Wild Card: Forget about it

[pacopete4]

 

They had a beginning 2015 payroll of $104M and turned a $27M profit that year

 

Someone from the Brewers actually stated this somewhere or is it some estimate from some writer? I find that hard to believe, as no private sports ownership ever gives out that much detail. That is why the NFL players union loves the Packers.

 

I could've sworn I remember MA talking about being in the "red" for those seasons but how he doesn't mind doing it if they have a chance to win. Maybe it's my mind playing tricks on me and I don't have time or really want to look up a source but I feel like it happened. lol

[topper09er]

NFL is a terrible example because they have a salary cap. Not saying salary caps makes things fair, but it works pretty well in the NFL. We are at a massive disadvantage in the MLB. Wild Cards are a big accomplishment believe it or not for us.

 

The NFL is not a good comp because the "currency" of the NFL is QBs. Whoever has the best QBs are guaranteed to be perennial contenders. Salary cap has nothing to do with getting the best QBs. They have to be drafted and then are simply just given massive contracts. They are never traded and never become FAs.

 

The "currency" of baseball however, is money. But I would not say we at a massive disadvantage, our disadvantage is that it is literally impossible for us to sign top tier free agents. No matter how much we can afford a bigger market team can just pay more. These days it seems like most FAs are getting their big paydays after some of their primes so it doesn't hurt as much to miss them. We can still trade for these guys so we can at least have a hope to get them when it might really help, like Sabathia.

[FVBrewerFan]

NFL is a terrible example because they have a salary cap. Not saying salary caps makes things fair, but it works pretty well in the NFL. We are at a massive disadvantage in the MLB. Wild Cards are a big accomplishment believe it or not for us.

 

The NFL is not a good comp because the "currency" of the NFL is QBs. Whoever has the best QBs are guaranteed to be perennial contenders. Salary cap has nothing to do with getting the best QBs. They have to be drafted and then are simply just given massive contracts. They are never traded and never become FAs.

The "currency" of baseball however, is money. But I would not say we at a massive disadvantage, our disadvantage is that it is literally impossible for us to sign top tier free agents. No matter how much we can afford a bigger market team can just pay more. These days it seems like most FAs are getting their big paydays after some of their primes so it doesn't hurt as much to miss them. We can still trade for these guys so we can at least have a hope to get them when it might really help, like Sabathia.

 

Joe Montana, Brett Favre, Peyton Manning, Kurt Warner, Carson Palmer, others a step below that level.

[hurricanecrush]

NFL is a terrible example because they have a salary cap. Not saying salary caps makes things fair, but it works pretty well in the NFL. We are at a massive disadvantage in the MLB. Wild Cards are a big accomplishment believe it or not for us.

 

The NFL is not a good comp because the "currency" of the NFL is QBs. Whoever has the best QBs are guaranteed to be perennial contenders. Salary cap has nothing to do with getting the best QBs. They have to be drafted and then are simply just given massive contracts. They are never traded and never become FAs.

The "currency" of baseball however, is money. But I would not say we at a massive disadvantage, our disadvantage is that it is literally impossible for us to sign top tier free agents. No matter how much we can afford a bigger market team can just pay more. These days it seems like most FAs are getting their big paydays after some of their primes so it doesn't hurt as much to miss them. We can still trade for these guys so we can at least have a hope to get them when it might really help, like Sabathia.

 

Joe Montana, Brett Favre, Peyton Manning, Kurt Warner, Carson Palmer, others a step below that level.

I'd add Drew Brees... but Montana was done by then, Young would have been a better argument... Warner moved around before he was a star and had 5 bad years before a resurgence his last 3 years... Palmer meh... Favre was traded before he was a star and again in the twilight of his career... Manning was at the end of his career. I'd have to agree with topper, there may be a few exceptions but most stars stay with the team that drafted them.

[Roderick]

 

They had a beginning 2015 payroll of $104M and turned a $27M profit that year

 

Someone from the Brewers actually stated this somewhere or is it some estimate from some writer? I find that hard to believe, as no private sports ownership ever gives out that much detail. That is why the NFL players union loves the Packers.

 

I could've sworn I remember MA talking about being in the "red" for those seasons but how he doesn't mind doing it if they have a chance to win. Maybe it's my mind playing tricks on me and I don't have time or really want to look up a source but I feel like it happened. lol

 

Obviously it plays to what the owner will want perceived "being in the red". I have never heard of any owner talking with that type of specifics about their profit. At best they may say they made money, even that would be rare - they will more probably say they didn't lose money. Personally, I doubt they made $27M if the 25 man roster payroll was $104M, that was why I wanted to see the source. Because if they made that profit that season, that means they probably have made quite a bit of profit all along and will have that much more resources to pay when it is time to compete from the get go (next year).

[pacopete4]

 

Obviously it plays to what the owner will want perceived "being in the red". I have never heard of any owner talking with that type of specifics about their profit. At best they may say they made money, even that would be rare - they will more probably say they didn't lose money. Personally, I doubt they made $27M if the 25 man roster payroll was $104M, that was why I wanted to see the source. Because if they made that profit that season, that means they probably have made quite a bit of profit all along and will have that much more resources to pay when it is time to compete from the get go (next year).

 

http://archive.jsonline.com/sports/brewers/90317417.html

 

This link is old but it is him talking about breaking even in years and budgeting for a losing money season.

[adambr2]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/news/2017/04/11/milwaukee-brewers-operating-income-jumps-in-2016.amp.html&ved=0ahUKEwj6xJGfpbTWAhWmxYMKHeiJC4wQFgggMAE&usg=AFQjCNGy8bYxKMHif9bdVuQqag_k0PV96w&ampcf=1

 

That's the link I was referring to. The estimates are from Forbes.

 

It's obviously a lot of guesstimation and projection but bases on the numbers my wildest guess in an average year as to the breakeven payroll number where Mark A. neither makes nor loses money is about $120M.

 

Now of course I don't expect him to want to break even, no one should. It's still a business after all. How much should he want to make off his investment, well that probably varies from year to year based on circumstances. But he has some flexibility.

[Bob Skube Snacks]

NFL is a terrible example because they have a salary cap. Not saying salary caps makes things fair, but it works pretty well in the NFL. We are at a massive disadvantage in the MLB. Wild Cards are a big accomplishment believe it or not for us.

 

I thought this argument died in the 2000s. It's a weak excuse that covered for the cheap/bad ownership the Brewers had in the 1990s and early 2000s when the sport grew past the point where Selig could afford it. Mark Attanasio has proven that with deep pockets and good stewardship a small-market team can do just fine.

 

No the Brewers will not be able to sign big free agents, but neither can teams in at least half of the markets, and the game has really evolved beyond that anyway. With front offices, including ours, getting far more savvy about controllable years or locking down players early, the day where the success of a team is determined by a free agent signing is waning.

 

And this system only works without a salary cap. If there was a salary cap, there would be all kinds of road blocks in the way of building a team by locking down young talent. The only way I'd ever support a MLB salary cap is if it was a NBA-style soft cap with tons of exceptions and some form of the Larry Bird rule.

 

And I'd say the NFL cap has been bad for the sport. The NFL is awash in mediocrity and the games are suffering. The on-field product is extremely mediocre because the hard cap is anathema to real team building.

 

And, no, I don't care that all 32 teams can theoretically "be in it". I want something watchable on a Sunday to Sunday basis. Baseball doesn't have the same issue.

[Thurston Fluff]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/news/2017/04/11/milwaukee-brewers-operating-income-jumps-in-2016.amp.html&ved=0ahUKEwj6xJGfpbTWAhWmxYMKHeiJC4wQFgggMAE&usg=AFQjCNGy8bYxKMHif9bdVuQqag_k0PV96w&ampcf=1

 

That's the link I was referring to. The estimates are from Forbes.

 

It's obviously a lot of guesstimation and projection but bases on the numbers my wildest guess in an average year as to the breakeven payroll number where Mark A. neither makes nor loses money is about $120M.

 

Now of course I don't expect him to want to break even, no one should. It's still a business after all. How much should he want to make off his investment, well that probably varies from year to year based on circumstances. But he has some flexibility.

 

Technically it isn't considered a business. Baseball has an antitrust exemption that no other business gets because it isn't considered a normal business. Therefore, while I don't expect him to lose money, I also don't expect him to make a profit on it either. Frankly, I think more people should expect the same out of all the teams. The profit is in the value of the franchises themselves.

[KeithStone53151]

NFL is a terrible example because they have a salary cap. Not saying salary caps makes things fair, but it works pretty well in the NFL. We are at a massive disadvantage in the MLB. Wild Cards are a big accomplishment believe it or not for us.

 

I thought this argument died in the 2000s. It's a weak excuse that covered for the cheap/bad ownership the Brewers had in the 1990s and early 2000s when the sport grew past the point where Selig could afford it. Mark Attanasio has proven that with deep pockets and good stewardship a small-market team can do just fine.

 

No the Brewers will not be able to sign big free agents, but neither can teams in at least half of the markets, and the game has really evolved beyond that anyway. With front offices, including ours, getting far more savvy about controllable years or locking down players early, the day where the success of a team is determined by a free agent signing is waning.

 

And this system only works without a salary cap. If there was a salary cap, there would be all kinds of road blocks in the way of building a team by locking down young talent. The only way I'd ever support a MLB salary cap is if it was a NBA-style soft cap with tons of exceptions and some form of the Larry Bird rule.

 

And I'd say the NFL cap has been bad for the sport. The NFL is awash in mediocrity and the games are suffering. The on-field product is extremely mediocre because the hard cap is anathema to real team building.

 

And, no, I don't care that all 32 teams can theoretically "be in it". I want something watchable on a Sunday to Sunday basis. Baseball doesn't have the same issue.

 

This is ridiculous almost across the board. All the advantages small markets have with controllable years, etc...big markets have that too with very very few disadvantages...and they still manage to get their hands on the highest priced prospect talent along with big time free agents. Our margin for error with franchise building is much smaller than big markets, every mistake is magnified. We need to be significantly better and luckier than big markets to compete with them. And considering they can pay more for better scouts and the best GM's and other baseball people, that isn't likely. I'm personally terrified that the Red Sox will get fed up with Dombrowski and offer to double or triple Stearns salary to work for them. We hit the jackpot with him, but I feel like he'll be farmed by the big markets the same way Fielder, Greinke, and CC were.

[brewerfan82]

NFL is a terrible example because they have a salary cap. Not saying salary caps makes things fair, but it works pretty well in the NFL. We are at a massive disadvantage in the MLB. Wild Cards are a big accomplishment believe it or not for us.

 

I thought this argument died in the 2000s. It's a weak excuse that covered for the cheap/bad ownership the Brewers had in the 1990s and early 2000s when the sport grew past the point where Selig could afford it. Mark Attanasio has proven that with deep pockets and good stewardship a small-market team can do just fine.

 

No the Brewers will not be able to sign big free agents, but neither can teams in at least half of the markets, and the game has really evolved beyond that anyway. With front offices, including ours, getting far more savvy about controllable years or locking down players early, the day where the success of a team is determined by a free agent signing is waning.

 

And this system only works without a salary cap. If there was a salary cap, there would be all kinds of road blocks in the way of building a team by locking down young talent. The only way I'd ever support a MLB salary cap is if it was a NBA-style soft cap with tons of exceptions and some form of the Larry Bird rule.

 

And I'd say the NFL cap has been bad for the sport. The NFL is awash in mediocrity and the games are suffering. The on-field product is extremely mediocre because the hard cap is anathema to real team building.

 

And, no, I don't care that all 32 teams can theoretically "be in it". I want something watchable on a Sunday to Sunday basis. Baseball doesn't have the same issue.

I guess it's just a coincidence that teams in the top 10 in payroll have made it to the playoffs at over double the rate of teams in the bottom 10 in payroll the past 5 years (48% vs. 22%)

[homer]

IMO, The biggest advantage big markets have is being able to rapidly overcome expensive mistakes.

[tmwiese55]

Are you sure about the wild card thing? I always thought it was stupid but noticed some time ago the "2008 wild card champions" thing was painted over. We must be referring to something else, because I'm 100% certain the thing in left was painted over. I've looked right at the paint splotch over it many, many times.

 

As far as celebrating division titles being "embarrassing" I'll digress. The Packers still put them on the ring. The Bucks owned the 80s and still noted them all.

 

It's an achievement that should be celebrated. I think calling it embarrassing is frankly just being a sourpuss. You won the division. It's a good thing.

 

I was there this weekend and did notice they still have the Wild Card pennant thing on the left field wall.

[KeithStone53151]

IMO, The biggest advantage big markets have is being able to rapidly overcome expensive mistakes.

 

Right. Us making a $5 million error is about as impactful as the Dodgers making a $30 million error.

[Bob Skube Snacks]

IMO, The biggest advantage big markets have is being able to rapidly overcome expensive mistakes.

 

Bingo. Merely "having money" doesn't guarantee anything. Plenty of teams have spent without reward. Ask the Dodgers under Fox ownership for a good example. They spent like drunken sailors and didn't win squat. The Angels of recent vintage have spent a lot too without anything to show for it.

 

Having the money to throw away is what matters. The Brewers don't have that luxury and never will. A bad free agent signing (cough Jeff Suppan) is an albatross where it isn't for large-market teams.

 

I used to *****-and-moan about this ad nauseum in the 1990s, I fell hook, line and sinker for the 90s era Selig-style whining about competitive disadvantage back then, but I've been over that forever.

 

A salary cap isn't suddenly going to fix what ails small market teams. Milwaukee still isn't going to be a draw for high-tier free agents no matter what system is used. See the Milwaukee Bucks.

 

And I'd submit that a cap that makes teams pay for their mistakes isn't good for a league as a whole. Look at NBA teams that get hamstrung by the cap. While it might be "satisfying" to watch, say, the Knicks, struggle for years on end because of cap problems, it's not good for the competitiveness of the sport or its fans. It's funny to laugh at teams like that ... until it becomes your own team that falls victim to it. (I'm not a Knicks fan for damn sight, just using them as an example.)

 

Without a cap, you just have to be smart with your money. You have to be smart with your talent. You have to be smart about recognizing diamonds in the rough and international talent. Fortunately, it seems our organization gets it.

 

A team is as good as its owner. We're fortunate to have Attanasio, who will spend beyond the bounds of our market when he feels it's worth it, but also gives the front office leeway to build the right way.

 

We could be Pittsburgh. They build the right way, but when it comes to brass tacks and they need a piece or two to augment their home-grown talent, they're miserly and try to do it the cheap way. That's one reason why their window has closed so quickly. They have a half-assed commitment to being successful. If they can't do it with their controllable talent, they won't do it. Can't say that for Attanasio.

 

Hell, we could be Miami, Oakland or San Diego, which seem to exist to be asset-stripped by everyone else by choice of their own ownership (or Miami's former ownership). There's no system that saves them from themselves.

[tmwiese55]

Probably the most realistic 'solution' to this is more revenue sharing as opposed to a cap. Some issues with cap system were just pointed and just overall I think we all know it's not realistic to get the big markets to agree to it. They've obviously tweaked towards more revenue sharing and competitive balance at every new CBA. Just have to keep going that direction little by little, it's really all that can be done. So maybe the ~120mil we see as the Brewers breakeven points goes up enough to match inflation but to nudge closer and closer to the top teams. Next thing you know you can afford 140-150 mil and an 11mil albatross isn't a killer anymore

[Bob Skube Snacks]

Probably the most realistic 'solution' to this is more revenue sharing as opposed to a cap. Some issues with cap system were just pointed and just overall I think we all know it's not realistic to get the big markets to agree to it. They've obviously tweaked towards more revenue sharing and competitive balance at every new CBA. Just have to keep going that direction little by little, it's really all that can be done. So maybe the ~120mil we see as the Brewers breakeven points goes up enough to match inflation but to nudge closer and closer to the top teams. Next thing you know you can afford 140-150 mil and an 11mil albatross isn't a killer anymore

 

You also have to figure out how to make small-market teams apply that money to the on-field product, not just pocket it as many have done. Cheap, small-market owners have done as much damage to the concept of revenue-sharing as the rich clubs have.

 

At some point, no matter the system, you are what you are. Milwaukee is a small market. No cap or any other system is going to change that. When people shout "cap!" I just don't know where they think it's going to make things better, especially with guaranteed contracts. Can you imagine a NFL hard cap system with guaranteed contracts? It would be a mess.

 

There's no artificial way to put the Brewers on par with the Yankees or other big-market clubs that doesn't have significant ramifications in other ways, not the least of which, is that as tmwiese55 said, they'd never agree to it in the first place.

 

To paraphrase another famous phrase, "it's about the owner, stupid." If you have a good one, and I think we do, you can overcome most of the economic disadvantages a market creates. But if you have a bad owner or a cheap one or an under-capitalized one? You can't because they don't have the ability or wherewithall to be competitive.

 

Look at the clubs that have struggled in the 2010s. I would submit that virtually none of them have an owner that has a vision for his team aside from cost control or profit. The organizations where winning is a secondary consideration show their rear ends time after time. No cap or any economic system changes that.

[KeithStone53151]

Probably the most realistic 'solution' to this is more revenue sharing as opposed to a cap. Some issues with cap system were just pointed and just overall I think we all know it's not realistic to get the big markets to agree to it. They've obviously tweaked towards more revenue sharing and competitive balance at every new CBA. Just have to keep going that direction little by little, it's really all that can be done. So maybe the ~120mil we see as the Brewers breakeven points goes up enough to match inflation but to nudge closer and closer to the top teams. Next thing you know you can afford 140-150 mil and an 11mil albatross isn't a killer anymore

 

This is spot on. Revenue sharing should be better for smaller market teams. Total baseball revenue and interest would drop significantly if it was an 8-12 team league of big markets instead of 30.

[Baldkin]

As of 1:30 PM central time on 9/26 (Tuesday)

 

The Brewers have 6 games remaining. The Rockies have 5. The Cardinals have 6, with the obvious 3 against the Brewers. For the Brewers to make the playoffs, they'll have to eliminate the Cardinals from WC contention.

 

The Rockies Magic Number is 5 over the Brewers, 6 over the Cardinals.

 

Here's what needs to happen for the 'Crew to TIE the Rockies:

Both of these scenarios eliminate the Cardinals.

Brewers 6-0, Rockies 4-1.

Brewers 5-1, Rockies 3-2. 87-75.

 

3 way tie possibility:

Brewers 4-2, Rockies 2-3. Cardinals 5-1 (losing 1 game to the 'Crew). 86-76.

 

Other 3-way tie scenarios:

Brewers go 3-3, Cardinals go 4-2, Rockies go 1-5.

Brewers go 2-4, Cardinals go 3-3, Rockies go 0-6.

 

Both of these Scenarios have the Cards sweeping the Brewers (and bf.net collectively losing their minds)

 

Let's go Crew!!

[Patrick425]

As of 1:30 PM central time on 9/26 (Tuesday)

 

The Rockies Magic Number is 5 over the Brewers, 6 over the Cardinals.

 

 

I believe their magic number over the Cards is 4, not 6.

 

Also, per your examples, the Brewers magic number over the Rockies is 8 (7 to tie).

[JohnBriggs12]

The Cubs have dominated the Cardinals this year. Assuming they clinch tonight, the concern is Maddon will probably start the Iowa Cubs the next two games.

[KeithStone53151]

The Cubs have dominated the Cardinals this year. Assuming they clinch tonight, the concern is Maddon will probably start the Iowa Cubs the next two games.

 

I don't think they have enough guys up from AAA to get away with that. I suspect these teams that are clinching will still play their regular guys for the most part, but will be sure to give them a rest day or two and might pull them early in games.

[adambr2]

Subject: Wild Card: Forget about it

 

The Cubs have dominated the Cardinals this year. Assuming they clinch tonight, the concern is Maddon will probably start the Iowa Cubs the next two games.

 

If we take care of business vs. Cincy with a sweep those last 2 games with the Cards and Cubs are of little consequence anyway. We'd be at least 2 up heading into the last series so they couldn't pass us without sweeping at which point let's be honest, it'd be game over for us anyway.

[bill hAll Star]

The Cardinals/Cubs games does not mean a ton to the WC chase from the Brewers' perspective unless we are rooting for the Cards to miss.

 

The Rockies are going to have to go something like 1-4 or 0-5 for it to matter from the Brewers' perspective and we play the Cards in the final series.

 

It's something to consider given that it's still in the realm of possibility that the Rockies completely flame out and the Brewers go 4-2 while the Cards go 5-1 (in which case, 1 game for last spot), but we likely need to worry about the Rockies and only the Rockies.

[adambr2]

Unfortunately if we end up in a 2 way tie with the Rockies they will host the game.

 

Reason being the tiebreaker will be games within the division since we are tied with them head to head. Which seems totally dumb to me. We don't even play in the same division, so how is their division record relevant to ours in any way in terms of a tiebreaker?

 

The result would be the same if it went by league record but at least I would understand it then.