RobertR

Were the Cubs still lamenting their crappy 2013 record during the playoffs this year, or were they happy to have Kyle Hendricks as the #4 starter all season because they traded away Ryan Dempster in 2012? Don't forget, losing a lot of games allowed them to draft high enough to get Baez, Almora, Bryant and Schwarber. And there's still the question of whether they can field the ball well enough to be more than the Brewers 2.0.

Were the Cubs still lamenting their crappy 2013 record during the playoffs this year, or were they happy to have Kyle Hendricks as the #4 starter all season because they traded away Ryan Dempster in 2012? We shouldn't assume that things will work out as well or as quickly as the Cubs.

Hopefully the money saved from the Lind trade can be used to sign some international prospects. Otherwise it's your basic trade of an established player for some lottery tickets. Overall I believe lottery tickets are a bad investment but we'll see.

It's great that Axford has stayed involved with the festival even after his time with the Brewers. Best single screening at the festival was The Seventh Seal on a very nice 35 mm print. I also enjoyed Cartel Land, Imperial Dreams, Court, Theeb, and Safety Last a lot. Wish I could have fit The Sound of Silence, The Club, and No One's Child into my schedule though.

I can't be the only one attending judging by the crowds. So far I've seen and enjoyed the silent double feature, Theeb, Youth, Turbo Kid, and A Hard Day. The Look of Silence seems to have the most buzz judging from what I'm hearing in line. Anyone else going?

The Brewers are giving playing time to young players who may be a part of the future / they need to find out about. The fact that the young players are playing well is a good thing. Period. Yeah, maybe you could get Rogers a few more starts. Otherwise, I don't see the problem just because they're winning a few games. If nothing else, the Brewers need to instill trust in the fanbase that if they pay for tickets in September (or take time out of the day to watch or listen to them), they'll get to see a major league product. Having financial stability helps a franchise as well. And, heck, if you want to be active in the trade market in the offseason, it probably helps to be perceived to have some talent to trade. The Brewers evaluating talent and drafting well shouldn't depend on a couple slots in the draft. I can pull out a copy of Baseball America and draft in the top 5. Finding talent despite draft position is how we evaluate whether the scouting department is good or not.

How do we define the "core" of the team? Gomez, Lucroy, and Braun have All Star potential when not hampered by injuries, but obviously injury issues have cropped up for all of them the last 2 years. Lind, Segura, Gennett, and Davis have some upside, but are probably average-ish overall. ARam is obviously on his last legs. There are no impact bats in AAA or on the bench. The starting rotation is mediocre with no potential aces. The bullpen is good, but not quite lights out, and we all know bullpens are volatile year to year. I don't think it's hard to say that the best days are already behind this group. Yeah, they're not as bad as they were in April, but this is a group that needs EVERYTHING to go right to compete and that happens very rarely in baseball.

If it turns out to be true, you have to think loss of draft picks, a sizable fine, and banning of employees are on the table. If ownership is involved a Steinbrenner level suspension is in order.

Think the Mets would be interested? I don't. I expect most teams wouldn't care about the past as long as there's nothing current hanging over him. There probably are several that do care though and that impacts his value.

A bullpen guy for Parra is probably the best you can do for him. That has value, Broxton and K-Rod are pulling down bucks that could be better spent elsewhere, but we should adjust expectations accordingly. A year and a half of Lind, ought to pull down a decent prospect. Especially as he looks like he won't break the bank if you want to extend him. I don't see a team giving up a potential star for him, but a projectable everyday player that's blocked in his current system is a reasonable player to target. It's hard to say what K-Rod is worth. He's been reasonably dependable as a player and his salary is reasonable, but he comes with baggage.

FWIW, simple "plexi-glass principle" would seem to apply to this team. Most projections before the season had the Brewers somewhere in the neighborhood of .500. Obviously, the team isn't going to sniff .500 this year, but this is something of a worst case scenario for the team. But, it gives the team cover to look at the big picture and do the tear down that's due.

What's Maldonado's form? A low .600s OPS? He had a nice 2012, but the trendline is bad since then. I'm not sure we've established Scooter's level yet either.

Nice to see another team blow up late in the game for a change.

Fair enough.

I think you're being too simple with the Brewers example. They can also increase revenue by increasing attendance. I'll note that the Potawatomi have been dead quiet on the arena. It definitely seems like there was a missed opportunity to play the Potawatomi off against the Menomonee while the Kenosha casino was still undecided.

Right, because a) his revenues increased and b) he knew that the public would balk after last year's collapse. But, I think Rick Schlesinger and his crew are savvy enough to take advantage if an opportunity presents itself. I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility that the Brewers could increase attendance by 100k without the Bucks as competition, that's only a bit over 1,200 a game, and increase the price of their luxury box leases. That could mitigate a good chunk of the loss right there. And, obviously, the Packers can justify a ticket and luxury box lease increase however they would like. Clearly with the secondary market like it is, they're not meeting demand as it is. Since none of us are economists here, I think we'd be well advised not to say how much or how little would be redirected towards other substitute options. But, we should realize that there's a risk out there. How many stadium deals have actually lived up to the hype? On the whole, stadium deals come with big promises. Frankly, I'm more inclined to believe that a couple of sharp billionaires are going to win any deal. I do hope that there's a way for the Bucks to stick around, and hey I don't have a vote so it's only my opinion, but I don't think downtown Milwaukee and the State of Wisconsin will fall apart without them.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/interest-could-push-public-cost-of-new-bucks-arena-over-400-million-b99510427z1-305636241.html It's a mistake to only count the State's portion of the project against it. There are plenty of taxpayers of the State, County, and City that are being asked to contribute.

This doesn't work for either team. The Packers are resticted by a salary cap and the Brewers are already operating in the red with a $100M payroll. I can't see you making up $70M in lost wages by simply raising ticket prices. The Packer's salary cap is a % of league revenue. If league revenue goes up, the salary cap goes up, player salaries go up, and state income tax revenue goes up. And, the Brewers won't raise their payroll if their revenue goes up and they again find themselves in the black and looking to compete? C'mon, Mark A is perhaps too competitive for his own good. There's no reason to doubt that less competition for entertainment dollars will lead to more revenue for the Packers and Brewers and that inevitably leads to higher payrolls and more income tax. There's a case to be made for the Bucks arena, but the case isn't made stronger by willfully ignoring the fact that there are other competing interests for the entertainment dollars of SE Wisconsin residents, some of which will benefit from the Bucks leaving and mitigate their absence. The history of arena deals is replete with examples of the benefits being greatly exaggerated. This is a risky deal. It could go south in many ways that are out of control of the State of Wisconsin. A Wall Street collapse or a significant rise in interest rates, for example could kill the spin off developments. Ignoring things like interest, substitution effects, and the need for the spinoffs to materialize is simply ignoring the risks of this project. Also, yeah the new uniforms of the Bucks look pretty great.

I think my explanation that increased salaries for million dollar athletes on the Brewers and Packers will help offset the loss of Bucks payroll is simple to grasp. The $7 to $10 million is the line being used to sell the deal. The reality will be something different. Because, again, people aren't just going to sit around in the dark if there are no Bucks, they'll find something to do with their disposable entertainment spending. The substitution effect isn't exactly advanced economics. There are plenty of people that are balking at the deal, simply because it isn't a no brainer. People are asking "What if the real cost is only $3 to $4 million per year? Is that worth shelling out over $400 million for including interest?" Even if we say that the net effect is $10 million per year, and it's going to cost taxpayers $400 million including interest, the net payback period of that is 40 years (and I'm being overly simplistic with that). Anything over 20 years is a dicey proposition, IMO. This project doesn't work at all unless the ancillary development actually materializes. If it does, then yeah it makes sense. At least, if it doesn't simply move economic activity from one part of Milwaukee, say the Third Ward, to another.

You don't think that if the Bucks leave, the Brewers and Packers won't raise the prices on their suites? The fact that the Packers sell out every game and a limited amount of suites, shows that they could raise prices higher. There's a limited supply, but no doubt high demand. You cannot recoup all of the lost sales tax from losing 500,000 in attendance in Milwaukee by simply raising ticket prices in Green Bay. Even if this did offset the lost sales tax how do you make up the lost jock taxes which can no longer be collected on NBA games in the state? This so-called Jock Tax is an income tax. If the Packers and Brewers raise ticket prices and revenues, invariably player salaries increase. Player salaries increasing results in increased income tax/jock tax, from Brewers and Packers players. You're right that I don't expect the Brewers and Packers to increase their payroll combined as much as the Bucks payroll would have been, but I do expect the Brewers and Packers to benefit and mitigate the effect to the State revenue. And I expect that's only one substitution effect out of many. Will all of them add up to what the Bucks brought? Doubtful, but again it backs up the idea that economic studies have shown that arenas/stadiums don't have the effects that their boosters claim. Which is all to say, that the case for the arena is a lot more complicated than "we'll lose $7 to $10 million" in income tax revenue. I don't know what the lower number is, but I do know that it is lower.

You don't think that if the Bucks leave, the Brewers and Packers won't raise the prices on their suites? The fact that the Packers sell out every game and a limited amount of suites, shows that they could raise prices higher. There's a limited supply, but no doubt high demand.

We don't know that it will go drastically down. For all we know, people will merely put off a trip to the Bucks in winter for a trip to the Brewers in the summer. I think it's clear that the economic studies indicate that the effect is muted because people substitute other things. Maybe they buy a new tv. Maybe they buy a sports package on cable. Maybe they go to more Badgers, Brewers, Packers, or Marquette events. Maybe they just go to the local bar for drinks. Maybe the Broadway at the Marcus Center gets more patrons for their big shows (which aren't cheap btw). No doubt the effect would be more spread out, but there will be compensating substitutes. And those substitutes contribute to the economy and tax streams. One thing people won't do is sit around in the dark doing nothing if the Bucks leave town. Every other option contributes to the State economy in some way. Maybe not as much as the Bucks, but those recreational options do contribute to the State economy. So, yeah, I do dispute the cost of doing away with the so called "jock tax". There will be a cost, but that $7 to $10 million is not a hard number. Yeah, you'd lose the taxes from the NBA, but there are potential gains from MLB, NFL, and all other forms of entertainment in the State. I assume that we all agree that there's a number less than $7 to $10 million a year in which the project shifts from a net positive to a negative. And there certainly have been a number of municipalities that have had buyer's regret. The major loss would be the concentration of people in the downtown area on any given winter night. I don't for a second believe that downtown Milwaukee would turn into a ghost town during the winter, it doesn't when the Bucks are out of town, but I agree that there's no single substitute that would reliably draw 15-18k people to the downtown. There aren't 41 concerts of that size. I think Milwaukee and Wisconsin would be better off with a new arena and the Bucks. If the budget was in better shape, I'd be less worried about ROI and what our priorities should be. But, I'm taking the sales job with a grain of salt here.

And nobody has ever built a great economy here by pumping millions more into the UW System. I'm sure you're familiar with the problem WI has with "brain drain." People graduate and leave the state in record droves. That's not adding anything to our economy. Spending hundreds of millions on new academic buildings when often times the existing facilities were just fine adds nothing to the economy. Or having redundant 2 and 4 year campuses close by in rural areas. Point being, $80MM in state money for an arena has zero effect on educating students in this state of any age. But if you feel it does, then you should want the money spent on the arena, because it will be less than doing nothing. You used the example earlier of how the jock tax can be made up by people using their entertainment dollar elsewhere. I see where you're going with that, but you're mixing two different things- sales tax and jock tax. Yes, you may be able to make up for some of lost sales tax revenue by losing 41 Bucks games a year. Many of those people will buy a hot dog somewhere else. But that has nothing to do with the jock tax. That tax revenue goes to ZERO if the Bucks leave. What, hot dog sellers don't pay income tax? There will be replacements for the Bucks. You think the Bradley Center will be vacant on all 41 dates? You don't think the Trans-Siberian Orchestra won't try to fit in another date or two? Or maybe the Globe Trotters will make an additional swing by? And you think none of those performers pay income tax? Or, that the Brewers and Packers won't benefit? There's a very good chance that a bunch of corporate money will be freed up that will go to the Brewers and Packers, which will funnel down to the players, and will come back to the state in the form of income tax. Or "jock tax". I'll agree that there likely will be a decrease in income tax revenues if the NBA leaves Wisconsin. It won't go down 100% to zero though. People aren't going to sit around and do nothing on a Friday or Saturday night if the Bucks leave, and that money will flow through the economy. And come into the State coffers in the form of income tax, payroll tax, and sales tax in various forms. Heck, to use a recent example, without the Bucks competing for entertainment dollars, you don't think something like The Book of Mormon couldn't have justified another week in town?

The Bucks arena is in no way related to the University of Wisconsin budget cuts. The state has to include $120 million into this new budget for the Bradley Center to cover maintenance costs and $20M in current debt if the the Bucks leave.This money was already spent if a new arena is built or not. The state is not robbing Peter (UW) to pay Pual (the Bucks). Did you listen to the press conference yesterday? If not, here's the link: http://www.scrippsmedia.com/tmj4/wi-sports/milwaukee-bucks/Bucks-Arena-deal-announcement-expected-this-afternoon-306134461.html Please do not attempt to bundle seperate issues which are not even remotely related (except by dollar amount) to make your point. Stick to the actual facts and if you do not know the facts then do some research before commneting. Baloney. The State has many more options than come up with $140 million immediately if the Bucks leave. They can refinance, prioritize and defer maintenance as they want. If they can delay freeway construction, they can delay maintenance on an existing, usable arena. Heck, it's probably too late for the Bucks to move this year anyways. Might even be too late for next year. It's not like the BC is currently vacant with no tenants or events for the upcoming year. Marquette for instance. Even if they do decide to come up with $140 million, that still leaves $110 million of uncommitted taxpayer money that could be used for a variety of things. Or, they could, you know, accept the Medicare money. That stick is one created out of thin air for political purposes, to make the carrot of a new arena look more enticing. Outstate legislators have to tell something to their constituents to justify their vote. Don't confuse rigged political choices as the only choices in this situation.

"If you look at the number of employees at a professional sporting event, its easily in over a thousand. This doesn't even include local bars and restaurants who serve these people before and after the games." And how many of those workers are minimum wage? And at what cost to infrastructure and university workers, who make a bunch more than minimum wage? What cost to university students? What cost to researchers? I'm not against a Bucks arena with public financing. But, in the context of this current budget, I can't support it over other choices on where to spend taxpayer money. Other choices which I think will have much more long-term impact. Nobody has ever built a great economy on the back of sports.