seems like if a team wants to keep a player and the player wants to stay with a team it will happen, lack of money is not an issue between small and big market teams. I'll never understand why people have so much problems with a team like KC spending $35 million on payroll, but seem to have no issue with NY spending $202 million. You need to have both a ceiling and a floor. I also think there needs to be complete revenue sharing. However, even if the owners were to all agree on this, the players (who have WAY too much power imho) would never agree.

The "claw" is the one I have seen that I think look similar to the "beast mode" (except, of course, just one hand). "Ducks on the pond" looks like AZ's "snake bite" (or whatever they call it).

I think they have something that looks pretty similar. I've seen shots of fans in the stands wearing t-shirts that have an image that looks like a "one hand beast mode". Not sure what that is all about.

I think I know exactly who you are talking about! Dark hair, In her 30's (?), at the game by herself (no, not front row Amy), sits in or around section 217. I had the "pleasure" of sitting next to her for 3 or 4 games this year. I posted something about her a while ago in the "what's bugging you thread".

Speaking of classy.... http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=jp-passan_pujols_world_series_game_two_cardinals_102011

Exactly. I just don't get all this talk about Selig not caring for the team. Were the people who say this at any of the games during those years. A crowd of 15,000 was considered one of their better crowds. I can see blaming them for not making good draft picks, but for not spending more money on FA's ?? I don't get that, unless you know something about their books at that time than the rest of don't.

Ooops...Ha...I meant Steve Jobs!

I really don't understand how anyone can be a Brewer fan but hate Bud Selig. To me, it's like loving Apple products but hating Steve Jobs. You don't have the product without the person. I wonder how different my life would be if it wasn't for Bud Selig. I'm not sure I would be the baseball fan I am today and be able to share that love of baseball with my son. Edit: Steve Jobs...not Bill Gates!

Anybody get any information yet on when refunds will be processed?

Elton John

Section 215.

Yes, then immediately grabs his arm and falls to the ground.

was thinking about getting a sixer of octoberfest to watch the game with on the way home from work. I think you meant to put "on the way home from work" after "octoberfest" and before "to". Otherwise, please let me know where you are driving so I can avoid that area..http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

I remember the local stations playing Billy Joel's "Pressure" song during the 82 playoffs as lead ins to specials that they would have and back round music to video montages that they showed.

A couple of interesting articles about Grienke that I saw today.... http://mlb.sbnation.com/2011/10/14/2489442/zack-greinke-nlcs-game-5-xfip Then this article by Jeff Passan who just seems to have a general hatred for the Brewers (recently wrote another article just completely ripping on Morgan): http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=AhnKX1j4GDQcfGhmMESkSPU5nYcB?slug=jp-passan_greinke_brewers_cardinals_game_6_101311

So if it's rainy, cold, and windy on Sunday are they going to keep the roof open because the roof was open for the first two games of the series? Obviously, I'm joking...but it seems to be the logic they follow.