Mr. Hart

[TURBO]

I watched him for a full season as a t-rat, and am not quite sure why people think so poorly of his defense, or his arm. To me, he wasn't spectacular, but he surely was not below average defensively. Never once did I see him throw a ball in form the OF and thought he had a noodle arm. I would think he should project out to an average outfielder defensively in the bigs.

[KCBrewerfan34]

I guess you can't take the small market mentality out of everybody

When you say stuff like this you hurt your argument because you are acting like the Brewers have unlimited funds to spend. Forgetting the fact that you are one of the only people I have ever seen who claims Milwaukee isn't a small market in baseball, I don't understand why you don't accept the fact that teams like the Brewers need to continue to recycle young cheap talent to be successful. Putting $60 million into 5 guys and then having only $40 million or so to invest in the remaining 20 is a very risky strategy. As is relying on guys who are already in their early to mid 30's.

 

Paul just a friendly tip you now have (twice) put words in my mouth, don't try a third time. Small market teams don't draw 3 million people and they don't have $100 million dollar payrolls. Market size doesn't matter, its what the payroll is IMO

 

Paul the way you look at players and salaries you act like its fantasy baseball, doesn't work that way my friend, stick to sportsline because I couldn't disagree more with your posts on this topic.

 

Here's a thought regarding the players totalling $60 million, maybe they trade one??? Run that through your faulty analysis.

[paul253]

Market size doesn't matter, its what the payroll is IMO

 

If you are going to say market size doesn't matter, then say market size doesn't matter. That's not what you've been arguing though. You (and pretty much you alone) have been arguing that Milwaukee is not a small market team. They are two very different arguments.

 

"We're NOT small market, we had a $100 million dollar payroll this year. CRIPES you guys!!!!"

 

(just so I'm not accused of putting words in your mouth.)

 

 

As far as this $100 million payroll obsession you have. Mark A. admitted that in order to get it so high he had to stretch his resources a bit. This isn't a new team salary floor and it will probably be lower next season. And even though the payroll at the beginning of the year ranked us 10th, there were plenty of team below us in much bigger markets that could easily pass that if they wanted to (Cubs, White Sox, Dodgers, Mets for instance).

 

Paul the way you look at players and salaries you act like its fantasy baseball, doesn't work that way my friend, stick to sportsline because I couldn't disagree more with your posts on this topic.

 

Please explain this to me because this is the second time you've made this "fantasy baseball" reference. How exactly does replacing older, expensive players with younger, cheaper ones amount to fantasy baseball? Nobody has ever, not once, claimed that all prospects are all 100% guaranteed to pan out. Everyone knows that's not the case. But that's not an argument to avoid giving them an opportunity.

 

Here's a thought regarding the players totalling $60 million, maybe they trade one??? Run that through your faulty analysis

 

Here's another thought. Don't put yourself in that position to begin with. I'd have a more in depth answer for you (like what exactly do you expect to get back for a 31 year 2nd basemen making $11 million or a 36 year old 3rd basemen making $16 million) but if you are going to provide a condescending reply to a reasonable argument then so am I.

[trwi7]

Market size doesn't matter, its what the payroll is IMO

 

It absolutely does matter. Market size effects TV and radio contracts, ticket prices and pretty much everything else on the business side. If you have less people, you have less fans to draw from. Advertisers don't pay as much. Ticket prices are lower.

[monty57]

Market size doesn't matter, its what the payroll is IMO

 

It absolutely does matter. Market size effects TV and radio contracts, ticket prices and pretty much everything else on the business side. If you have less people, you have less fans to draw from. Advertisers don't pay as much. Ticket prices are lower.

 

Yes, IIRC the Brewers had higher viewership than the Angels, but they got a $30MM TV deal, while the Angels got a $150MM TV deal. If market size doesn't matter, why would you suppose the TV gurus would pay so much more to the Angels?

 

Attanasio has done a lot to increase cash flow/revenues for the Brewers, but they seem to be about tapped out on new streams which are unique to the Brewers. From now on, most new revenue streams the Brewers receive will be shared through the league. Therefore, the Brewers are now largely at the mercy of attendance figures. Since that's pretty well maxed out, the only way it can go is down, and any drop in attendance will have a corresponding drop in revenues.

 

In a small market like the Brewers, there should be a higher chance that attendance would drop, as in order to get to 3MM fans, many fans have to come to multiple games, so a small percentage of "disgruntled" fans will lead to less tickets sold. In bigger markets, a small percentage of the fan base getting disgruntled doesn't matter as much, because the fan base is so much larger. Teams like the Packers defy these odds, as a huge percentage of midwesterners would sell their soul to get Packer tickets. I don't think the Brewers have that loyal of a following. I think the Brewers will have a very hard time selling 3MM tickets next year, and I would bet their budget is going to be based on significatnly less than 3MM tickets sold.

 

Here's a thought regarding the players totalling $60 million, maybe they trade one??? Run that through your faulty analysis.

 

So you're arguing that we shouldn't trade Hart, but instead should extend him, knowing that his extension could very well cause us to hit a financial barrier. Your solution to avoid this financial barrier is that we should then trade Hart. Whose analysis is faulty?

[TheCrew07]

I watched him for a full season as a t-rat, and am not quite sure why people think so poorly of his defense, or his arm. To me, he wasn't spectacular, but he surely was not below average defensively. Never once did I see him throw a ball in form the OF and thought he had a noodle arm. I would think he should project out to an average outfielder defensively in the bigs.

 

I saw Davis in Appleton as well and I wasn't all that impressed, he was average defensively for an A ball player so at the time he was below average in MLB terms. He doesn't run the best and when I saw him play he didn't get great jumps on the ball. I probably saw him play in 10 games or so in person that season but he never had to make a throw in any game where I could gauge his arm strength. Without the benefit of personal observation I'm going off of scouting reports and stats in his case and the scouting reports about his arm have been negative and he hasn't had many career OF assists. In fact I just looked and he only has 4 OF assists in 4 years and 283 games, for comparison sake Ben McMahan who mostly played LF for the T-Rats this season had 12 OF assists 98 games. Logan Schafer is generally discussed as having an average arm and he has 38 OF assists in 384 games. Not that OF assists are the end all be all when judging arm strength, it's just that generally speaking assist totals are indicative of arm strength, and Davis' stats do backup the scouting reports.

[KCBrewerfan34]

Market size doesn't matter, its what the payroll is IMO

 

It absolutely does matter. Market size effects TV and radio contracts, ticket prices and pretty much everything else on the business side. If you have less people, you have less fans to draw from. Advertisers don't pay as much. Ticket prices are lower.

 

Yes, IIRC the Brewers had higher viewership than the Angels, but they got a $30MM TV deal, while the Angels got a $150MM TV deal. If market size doesn't matter, why would you suppose the TV gurus would pay so much more to the Angels?

 

Attanasio has done a lot to increase cash flow/revenues for the Brewers, but they seem to be about tapped out on new streams which are unique to the Brewers. From now on, most new revenue streams the Brewers receive will be shared through the league. Therefore, the Brewers are now largely at the mercy of attendance figures. Since that's pretty well maxed out, the only way it can go is down, and any drop in attendance will have a corresponding drop in revenues.

 

In a small market like the Brewers, there should be a higher chance that attendance would drop, as in order to get to 3MM fans, many fans have to come to multiple games, so a small percentage of "disgruntled" fans will lead to less tickets sold. In bigger markets, a small percentage of the fan base getting disgruntled doesn't matter as much, because the fan base is so much larger. Teams like the Packers defy these odds, as a huge percentage of midwesterners would sell their soul to get Packer tickets. I don't think the Brewers have that loyal of a following. I think the Brewers will have a very hard time selling 3MM tickets next year, and I would bet their budget is going to be based on significatnly less than 3MM tickets sold.

 

Here's a thought regarding the players totalling $60 million, maybe they trade one??? Run that through your faulty analysis.

 

So you're arguing that we shouldn't trade Hart, but instead should extend him, knowing that his extension could very well cause us to hit a financial barrier. Your solution to avoid this financial barrier is that we should then trade Hart. Whose analysis is faulty?

 

 

Where did I say they should trade Hart?? You might actually want to read the post your responding to.

[TheCrew07]

Where did I say they should trade Hart?? You might actually want to read the post your responding to.

 

You might want to actually read and consider what's being said by the other side of a discussion instead of continually throwing petty insults at different people in every post you make..

 

Monty clearly responded to your posts and in the sentence he italicized you suggested trading one of the higher paid players to clear payroll, his response should be self explanatory.

 

Even at $100 million the Brewers are much closer to the bottom teams in payroll than they are to the top. Maybe what you haven't gotten your mind around is that the market size matters because it's nearly impossible for the Brewers to do better than draw 3 million fans and sport the $100 million payroll. It's not like in 2 years we'll be at $120 million or we'll be at $140 million in 5 years.

 

If that's what you think where are the extra revenue streams going to come from? Raising ticket prices will only get you so far. How much farther can the market stretch? What's realistic?

 

The point Monty was making is why sign Hart only to have to trade him? What other high priced player would have significant enough trade value to bring back something valuable? Gallardo and Braun aren't going anywhere, Weeks had a down year, which leaves Hart and Ramirez, and Ramirez' backloaded contract should be a tell a tough sell unless a team is desperate at the trade deadline. So basically that leaves us with trading Hart if you want to clear salary...

 

I realize that you like Hart, I like Hart, he was one of my favorite prospects and he's been my favorite Brewer since Hardy moved on. In fact everyone likes Hart except for a long gone poster who thought he'd never hit because his elbow wasn't in the proper spot in his stance. The issue has been and remains how to best move the organization forward taking all of the variables into consideration and not focus solely on Hart's production as a MLB player. Somewhere we need to start cycling some youth back into the position players if we're going to remain competitive, the same is true of the pitching staff as well.

 

Getting older and more expensive as a team every year is not a sustainable trend for all of the reasons that plenty of people have posted about over the last 5 months. Maybe you just skim posts but the issues have been approached in plenty of detail from every angle possible, if you still don't understand then simply put the burden is squarely on your shoulders, not on the rest of us.

 

People have been exceedingly patient with you despite comments such as...

 

I guess you can't take the small market mentality out of everybody. Hopefully, this gets done soon.

Paul just a friendly tip you now have (twice) put words in my mouth, don't try a third time.

 

Here's a thought regarding the players totalling $60 million, maybe they trade one??? Run that through your faulty analysis.

Thank goodness your not our GM, Hart for a prospect. I don't think so. The Brewers should immediately offer him a contract similar to Ramirez. This team isn't far away from contending rebuild the bullpen and get a RF and we're right back in it next year.

 

A completely made up opinion presented as fact without a shred of actual evidence to support it.

Putting your faith in rookies has cost many GM's their jobs.

 

And my personal favorite given that multiple unbiased sources continue to list Milwaukee as the smallest TV market in baseball... let's not let facts stand in the way of a good rant.

We're NOT small market, we had a $100 million dollar payroll this year. CRIPES you guys!!!!

[KCBrewerfan34]

Crew I'm not going to get into a pissing contest with you but maybe you should take a look, Monty's response isn't self explnatory.

 

Here's a thought regarding the players totalling $60 million, maybe they trade one??? Run that through your faulty analysis.

 

So you're arguing that we shouldn't trade Hart, but instead should extend him, knowing that his extension could very well cause us to hit a financial barrier. Your solution to avoid this financial barrier is that we should then trade Hart. Whose analysis is faulty?

 

Please tell me where ANYWHERE I have advocated trading Hart, also just to clarify I would sign Hart at reasonable numbers (2 years $24 million is the number I threw out there), if he wants 3 year extension for $45 million I pass.

 

Our starting pitching most likely is going to be comprised of cheap players. We won't be close to "the financial barrier" as people have posted. The "I'm feeling sorry for my market size" mentality of this board has been around for way too long. The Brewers have spent ALOT of money and have been in the top half of attendance and now they are getting more money via TV and Radio. We maybe in the smallest market in baseball but we sure don't ast like it. Yes, believe me I get it the other markets can outspend us. Outspending doesn't translate into winning, check out Boston this year.

 

Since your playing police man today, you may want to checkout Paul's posts in this thread as well.

 

As for this "People have been exceedingly patient with you despite comments such as..."

 

What is this some type of a joke?? REALLY? I've been a poster on here for 5+ years and yes I like to mix things up a little but your sdtatement is just RIDICULOUS. I will give myself a timeout, thanks Crew for the great job you do on the board. Going forward I won't deal with any differing opinions regardless of how off the wall they are.

 

Let's get the sweep today!!!!

[paul253]

Please tell me where ANYWHERE I have advocated trading Hart, also just to clarify I would sign Hart at reasonable numbers (2 years $24 million is the number I threw out there), if he wants 3 year extension for $45 million I pass.

 

Let me try to explain this better since it all started with one of my posts. I was the one who said we'd have over $60 million tied up in 5 guys. You then said in your rather offensive tone that we could just trade one. Well obviously we're not going to trade Braun and we are unlikely to trade Gallardo. That leaves Weeks, ARam and Hart. As I said, I'm not sure what exactly you expect to get for Weeks, who will be making $11 million which is ALOT for a second basemen, or ARam who will clearly be in the twilight of his career and will be making a ton of money ($16 million). We are probably better off not even bothering to trade them because we'd get peanuts in return. That leaves Corey Hart. No, you didn't say we should trade Corey Hart. But realistically, he's probably the only one you'd be willing to trade that would have any value.

We won't be close to "the financial barrier" as people have posted.

How could you possibly know this? The bullpen is a mess and it may take $10-$15 million just to fix it. We have no idea if Gomez will be back but if so he's due a bit of a raise. Ramirez is due a $4 million raise. Braun is due a $2.5 million raise. Yovani Gallardo is due a $2.5 million raise. Corey Hart gets a $1 million raise. Plus, there's no guarantee Melvin will go with 4 starters with less than a year of major league starting experience. He may very well sign another veteran arm, a decent one of which will cost at least $4-$5 million a year.

 

The "I'm feeling sorry for my market size" mentality of this board has been around for way too long.

 

This is EXACTLY what TheCrew is talking about. Who is "feeling sorry" for themselves? Pointing out the obvious, as in Milwaukee is a small market and doesn't have the financial resources to throw out $25 million contracts left and right, is not "feeling sorry for ourselves". You just make these uncalled for, based-on-nothing personal comments about people and expect to get away with it.

 

And please, I'll ask again because you have yet to clarify. Explain to me how replacing older, expensive players with younger, cheaper one amounts to "fantasy baseball"?

have been in the top half of attendance and now they are getting more money via TV and Radio

 

The Brewers attendance is maxed out. They cannot draw any more than they have been the past few years. That is what TheCrew is getting at. You say "spend more" but the attendance isn't going up so there is no additional ticket revenue to spend. As far as the tv and radio deals, yes maybe we will be making some more money. But so will a lot of clubs. They will be making more much than we will. All it does is drive up free agent prices.

Since your playing police man today, you may want to checkout Paul's posts in this thread as well.

 

I'd actually like to know which posts you are referring to. Mine are nowhere near as offensive and condescending as yours.

[TheCrew07]

Yep I anointed myself board policeman for a day... nice. In truth I just got tired of the insults and the same thing being continually posted in reply to everyone that tried to explain the alternative position to you.

 

Regardless there's no point in discussing this further with you because you aren't interested in discussion. Every point has already been discussed from every angle, based on your response KC I shouldn't have even wasted my time, nor should anyone else.

 

POSTING in CAPS in EVERY single POST doesn't ADD emphasis IT just MAKES it LOOK like YOU are CONTINUALLY ranting.

[monty57]

Please tell me where ANYWHERE I have advocated trading Hart

 

I took the liberty of adding Hart's name in the sentence "Your solution to avoid this financial barrier is that we should then trade Hart." You could substitute Braun, Gallardo or Weeks and the message is the same.

 

Basically, I was saying that it is a bad idea to obligate yourself financially for something which you know could cause financial strain. Your belief that we should extend Hart because we could always trade a high priced player in the future is the type of reasoning which send people and businesses into bankruptcy. It's the reason the Cubs are paying Zambrano to pitch for the Marlins and would pay any team to take Soriano off their roster. It's the reason Boston gave away Gonzalez, Burnett and Crawford. Teams continually make the mistake you're proposing.

 

You may think the Brewers are not small market, but you have to agree that Chicago and Boston are bigger markets than Milwaukee. If they can get themselves into "fire sale" positions, then it can certainly happen in Milwaukee if Melvin is not careful. We sometimes need to sign players to high-priced contracts. The time to do that is not when you have good, low-priced alternatives at the position(s) the player in question plays.