Do we have competitive balance right now?

[AJAY]

Lots and lots of Brewer fans don't share your feelings. They are coming out to the ballpark and they are watching on tv or listening on the radio more than ever before.

 

I agree with that, but how will you keep them coming out in the future if you have to lose all your best players on a regular basis. For example, look at the Cleveland Indians. They also had record attendance for so many seasons, but the departures of Manny Ramirez, Jim Thome, CC Sabathia, Cliff Lee, etc. have completely demoralized the fan base and left a lot of people turned off. Now they are really struggling to draw fans because the people of Cleveland feel crapped on by the sport of baseball.

 

That could be us in a few years too if we have to say goodbye to hall-of-fame talents like Prince Fielder. These are the type of players you dream of drafting and you hate to give up the most. People won't even get excited in the future if we draft a good player because the guy will eventually leave and it will once again be a painful reminder that baseball doesn't care about people in cities like ours.

 

Also, think about how many more fans would be following the Brewers right now if the playing field was level. I think more people would be excited about baseball knowing that the league values them and cares about them just as much as any other fan base.

[nate82]

OK then how about MLB puts in a NHL like salary cap system? Which would be the only one the MLBPA would accept. That means there would be a salary floor along with a salary ceiling. Their is no guarantee that the Brewers could resign Prince in this model either actually they would probably have to let him go because of salary cap limitations.

 

OK lets say the salary cap for 2010 will be $110m and the salary floor will be $70m. The Brewers project to have a salary of $80-85m without paying for a free agent next year. So they would be above the salary floor. Now that means a total of 7 teams would have to raise their payroll in order to get to the salary floor. So instead of players like Kendall getting smaller deals around $1-2m they will be getting around $4-8m a year. Teams would have to get their payrolls up to the salary floor which wouldn't really hurt the teams paying above the salary cap.

 

The teams that are already above the salary cap would just pay a fine until all of their contracts from the past expire that put them over the salary cap. This would be the only way to get a salary cap in MLB. Without the salary floor you will never get it past the union nor past the large market owners. The salary cap would have to be high enough that the large market teams wouldn't be penalized to much for being over the new cap also.

 

I just don't see this ever happening though. The time for a salary cap has passed by MLB and it is way to late for a salary cap to ever be put in force in MLB. The only thing I see happening is more revenue sharing and maybe MLB taking over all of the TV contracts and redistributing all of the revenue from that to all of the teams equally.

[Ennder]

endaround, the point I was trying to make was that the Brewers wont be able to keep Fielder around once he is eligible for free agency. That is a major problem with baseball.

 

We could afford to keep him around, we will choose not to because he most likely will be a DH before the end of his first big contract.

 

Well imagine if Favre was able to leave after 6 years in the league. Without a cap dont you think a team like the Jets or Giants would have offered Favre way more than Green Bay could have ever been able to pay? Wouldn't a system like that make you enjoy football less than you do?

 

I think he would have stayed a packer most likely, the team would have suffered in other areas. I enjoy football less with the cap than I did without it. If Favre wanted to switch teams he would have taken the same money the packers paid him or less and moved to a more competitive team. The fact we were winning and he liked it is why he stayed in GB more than anything else. If Favre were playing on the Lions and became a FA this year he would not go back to the team even with the cap.

[Invader3K]

"We could afford to keep him around, we will choose not to because he most likely will be a DH before the end of his first big contract. "

 

Define "afford." I'm sure the Brewers could have "afforded" to pay CC Sabathia that $160 million contract, but we all know damn well it would have probably wrecked the club in the long run. We also all know when 2011 rolls around, the Brewers could offer Fielder a HUGE record setting contract, and some stupid big market club will go out and offer something insanely higher that the Brewers can't hope to match. So the issue of "affording" him isn't really the question here. It's the problem that big market clubs can overspend to lure guys away, and offer money teams like Milwaukee can't hope to match. That's what is so screwed up in baseball. Like AJAY said earlier in this thread, it sucks because we can't even truly enjoy a guy like Fielder on our team...we all know he will be gone in two years, so why get too emotionally attached? It is completely asinine that we get shafted like this, but so many fans just grin and bear it. Or we turn around and blame an owner who has reinvested in the club, the park, the draft, paid players more money than the old owner, etc. It's not his fault. It's not really Melvin's fault either, because he and other small market GMs have to walk a razor thin line. They have to make every perfect move, all the time, or they are screwed. One or two bad contracts can completely straight jacket him from making future moves, like the Suppan and Hall deals. It sucks.

 

I love the idea of a salary floor AND a cap. It would even things out tremendously. I just don't think it will ever happen due to the player's union having way too much leverage.

[Baldkin]

The union would be for it as long as it meant more money going into the players pockets.

 

Its the "big four" (or 6, or 8...) that would be completely against it. The Yankees see no need to share their TV revenues with every other team (neither do the Red Sox), and therefor any salary cap would end up with less money in the system being paid out to the players.

[kramnoj]

They also had record attendance for so many seasons, but the departures of Manny Ramirez, Jim Thome, CC Sabathia, Cliff Lee, etc. have completely demoralized the fan base and left a lot of people turned off.

 

Cleveland is an excellent example of what the Brewers could come close to acheiving with a decent run of successful promotions leading to cheap good-above average players. One of the problems with the Indians was the talent they traded away. Sexson plus for Wickman et al was a part of the reason that the Indians weren't as good following their run. Brian Giles for Ricardo Rincon is another. I think there was another trade or two of lesser degree that was a veteran upgrade for a player that went on to have success. I think the phrase mortgaging the future is used too often, but clearly the Indians gave away wins down the road for upgrades during their run.

 

Plenty of people have their beefs with Melvin, but I am happy that he doesn't appear to have given away any future talent this year for marginal upgrades this year.

[sheethead]

That could be us in a few years too if we have to say goodbye to hall-of-fame talents like Prince Fielder. These are the type of players you dream of drafting and you hate to give up the most. People won't even get excited in the future if we draft a good player because the guy will eventually leave and it will once again be a painful reminder that baseball doesn't care about people in cities like ours.

 

The scary part is this is a very likely scenario. Teams like the Brewers are unable to keep their homegrown talent. Biggest problem with the MLB by far. Melvin has his work cut out for him. The team and fan base are very fragile, and all it will take is a bad trade involving Prince Fielder and some more losing to knock the average attendance back down to 21K/game.

[Invader3K]

Good points about Cleveland. You would think Selig would look at a once successful baseball market like that and realize what is so wrong about the current economic system in "his" sport.

[FVBrewerFan]

There's the graph of avg wins vs avg payroll. Pretty strong correlation between more money = more wins. 9 of the top 10 in payroll had higher than average win totals, the only one who didn't was the Mariners.

 

You can't go by World Series appearances, as that truly is a fluke.

That graph is very telling, thanks for posting. I will disagree with your last comment though. World Series appearances are not a fluke, for the same reason $=wins. Big money teams are willing and able to buy a starting pitcher, big bat, or whatever it takes at the trade deadline. So they may have roughly the same number of reular season wins as other teams, but they are better positioned to make it to the World Series.

 

For every Sabathia coming to Milw, you have 10 going to the big money teams.

[Baldkin]

World Series appearances are much more random than a playoff appearance or number of wins over 162 game season.

 

WS appearances are based on being really good for 10-12 games. I'd imagine every team in baseball has won 7 of 12 this year. That's all it takes to make the WS once you're in the playoffs. Admittedly the competition is tougher... but, just look at last year, the Cubs and Dodgers were the two best teams by far, according to... everyone.

[Invader3K]

Haudricourt with some interesting points in his latest article on JSOnline:

 

Beyond the less-than-compelling playoff races, a more disturbing factor has arisen. Big money again is ruling the game, with high-payroll teams pushing aside lower-revenue opponents.

 

Seven of the top nine clubs in terms of payroll will make it to the playoffs if Detroit holds off Minnesota in the AL Central. Only the Chicago Cubs, at No.?3, and the injury-riddled New York Mets, at No.?6, fell out of contention among that group of big spenders.

 

Colorado, ranked 14th in payroll, is the only modest spender in control of a post-season berth. The Twins, at No. 17, continue to push the Tigers, who rank fourth in spending.

 

You can bet Commissioner Bud Selig is aware of those developments. But he does not believe the 2009 season represents a return of the rich teams ruling the playoff roost.

 

"This year is an aberration," said Selig, whose revenue-sharing plan had created more competitive balance in recent years. "It's a fair question, but I am not disappointed. This is only one year.

 

"We've had more competitive balance in the game over the last five years than ever before. It can't work every year. In the old days, the Yankees would clinch the division before Labor Day.

 

 

I'm kind of disappointed in Selig's comments. I think he has to wake up and smell the coffee before things get worse.

"I believe we have all the economic devices in place to assure competitive balance for years to come. Am I concerned? No. I just think we got spoiled a bit."

[Ennder]

Good points about Cleveland. You would think Selig would look at a once successful baseball market like that and realize what is so wrong about the current economic system in "his" sport.

 

There star players all got hurt? I mean Cleveland fell out of contention because of the injuries/ineffectiveness of their star players like Hafner and Martinez more than anything. In 2008 they were 81-81 with pythagorean of 85-77 even after trading Sabathia. In 2007 they were 96-66. I'm more than a bit confused by this comment.

[snyttri]

Good points about Cleveland. You would think Selig would look at a once successful baseball market like that and realize what is so wrong about the current economic system in "his" sport.

Cleveland doesn't necessarily support winning baseball. They averaged 28,500 for a 96 win team in 2007 and 25,000 for a 93 win team in 2005.

Bud would seem to be one of those in favor of changing the system in that he was known as one of the ringleaders of collusion in the '80's and as commissioner claimed that most of the teams were losing money when few believed him.

[kramnoj]

Season attendance is driven to a large degree by the previous season record. Both of your cases involve previous losing seasons. Cleveland had 3 million for 6 straight seasons. They were 1st in the AL for 2 years. They definitely support winning baseball.

[Invader3K]

I'm more than a bit confused by this comment.

I think you confused yourself. I was referring more to Cleveland's repeated loss of star players. You can't pretend that won't affect the morale of a fan base, and consequently affect the attendance.

[snyttri]

Season attendance is driven to a large degree by the previous season record. Both of your cases involve previous losing seasons. Cleveland had 3 million for 6 straight seasons. They were 1st in the AL for 2 years. They definitely support winning baseball.

No, Cleveland fans appear to be a bit spoiled. They were great when the team was a big winner every year from '95 through '01, but they did not support the 93 and 96 game winning teams in '05 or '07 either during those seasons or in the 26,700 and 27,800 attendance seasons following the winning seasons. Milwaukee would obviously draw a lot more than that if they traded Fielder and still won 90 games, but fans here have not gotten used to winning.

[Ennder]

I really don't consider losing one of your star players in the last year of his contract when the team is underperforming to be a big deal. If we trade Fielder in his last year of eligibility it isn't going to bother me even a tiny bit. Just like when we release a player on the Packers when he becomes a FA because we don't have the cap room. That is just part of sports and it isn't much different in baseball than any other sport. The Brewers can pick 1 or 2 players to keep long term just like the Packers can, Fielder doesn't fit because of his defense, oh well.

[AJAY]

Ender, I think most people would be okay with trading a player if it was something that helped their team get better. But what completely angers me is that trading players like Prince Fielder is often a necessity and not a choice. It absolutely infuriates me that Yankees and Red Sox fans don't have to face the same constraints. Those franchises get more choices and options . . . whereas for teams like ours, it feels like there is a gun to your head and you have to give up players you really don't want to. I just can't stand it.

 

In your example about the Packers having to give up a player because of cap room, you are forgetting that it is so much easier to swallow when you know all the other teams have to make the same decisions with the same cap. It feels VERY different in baseball and I completely disagree with your statement that there isn't much difference. In the NFL, everything seems the same for all the teams. As a fan, you feel like you are being treated fairly and equally. But in baseball, it feels like you are being crapped on over and over. There is a HUGE difference.

[Ennder]

We could keep Fielder if we wanted to but his defense is going to stop us. If you want to use a real example I'd use Braun instead. I 100% believe we can keep Braun long term if we decide it is worth it. Fielder just makes no sense because he is an AL player, not an NL player. I don't think the Phillies or Mets etc would keep Fielder either.

[bucks2281]

Maybe the Cleveland market is maxed out right now? They sell out 41 Cavaliers games (plus playoffs) and eight Browns games every year. Yes, they've fallen off of the map attendance-wise, but that market does pour a great deal of its sports-related resources into LeBron James and the Cavs. The Indians won 96 games in 2007 and they still only drew 28k per game -- I think the Cavs had something to do with that.

[snyttri]

Those franchises get more choices and options . . . whereas for teams like ours, it feels like there is a gun to your head and you have to give up players you really don't want to. I just can't stand it.

 

The interchangability of NFL teams can be unappealing. A New York team in football is a generic team subject to maximized league control like all the other generic teams while in the less authoritarian structure of baseball the New York teams and all the others have some real life characteristics of their homes. Baseball was never about competitive balance. It will probably always offer the opportunity to root for fat cats or underdogs.

[Invader3K]

We could keep Fielder if we wanted to but his defense is going to stop us. If you want to use a real example I'd use Braun instead. I 100% believe we can keep Braun long term if we decide it is worth it. Fielder just makes no sense because he is an AL player, not an NL player. I don't think the Phillies or Mets etc would keep Fielder either.

Prince has proven he is no longer a defensive liability. I think the team would be OK with him at 1B for a number of years if he continues to put up around 40 homers and an OPS around 1.000. He is only 25, not 30 or so like some seem to pretend.

 

We got lucky, locking up Braun for 6 more years. It's too bad a similar option doesn't seem possible with Fielder.

 

For further evidence of what AJAY was talking about, go look at the discussion about Prince Fielder on MLB Trade Rumors. I posted over there that I think it's disgusting that fans of teams like Boston get to talk about acquiring Prince (an All-Star caliber player with many years in his prime left), while Brewers fans are relegated to discussing obtaining prospects 95% of the fans going to Miller Park have probably never heard of. It's a real joke.

[DuWayne Steurer]

When you look at guys with Prince's body shape, (his dad, David Ortiz, Mo Vaughn, etc) they all generally really start to show very indicative signs of decline around age 32 or so. There's nothing scientific about this, it's just a general observation. With that being said, given Fielder's age, and his improved defensive play, I think if the club really was inclined to keep him, a 6 year contract offer (130 million? 140?) would put him right at the age where the big bodied players start to go downhill quickly when the contract expires.

 

Is he worth that much? I'd probably be inclined to say yes. He's just about a dead on average fielding first baseman (per fangraphs) and his bat is clearly in the elite class. If you believe he can continue to play average defense and put up .950 - 1.000 OPS seasons, then I'd have to consider it, at the very least.

 

Fangraphs has his value at 27 mil. I put very little stock into win value, as baseball's economic structure and pay scale makes those numbers really hard to accurately judge.

[Invader3K]

What I'm thinking is that the team should make a huge contract offer to Fielder that get leaked to the media, very soon after the season ends. When Boras inevitably declines a second major offer from the Brewers for Prince, it will make it much easier to trade him in the eyes of the public. Then they take less of a PR hit that way.

[RightFieldCoder]

This sounds similar to the Carlos Lee talk when we had him. Everyone knew he should get worse defensively. We offer a nice deal to appease fans. Player rejects and takes the outragous, franchise hurting deal elsewhere. Unless that franchise is in the NE, then it doesn't hurt the franchise.