Attanasio's Top Goal

[MNBrew]

Good heavens, this is still splitting hairs.

 

The point of the goals you keep insisting are unattainable -- whether they're unattainable or not is mostly irrelevant because EVERY team, in a vacuum, would love to reach those goals -- is to put the team in the best position to attain the ultimate goal (World Series championship) on a yearly basis. So of course that's what you aim for. No team probably ever reaches the ideal but you still don't ignore the principle or dismiss the vision.

 

I wonder how Attanasio would respond if you would express your concerns to him directly.

[dlk9s]

This might rank as one of the five worst threads in the history of BF.net, and that's saying something.

[rickh150]

Good heavens, this is still splitting hairs.

 

The point of the goals you keep insisting are unattainable -- whether they're unattainable or not is mostly irrelevant because EVERY team, in a vacuum, would love to reach those goals -- is to put the team in the best position to attain the ultimate goal (World Series championship) on a yearly basis. So of course that's what you aim for. No team probably ever reaches the ideal but you still don't ignore the principle or dismiss the vision.

 

I wonder how Attanasio would respond if you would express your concerns to him directly.

 

 

I think MA would respond in a respectful way instead of belittling a different opinion. Moreover, the top goal question was asked at Stearn's press conference, and there should have been a follow up question on the matter for clarification. Then, perhaps, this thread doesn't exist.

 

Respectfully, I can't believe that I am in the minority either. The top priority should be to win a championship, not simply to be in a position to possibly win a championship on a yearly basis. In our market, we have to take some shots here and there and can't be bogged down with this idea that we need to compete for the playoffs yearly. Try to be good always, sure. Players, Coaches, Front Office and GM should do their best to get the most out of the club on a yearly basis. But, resource wise, use them more around pockets of very good players, especially years when these players are in their primes.

 

For instance, over the last year two years, I don't look to sign K-Rod or Garza. I wouldn't have tried to trade for Lind. I simply thought we were not quite good enough for us to be in the playoffs/contend for a championship and to take on contracts to be better was not in the best interest of the club. We could have stockpiled a little money until we were better. To me, that money was somewhat wasted money. Now, I look back and say that I was wrong somewhat with Lind and K-Rod. We could get a good prospect or two from them this winter. Their veteran leadership is nice to have too right now. I would have rather traded Gomez, Lucroy, or Yo earlier for a bigger haul (although the Gomez/Fiers haul looks really good). But my point is this..... just trying to get in/sniff the playoffs can elongate the inevitable of having to rebuild. Also, 50% of wild card teams are out now after 1 game, and the idea of "Just Get In and We Could Win" should be changing because of it.

 

By the way, how is this vision different than any other team in baseball? What differentiates us from any other team out there? Do you consider your answer to be THEEEE Answer for every organization in MLB? Is there another answer to the "Vision Question" or do you hold the absolute answer on this one?

[MNBrew]

By the way, how is this vision different than any other team in baseball? What differentiates us from any other team out there? Do you consider your answer to be THEEEE Answer for every organization in MLB? Is there another answer to the "Vision Question" or do you hold the absolute answer on this one?

1. & 2. I don't know. I'm tired of trying to think so carefully about a topic I think just isn't that complicated.

3. Not necessarily, though I'd think most teams' plans could probably be "reduced" to common simple "ingredients" (have deep/top-end talent, win the most games to get to the playoffs & win the Series, and minimize the down times as much as possible). I could be wrong, and if I am, that's fine by me.

4a. & 4b. I'd think so, and definitely not.

[BillScottCanRake]

Respectfully, I can't believe that I am in the minority either. The top priority should be to win a championship, not simply to be in a position to possibly win a championship on a yearly basis. In our market, we have to take some shots here and there and can't be bogged down with this idea that we need to compete for the playoffs yearly. Try to be good always, sure. Players, Coaches, Front Office and GM should do their best to get the most out of the club on a yearly basis. But, resource wise, use them more around pockets of very good players, especially years when these players are in their primes.

 

I am really struggling to explain my philosophy in a way that makes sense, so please bare with me while I attempt to explain why I disagree with winning the World Series should be the primary goal instead of making the playoffs every year.

 

Over the course of a 162-game season, a teams performance is an indication as to how good that team really is. A team that wins, say, 95 games, probably is a pretty good team and worthy of making the playoffs. It would be difficult for a team with 70-win talent to luck into winning 95 games. As such, a team that is very good over a several year stretch is going to make the playoffs often.

 

Over short stretches even bad teams can win a series against good teams. Often the reason for those short term successes are instances where luck played a bigger part in the outcome than skill. To me, that means teams have more control over their season long success than they do in a short series. That's why the best regular season team is sometimes beaten by lesser teams in the playoffs and World Series. A series can turn on a single inning or a pulled muscle stretching a double into a triple, something that doesn't have the same effect on a full season.

 

As such, I think teams should build their roster to make the playoffs instead of to win the World Series. Once you are in the playoffs, let the chips fall where they may and if you make it often enough you are bound to win it all eventually. And if you are fortunate enough, maybe even multiple times. That means not doing anything that harms the teams long term viability, even if it seems to increases the odds of winning the WS in a given year.

 

That's my preference. I'd rather the team not try to "speed up" the natural rebuilding process, and I don't want the team to shorten their window by a couple of years in an effort to increase their odds of winning a World Series in any one particular year. I don't want a year or two with the best odds, I just want lots of years with a chance.

[rickh150]

Respectfully, I can't believe that I am in the minority either. The top priority should be to win a championship, not simply to be in a position to possibly win a championship on a yearly basis. In our market, we have to take some shots here and there and can't be bogged down with this idea that we need to compete for the playoffs yearly. Try to be good always, sure. Players, Coaches, Front Office and GM should do their best to get the most out of the club on a yearly basis. But, resource wise, use them more around pockets of very good players, especially years when these players are in their primes.

 

I am really struggling to explain my philosophy in a way that makes sense, so please bare with me while I attempt to explain why I disagree with winning the World Series should be the primary goal instead of making the playoffs every year.

 

Over the course of a 162-game season, a teams performance is an indication as to how good that team really is. A team that wins, say, 95 games, probably is a pretty good team and worthy of making the playoffs. It would be difficult for a team with 70-win talent to luck into winning 95 games. As such, a team that is very good over a several year stretch is going to make the playoffs often.

 

Over short stretches even bad teams can win a series against good teams. Often the reason for those short term successes are instances where luck played a bigger part in the outcome than skill. To me, that means teams have more control over their season long success than they do in a short series. That's why the best regular season team is sometimes beaten by lesser teams in the playoffs and World Series. A series can turn on a single inning or a pulled muscle stretching a double into a triple, something that doesn't have the same effect on a full season.

 

As such, I think teams should build their roster to make the playoffs instead of to win the World Series. Once you are in the playoffs, let the chips fall where they may and if you make it often enough you are bound to win it all eventually. And if you are fortunate enough, maybe even multiple times. That means not doing anything that harms the teams long term viability, even if it seems to increases the odds of winning the WS in a given year.

 

That's my preference. I'd rather the team not try to "speed up" the natural rebuilding process, and I don't want the team to shorten their window by a couple of years in an effort to increase their odds of winning a World Series in any one particular year. I don't want a year or two with the best odds, I just want lots of years with a chance.

 

 

Well said.....

 

I disagree, mainly because as a small market we have to turn a roster over so drastically every five years. This year, at the beginning of season 2015, we had four guys from the 2011 playoff team (Braun, Gomez, Lucroy, Krod)..... Four from a team that won 96 games! (And If we didn't get GreiNke and Marcum, we probably don't make playoffs). How can we possibly fill gaps when guys get to free agency? Play youngsters, most that probably aren't ready, overpay to keep, overpay a free agent, or trade the farm system away. The only way that small markets can compete is to bunch great prospects together, load resources into a small group of players to supplement them, and hope for the best.

 

It would be great to compete yearly, but that would require yearly, unbelievable drafting that the world hasn't seen yet.... Moreover, If all tv revenue was shared, I would vote for the vision you and MNBrew put out here. I can see the logic of your premise; I just don't think we will ever have the finances to support it......

[3and2Fastball]

Small Market team cannot likely be a playoff team every year, that isn't realistic. Much better to have years you go for it and years you rebuild. *Newsflash*: Red Sox, Yankees & Dodgers don't make the playoffs every year either, they aren't "consistent playoff teams"

 

Mark A's words bother me, too.

[rickh150]

Mark A. changed his ultimate goal.....no talk of primary goal being a consistent winner, which is of course unattainable for small markets. Just we are in this for the whole ball of wax! Let's build it up, try to get it done. Agressive. Love it.

http://milwaukee.brewers.mlb.com/mil/fan_forum/letter/

[Ennder]

Very few World Series winners in recent years were the best teams in baseball. They are a good team that makes the playoffs and has things fall their way more times than not. Being a consistent contender is by far the best path to winning championships.

[jerichoholicninja]

Mark A. changed his ultimate goal.....no talk of primary goal being a consistent winner, which is of course unattainable for small markets. Just we are in this for the whole ball of wax! Let's build it up, try to get it done. Agressive. Love it.

http://milwaukee.brewers.mlb.com/mil/fan_forum/letter/

 

Of course he said his goal is to win a World Series. What else is he supposed to say?

[rickh150]

Mark A. changed his ultimate goal.....no talk of primary goal being a consistent winner, which is of course unattainable for small markets. Just we are in this for the whole ball of wax! Let's build it up, try to get it done. Agressive. Love it.

http://milwaukee.brewers.mlb.com/mil/fan_forum/letter/

 

Of course he said his goal is to win a World Series. What else is he supposed to say?

 

That was not included a year and a half ago, thus the reason for this thread. Then, the TOP goal was having a highly competitive team, year in and year out. Even the CURRENT Brewers mission statement does not mention anything about bringing a championship to Milwaukee ( the highly competitive team talk is a there, though).

 

Many have view this omission as no big deal, but it really goes to the heart of why we are playing games and having seasons of baseball in Milwaukee. Will we continue to "go for it" when the time presents itself ( get a CC/Greinke) knowing that small markets cannot or simply haven't yet fielded consistently playoff caliber teams over a 10 year period? Or will we follow the model of the 2000s Twins /Rays which clung to young players, prolonging periods of good years but did not trade top prospects for polished players to possibly go further in the playoffs getting a WS title.

[jerichoholicninja]

Mark A. changed his ultimate goal.....no talk of primary goal being a consistent winner, which is of course unattainable for small markets. Just we are in this for the whole ball of wax! Let's build it up, try to get it done. Agressive. Love it.

http://milwaukee.brewers.mlb.com/mil/fan_forum/letter/

 

Of course he said his goal is to win a World Series. What else is he supposed to say?

 

That was not included a year and a half ago, thus the reason for this thread. Then, the TOP goal was having a highly competitive team, year in and year out. Even the CURRENT Brewers mission statement does not mention anything about bringing a championship to Milwaukee ( the highly competitive team talk is a there, though).

 

Many have view this omission as no big deal, but it really goes to the heart of why we are playing games and having seasons of baseball in Milwaukee. Will we continue to "go for it" when the time presents itself ( get a CC/Greinke) knowing that small markets cannot or simply haven't yet fielded consistently playoff caliber teams over a 10 year period? Or will we follow the model of the 2000s Twins /Rays which clung to young players, prolonging periods of good years but did not trade top prospects for polished players to possibly go further in the playoffs getting a WS title.

 

I'm pretty sure some PR puff piece letter offers no insight into that.

[FVBrewerFan]

I'm with Jericho on this. Sometimes we read too much into what an Owner, GM, or Manager says (or doesn't say.) Mark A said from the day he bought the team he wanted to bring a WS back to Milwaukee, and he has said it many times since. I think that's a given, and he doesn't have to mention it every time.

[rickh150]

Door A ...... 8 Brewer playoff appearances in the next 10 years; each playoff outcome is uncertain.

 

Door B...... 1 Brewer playoff appearance in the next 10 years that ends with a WS championship.

 

Which one do you take? Which one would MA take?

 

I think most would take the 8 playoffs that could possibly end with multiple titles. Baseball would be highly interesting and revelant in Milwaukee. Yet, the ultimate, top, prime goal would not have been accomplished yet. Some of those playoff births could be one and does in the wild card; some years could pit us against juggernauts with 100 plus wins.

 

Door B gets the job done definitely, but most of those years would not be good baseball years. What would the baseball scene look like in Milwaukee?

 

Now, this is just a little what if game to think about... something friends or couples might ponder on a long car ride. However, it makes you put value on what you view as ultimate. In Milwaukee and other small market teams, the goal of just being a good quality organization year in, year out (door A) is a pipe dream. What organization wouldn't jump at door A? Financially, good news... fans in the stands, good tv ratings, merchandise is selling. Community wide, people are following baseball. Baseball is fun to watch. Door B is an organization constantly rebuilding, retooling, trading (sound familiar), picking up 29 year olds off waivers. The road is long. Most of the baseball seasons are over before they start. Yet, lightening strikes. A WS is won.

 

Do you see the dilemma? If a WS is THE goal, MA takes door B. Goal accomplished. Yet, as a business man and fan, boy, door A would be a great ride.

 

Really, what does MA and fans want more?

[JohnBriggs12]

Sports is the rare business where enough ineptitude eventually pays off. The issue then is do you try to be inept (tanking) or just let it happen naturally? Letting it happen naturally isn't good for job security of the management team so nowadays they do it intentionally and tell fans it's all part of the grand plan, and that way they look like geniuses if and when the fruits of ineptitude in the form of high draft picks lift the team to contender status.

[monty57]

knowing that small markets cannot or simply haven't yet fielded consistently playoff caliber teams over a 10 year period

 

From World Population Review: "St. Louis has a population estimated at 317,000 in the city limits, but the Greater St. Louis area is the 19th largest metro area in the US with a population of 2.85 million."

 

"Milwaukee is the largest city in Wisconsin and the 30th most populous city in the country. It's also the center of the Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis Metropolitan Statistical Area with a population of 1.57 million. In 2016, Milwaukee has a population exceeding 600,000."

 

So, a team in a market of 1.57M has absolutely zero chance in baseball, and has to mortgage the future any time they have any talent in order to have any possible chance of competing, but a team in a slightly larger metropolitan area can be one of the most storied franchises in baseball history... I don't buy it.

 

Door A ...... 8 Brewer playoff appearances in the next 10 years; each playoff outcome is uncertain.

 

Door B...... 1 Brewer playoff appearance in the next 10 years that ends with a WS championship.

 

Sure, if you can absolutely guarantee that we can put together a team that will make the playoffs one year and win the World Series, then I'll take choice B. Since that defies logic, and the team with eight playoff appearances would have much better odds at winning a World Series than a team that makes the playoffs once, I'll take choice A.

 

Do you see the dilemma?

 

No, I see that you're bored in the offseason and really want to make a big deal out of something that is not a big deal. If anything, Attanasio has shown that he wants to win a championship more than anything else in life. My problem with him was that in past years he was sacrificing the future in order to "win now." I can't fathom how anyone would believe that Mark Attanasio does not want to win a World Series. He tried and tried and tried to win the way he thought would win and that didn't get him there. Now he's seeing teams winning by going a different route, and he's hired a guy who seems to be pretty good at that methodology. Let's hope this is what works.

[pete]

It was just an off season letter to the fans. I think they can be consistently competitive. I'd be happy if they never signed another expensive FA.

[rickh150]

knowing that small markets cannot or simply haven't yet fielded consistently playoff caliber teams over a 10 year period

 

From World Population Review: "St. Louis has a population estimated at 317,000 in the city limits, but the Greater St. Louis area is the 19th largest metro area in the US with a population of 2.85 million."

 

"Milwaukee is the largest city in Wisconsin and the 30th most populous city in the country. It's also the center of the Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis Metropolitan Statistical Area with a population of 1.57 million. In 2016, Milwaukee has a population exceeding 600,000."

 

So, a team in a market of 1.57M has absolutely zero chance in baseball, and has to mortgage the future any time they have any talent in order to have any possible chance of competing, but a team in a slightly larger metropolitan area can be one of the most storied franchises in baseball history... I don't buy it.

 

Door A ...... 8 Brewer playoff appearances in the next 10 years; each playoff outcome is uncertain.

 

Door B...... 1 Brewer playoff appearance in the next 10 years that ends with a WS championship.

 

Sure, if you can absolutely guarantee that we can put together a team that will make the playoffs one year and win the World Series, then I'll take choice B. Since that defies logic, and the team with eight playoff appearances would have much better odds at winning a World Series than a team that makes the playoffs once, I'll take choice A.

 

Do you see the dilemma?

 

No, I see that you're bored in the offseason and really want to make a big deal out of something that is not a big deal. If anything, Attanasio has shown that he wants to win a championship more than anything else in life. My problem with him was that in past years he was sacrificing the future in order to "win now." I can't fathom how anyone would believe that Mark Attanasio does not want to win a World Series. He tried and tried and tried to win the way he thought would win and that didn't get him there. Now he's seeing teams winning by going a different route, and he's hired a guy who seems to be pretty good at that methodology. Let's hope this is what works.

 

Your logic is off. If I don't say it's a top priority, then it is considered unimportant?

 

I know MA wants to win a WS. That is not being debated by me. Of course, he does. His top priority was the issue, and that could take us down a couple of different roads.

[reillymcshane]

Door A ...... 8 Brewer playoff appearances in the next 10 years; each playoff outcome is uncertain.

 

Door B...... 1 Brewer playoff appearance in the next 10 years that ends with a WS championship.

 

Which one do you take? Which one would MA take?

Door B. You take the WS win. With 30 teams in the league, you're gold if you can win one in a decade. I think most people would take the guaranteed WS, including Mark A. But that's not how the game works, because no one can guarantee a championship.

 

And the best way to win a championship is getting into the dance as often as possible with the best team you can afford. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

[TURBO]

That's tough....So out of those 8 playoff appearances, we could possibly win 8 WS titles, or zero...

 

I'm inclined to take Door A, because I am greedy, and freaking love Brewers playoff baseball. I like the chances of winning 8 titles, even though we could only hope to get one...

 

I'll take Door A.

 

Then again, winning one WS would be excellent, especially if it was a lock.

 

Tough choices for sure.

 

I'm switching to Door B and the promise of one world series title!!!

 

Wait, can I still change my mind?

[rickh150]

knowing that small markets cannot or simply haven't yet fielded consistently playoff caliber teams over a 10 year period

 

From World Population Review: "St. Louis has a population estimated at 317,000 in the city limits, but the Greater St. Louis area is the 19th largest metro area in the US with a population of 2.85 million."

 

"Milwaukee is the largest city in Wisconsin and the 30th most populous city in the country. It's also the center of the Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis Metropolitan Statistical Area with a population of 1.57 million. In 2016, Milwaukee has a population exceeding 600,000."

 

So, a team in a market of 1.57M has absolutely zero chance in baseball, and has to mortgage the future any time they have any talent in order to have any possible chance of competing, but a team in a slightly larger metropolitan area can be one of the most storied franchises in baseball history... I don't buy it.

 

Door A ...... 8 Brewer playoff appearances in the next 10 years; each playoff outcome is uncertain.

 

Door B...... 1 Brewer playoff appearance in the next 10 years that ends with a WS championship.

 

Sure, if you can absolutely guarantee that we can put together a team that will make the playoffs one year and win the World Series, then I'll take choice B. Since that defies logic, and the team with eight playoff appearances would have much better odds at winning a World Series than a team that makes the playoffs once, I'll take choice A.

 

Do you see the dilemma?

 

No, I see that you're bored in the offseason and really want to make a big deal out of something that is not a big deal. If anything, Attanasio has shown that he wants to win a championship more than anything else in life. My problem with him was that in past years he was sacrificing the future in order to "win now." I can't fathom how anyone would believe that Mark Attanasio does not want to win a World Series. He tried and tried and tried to win the way he thought would win and that didn't get him there. Now he's seeing teams winning by going a different route, and he's hired a guy who seems to be pretty good at that methodology. Let's hope this is what works.

 

 

A few more responses from a "bored" fan in the offseason (dead on, by the way)...

 

How much $ are the Cardinals/ city of St. Louis putting into renovations for their ballpark village, and how much money do they get yearly from their local tv deal? Find that and compare it to Milwaukee's stadium upgrades and local tv $. You can bore me be further with how each county in WI compares population wise to Missouri, or you can talk about the numbers that really matter.

 

Also, why isn't the ultimate goal of winning a championship in the team's mission statement? If that is presumably the ultimate goal, why isn't it there for all to see? All it says is that "the Brewers are committed to fielding a competitive team." How low of a bar is that? Even 100 loss teams are arguably competitive. It should say, "the Brewers are committed to building a championship team for the city of Milwaukee, state of WI, and Brewers fans everywhere!"

 

Yet, I am glad that MA has recently written about winning it all and not being "good" for long stretches, again a historically unattainable goal for any small market team since the early 90's when salaries/FA went haywire. Many big markets have been arguably good for long periods of time without rebuilding (just reloading), not so with small markets. Speaking in generalities with the outlier abstaining, small markets need to put most of their eggs in one basket/create windows/go all in, etc. to have short periods when winning it all is possible; then the tear down begins ala the KC Royals.

[trwi7]

How much $ are the Cardinals/ city of St. Louis putting into renovations for their ballpark village, and how much money do they get yearly from their local tv deal? Find that and compare it to Milwaukee's stadium upgrades and local tv $.

 

Milwaukee Brewers

 

$12m per year (Some information suggests thus figure will rise to $30m before 2013 season) Expires after 2019 season

 

St. Louis Cardinals

 

$14m per year Expires after 2017 season (suggested that it will be $35 million in 2017)

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/dodgers-send-shock-waves-through-local-tv-landscape/

 

Cardinals new TV begins in 2018, will pay nearly $67 million on average per year and is expected to begin at $55 million and increase with inflation each year. The deal also includes a minority stake in Fox Sports Midwest.

[adambr2]

That's tough....So out of those 8 playoff appearances, we could possibly win 8 WS titles, or zero...

 

I'm inclined to take Door A, because I am greedy, and freaking love Brewers playoff baseball. I like the chances of winning 8 titles, even though we could only hope to get one...

 

I'll take Door A.

 

Then again, winning one WS would be excellent, especially if it was a lock.

 

Tough choices for sure.

 

I'm switching to Door B and the promise of one world series title!!!

 

Wait, can I still change my mind?

 

I'm with you on your thoughts on taking Door A. Look, a WS would be huge for this franchise, but part of what makes the season so fun is the journey to get there. If we made the journey only once and the other 9 seasons were not so fun, that would be miserable for me. I liken Door A to being a Packer fan. Do I wish we had more than 1 title during this era, of course. But these months are always very enjoyable because I go into every season knowing that if if things break right, my team has a chance to win it all. If Super Bowl 45 was our one guaranteed title and we were the Browns every other year, well, that would suck.

 

Even though this is obviously hypothetical the closest real life comp I can think to these is Door A being the Braves of the 90s and early 2000s, and the Marlins being Door B in the same era. Even though the Marlins won more titles I would certainly think the hope and promise of every season made being a Braves fan a lot more fun during that era.

[rickh150]

Door A ...... 8 Brewer playoff appearances in the next 10 years; each playoff outcome is uncertain.

 

Door B...... 1 Brewer playoff appearance in the next 10 years that ends with a WS championship.

 

Which one do you take? Which one would MA take?

Door B. You take the WS win. With 30 teams in the league, you're gold if you can win one in a decade. I think most people would take the guaranteed WS, including Mark A. But that's not how the game works, because no one can guarantee a championship.

 

And the best way to win a championship is getting into the dance as often as possible with the best team you can afford. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

 

The heart of this.... you can structure your team to be like either door. One way, you maybe never go overboard with a FA signing, never trade away that top prospect, never trade the future for present because the goal is to be the year in, year out darlings, making the playoffs every year. The other way, you know that you are a little fish in the gigantic ocean. You are the littlest kid playing king of the hill. Your shot at standing on top of that snow hill by yourself does not come often, and when it looks clear, take the moment, push that fat kid off, throw your hands up, and enjoy it before you are piled on top of and thrown back to the bottom quickly. Sign the big name FA the year after winning the wild card with a young/cheap nucleus, trade away some top pick for the present ( seriously, don't you now think Melvin should have traded MORE of the future in 2011 now knowing we didn't make the playoffs the last 5 years? Could we have won it with another piece or two... Furcal? A legit #5 hitter?).

 

I believe the Brewers best way of winning a championship in the unfair MLB is to get a talented, young, cheap core group packaged together with big name FA and aggressive trades for a two, three year shot at winning it all before FA erodes the core.

[rickh150]

That's tough....So out of those 8 playoff appearances, we could possibly win 8 WS titles, or zero...

 

I'm inclined to take Door A, because I am greedy, and freaking love Brewers playoff baseball. I like the chances of winning 8 titles, even though we could only hope to get one...

 

I'll take Door A.

 

Then again, winning one WS would be excellent, especially if it was a lock.

 

Tough choices for sure.

 

I'm switching to Door B and the promise of one world series title!!!

 

Wait, can I still change my mind?

 

Another thing I forgot to mention.... Door B beats the Cubs to get to the WS.