I guess I am curious if the increased attendance, and by increased I mean by a ton, over the past couple of years has and should keep us in the small market mentality. If we're making a decent enough profit we should be able to afford a couple of big contracts. Now I would prefer if we could win on the cheap but Aces don't grow on trees (nor do 50 HR hitting, MVP caliber superstar first basemen for that matter) and I don't see a better option than Sheets out there. When he's healthy Sheets is a top 5 or top 10 pitcher in the Bigs. Nobody on the market will even approach that. Do I want to give Sheets $100 million? Not particularly. But we should be able to bite the bullet on a few big contracts at this point and be economically capable of competing. Especially if we were to move Bill Hall, Gagne and a few other contract albatrosses off the roster after this season. I would think we could afford a $90 million payroll now because if we're winning people are buying and coming to games at a rate that should make a bump in payroll feasible. People will anticipate keeping major players as trying to win. Now I don't think this should extend beyond Sheets and maybe Prince personally. They seem to be special cases. It shouldn't be as costly to keep Hart or JJ Hardy/Rickie Weeks (if we want to retain them) and Gallardo would be the only real payroll hurdle to worry about. With Gallardo you still have some Arby years left and the guys only pitched half a season so far so you have some wiggle room there. I think if we were willing to offer $42 million for Coco who is nowhere near as valuable as Sheets, I think we could pony up even more to keep Bennie a Brewer. That's just my two cents. Rp