Kimbrel?

[Brew crew 92]

You can nit pick my words and statements to death if you want to, there certainly far from perfect but the overall take is true. Currently we are not a small market revenue wise so let’s STOP talking like we are is all I’m really saying. Now I don’t know what the future holds so maybe 6 yrs from now we rebuild a little or a lot, revenues go down as does PAYROLL. Mark A again does NOT lose $. He never has, and probably won’t moving forward. I wish we had a mike ilitch type owner but that’s A dinosaur in baseball today. Current owners are not die hard fans of the team that only care about winning, they are wealth focused men that see a great investment in buying a mlb team. Bottom line is the wealth or profit not winning. I’m not saying mark A doesn’t want to win, because I think he does but he’s still a money focused business man. My Bud Selig reference I keep mentioning for the few that don’t know in my opinion is the most UNDERRATED and LEAST appreciated people in base ball history. Only reason “Small Market” teams even exist let alone able to compete IS because of his stewardship as commissioner for 25 years. No details here, if you don’t already know this trust me it’s true. I hope we know how many times he SAVED the brewers. An autobiographical book is coming out this June about Mr. Selig >can’t wait to read it.

 

The man was a diehard fan BEFORE he created our franchise, while owner for 22 years won 7 Organization of the year awards, also had baseball HIGHEST payroll several times, just think on that for moment. Got miller park built just to keep brewers in Milwaukee. My best memory of him walking outside county stadium many times alone with his stogie talking with us fans about brewer baseball.

 

There is no fan still as Die Hard a brewer fan than Bud Selig

Only one close is Bob Uecker.

[HiAndTight]

 

I stated earlier that “I know people don’t mind Mark taking a loss, because it’s obviously not their money”. His response was “I can’t hear how Mark could possibly take a loss for us to win a World Series ever again, it’s nauseating”. That is a direct response saying it’s nauseating for him to hear about Mark taking a loss this year to attempt to get a World Series.

 

He stated that the valuation of the Brewers has increased, but failed to realize that doesn’t directly affect the amount of money available for Mark to spend. You stated “he (Brew crew 92) doesn't believe that he(Mark A) would lose money and that he finds the ARGUMENT being made nauseating”. Him saying “we deserve A payroll of whatever it takes to win a World Series when we’re contending“ added with his quote of “I can’t hear how Mark could possibly take a loss for us to win a World Series ever again, it’s nauseating”, he is definitely suggesting Mark to take a loss. I don’t think trying to say that I’m pretty much lying and making up what he says is fair at all. These are direct quotes that were stated in this thread.

 

Yes,and they're also incomplete. He talks extensively about how why HE BELIEVES that the Brewers WOULDN'T be losing money and makes several points. You take parts of each point and then ignore the part that doesn't support the clearly cute, but inaccurate one-liner of It’s nauseating that a business owner doesn’t want to lose money?

 

 

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you were being intellectually dishonest at best. He said he can't "hear" the arguments that he's going to lose money and then supported that with little factual actual data other than the increase in the valuation of the team, and supposition about how much the team has made, how much they would make and how much a playoff run would bring the team.

 

 

What he absolutely DID NOT SAY was that "it's nauseating that a business owner doesn't want to lose money," because he's made it clear he doesn't believe he IS losing money, in fact, just the opposite.

 

And for the record, as incomplete as his facts are on how much money this team has or how much they would have to spend in order to lose money, you're in the same boat. The only thing we know is that he's made a helluva lot of money just on the valuation of the team since he purchased it.

 

He never said it was nauseating for a business owner to not want to lose money, Mark A has never said anything about losing money(though he HAS always said that if the team was close and there was a game changing player, they'd find the money, though I don't know if Kimbrel fits that description). But back to the premise. You know that's not what he said. Argue with the words actual stated. Don't re-arrange what was said. When you have to go back and re-arrange and then re-quote what he said, you know that you're mis-representing his argument.

 

When he talks about how he's made nearly a billion dollars on the team alone, that right there tells you he doesn't believe Mark A is losing money, he's not buying YOUR arguments that Mark A is losing money. THAT is what he finds nauseating, the argument that he's losing money. You can twist it however you'd like with his ill-concieved "we deserve this" argument, but the two were seperate. He doesn't believe Mark A is losing money, he finds people making that argument nauseating. Full stop.

 

YOu responded by saying, "so you think a business owner not wanting to lose money is nauseating." If you see that as a intellectually honest exchange, then I'm not sure what to say.

[HiAndTight]

You can nit pick my words and statements to death if you want to, there certainly far from perfect but the overall take is true. Currently we are not a small market revenue wise so let’s STOP talking like we are is all I’m really saying. Now I don’t know what the future holds so maybe 6 yrs from now we rebuild a little or a lot, revenues go down as does PAYROLL. Mark A again does NOT lose $. He never has, and probably won’t moving forward. I wish we had a mike ilitch type owner but that’s A dinosaur in baseball today. Current owners are not die hard fans of the team that only care about winning, they are wealth focused men that see a great investment in buying a mlb team. Bottom line is the wealth or profit not winning. I’m not saying mark A doesn’t want to win, because I think he does but he’s still a money focused business man. My Bud Selig reference I keep mentioning for the few that don’t know in my opinion is the most UNDERRATED and LEAST appreciated people in base ball history. Only reason “Small Market” teams even exist let alone able to compete IS because of his stewardship as commissioner for 25 years. No details here, if you don’t already know this trust me it’s true. I hope we know how many times he SAVED the brewers. An autobiographical book is coming out this June about Mr. Selig >can’t wait to read it.

 

The man was a diehard fan BEFORE he created our franchise, while owner for 22 years won 7 Organization of the year awards, also had baseball HIGHEST payroll several times, just think on that for moment. Got miller park built just to keep brewers in Milwaukee. My best memory of him walking outside county stadium many times alone with his stogie talking with us fans about brewer baseball.

 

There is no fan still as Die Hard a brewer fan than Bud Selig

Only one close is Bob Uecker.

 

 

Ok, I'm with you...kinda. But where you start to lose me is when you even bring up Bud and Ueck. To what end? Bud Selid is the greatest figure in the history of Milwaukee Baseball. I think most of us accept that. Ueck is the most beloved. We get that as well. I'm missing any correlation between them and how much Mark A spends.

 

I'd also say that your rosy picture of old school business owners spending whatever it took to win as being just laugahably incorrect. There are jokes about guys like Ted Williams getting cut after he went from hitting .400 to hitting .380 or whatever.

 

 

Baseball owners have always been extremely greedy, though one of the few today who really can't be accused of this is Mark A. Now you may feel he "owes" us because we spend more per capita than any other fan base, but that's partially because we've got a tiny fan base.

 

And you keep doting on Mike Illitch. He was a multi-billionaire desperate to see his team win before he died, so he threw around money. He didn't care. Once he died, they started slashing the payroll.

 

I think both sides are pretty skewed on this.

 

 

Mark A didn't buy a NORMAL business, so lets not pretend he did. He bought a cash cow that relies on public financing in part(the stadium) and on the fan base to spend money to keep his team solvent. We've done MORE than enough on our end.

 

The question seems to be if Mark A has done enough on his end. Not sure how you say no at this point. He hasn't refused to sign Kimbrel for example, he simply hasn't done it YET.

 

The players he's let go...with the excetion of Grienke, were all wise decisions and he's spent when we've needed him to.

 

So what we're owed as opposed to what we're getting is a totally, 100 pct subjective question and it can't possibly be answered factually.

Less hyperbole and thinnly vieled politics in this thread might help each other understand what the other is trying to say more clearly.

[pacopete4]

So did we sign Kimbrel yet? Maybe we should change the thread title on this one.

[Brew crew 92]

Sorry for the tangent. Mark A FINE OWNER especially when you compare him to some of the others. It’s probably a little early for me to complain about our payroll, let’s see what happens.

[TURBO]

Mark A. not a die hard fan of the team he owns?

 

You can't tell by his actions and the things he says that he is a die hard Brewers fan?

 

Geez.

 

That is a very ridiculous statement to make.

[Brew crew 92]

Mark A. not a die hard fan of the team he owns?

 

You can't tell by his actions and the things he says that he is a die hard Brewers fan?

 

Geez.

 

That is a very ridiculous statement to make.

 

Not what I said, if you want to argue this more:

Spending thread bumped

[KCBrewerfan34]

Questioning Mark A is bordering on lunacy. OOPS I mean it is lunacy. He's one the best.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Questioning Mark A is bordering on lunacy. OOPS I mean it is lunacy. He's one the best.

 

Asking that Attanasio go above Stearns' head to sign a reliever I think could be lunacy as well.

[KCBrewerfan34]

They would have a discussion, since our payroll is in uncharted territory It’s probably Mark A’s call to extend the budget.

 

Last year at the deadline DS asked if he could get Moose or Gio (I think they were the 2) and Mark said try to get both, and of course he did.

[True Blue Brew Crew]

I am sure if there was any big issue with his elbow it would have came out

 

You're right, there's no middle ground. His elbow must be clean or we would have heard by now.

 

Look, I'm not even saying definitely that the holdup is the medicals. I'm just trying to lay out the many possibilities that could be the reason Kimbrel has yet to sign with the Brewers or anyone. For people to resurrect the "Stearns is drawing a hard line" or "Attanasio is cheap" narratives is ridiculous. It could be those things, it could be some concern over Kimbrel's arm, it could be a combination of all of these things. For anyone to make a definitive statement, as we're seeing some people do, is senseless.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

They would have a discussion, since our payroll is in uncharted territory It’s probably Mark A’s call to extend the budget.

 

Last year at the deadline DS asked if he could get Moose or Gio (I think they were the 2) and Mark said try to get both, and of course he did.

 

Of course. There is a pretty big ideological difference though, between Stearns asking Attanasio to stretch the budget, and Attanasio going above Stearns to sign a guy that Stearns advised against due to cost. Of course, this is all hypothetical speculation, though.

[Brew crew 92]

Questioning Mark A is bordering on lunacy. OOPS I mean it is lunacy. He's one the best.

 

Asking that Attanasio go above Stearns' head to sign a reliever I think could be lunacy as well.

 

Why is it “Lunacy” to ask an owner to override his employee to sign one of the best relievers in baseball history? And then take the blame for it IF it didn’t work? He’s already done this in the past with kyle Loshe, and then took the blame when didn’t work out so well. This time probably work out better.

[82brewcrew82]

If you want to run DS out of town then that would certainly be a quick way to achieve that. I know if my boss started arbitrarily making decisions about my project or my team, I'd be out the door before you could say lunacy. You undermine my position like that and we've got a problem.

[Brew crew 92]

Questioning Mark A is bordering on lunacy. OOPS I mean it is lunacy. He's one the best.

 

Read post #322, he explains it better than I could.

[Brew crew 92]

If you want to run DS out of town then that would certainly be a quick way to achieve that. I know if my boss started arbitrarily making decisions about my project or my team, I'd be out the door before you could say lunacy. You undermine my position like that and we've got a problem.

 

Sure, but I think your missing the point.

 

Stearns: I’ve made the best offer I can based off our analytics department info

 

Mark A: is it gonna be enough to get him signed?

 

Stearns: maybe maybe not.

 

Mark A: Give me his agents number so I can offer more to get him signed because he helps our pen more than any other pitcher and this way I’ll take the blame for slightly overspending to preserve your stellar record of sticking to a figure and not budging.

 

This is what I meant when I said go over his head to sign him.

Sorry, should have explained it better.

[82brewcrew82]

If DS needs cover for the decisions he makes then he isnt the GM I thought he was. That whole theory is unrealistic and unnecessarily complicated.

[Brew crew 92]

If DS needs cover for the decisions he makes then he isnt the GM I thought he was. That whole theory is unrealistic and unnecessarily complicated.

 

Yes. Just tryin for some levity

[brewmann04]

Yes i can see Mark doing that.

[OnTheBlack]

If you want to run DS out of town then that would certainly be a quick way to achieve that. I know if my boss started arbitrarily making decisions about my project or my team, I'd be out the door before you could say lunacy. You undermine my position like that and we've got a problem.

 

 

Yeah, but it's not Stearns team, it's the OWNERS team. It's right there in the title.

 

And it's not an arbitrary move.

 

Now if my billionaire boss wants to improve the team HE owns and HE is responsible for and is willing to spend even more money to do so, then we've got zero problems.

 

What you're describing would be just pure pettiness. Obviously Stearns wants Kimbrel. So the issue is the money. If the guy who is responsible for that money wants to go and say, "screw it, we'll pay the extra money," I can't fathom why someone would be upset with that, ESPECIALLY if it's because that GM drew an arbitrary line in the sand and said he wanted this player, but only for a certain price.

[OnTheBlack]

If DS needs cover for the decisions he makes then he isnt the GM I thought he was. That whole theory is unrealistic and unnecessarily complicated.

 

 

 

Again, c'mon. If Mark A overspends to get the best and most talented team the Brewers have seen arguably since 1982(when an injured reliever cost them a world series title incidentally) and pays more than Stearns analytics department deems that play is worth, then your opinion of Stearns goes down and he's not the GM you thought he was?

 

That SINGLE move, a move that Mark A has pulled before would erase(or at the very least diminish) the Yelich trade, the Cain signing, the dozens of other moves that Mark A obviously had nothing to do with that turned the Brewers around with one top 10 draft pick and without the benefit of 4-5 years of top 5 picks like the Cubs, Astros or other teams?

 

I think that's sad. It doesn't kinda speak to our culture though, how much we love to judge people from afar and then if they don't live up to what we've created in our own minds for their standards, take away from what they've accomplished.

[DuWayne Steurer]

And it's not an arbitrary move.

 

Now if my billionaire boss wants to improve the team HE owns and HE is responsible for and is willing to spend even more money to do so, then we've got zero problems.

 

 

If I'm Stearns and I've decided that Kimbrel (at his price) isn't what the team needs, and Mark A comes in and says "pay it/do it/get it done", and then Kimbrel flops, and there isn't any money left to do my job at the deadline because we spent money on the big FA reliever that the owner wanted, I'd be extremely pissed.

 

Stearns has a vision for how he wants to build this team. Mark A hired him because he trusted Stearns' vision. Stepping on his toes in this manner disrupts the entire process and the vision.

[brewmann04]

I know a lot of people are saying we need to keep money for a possible trade @ the trade deadline which i understand but why not be proactive instead of having to wait till the deadline and maybe overpay?

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

I know a lot of people are saying we need to keep money for a possible trade @ the trade deadline which i understand but why not be proactive instead of having to wait till the deadline and maybe overpay?

 

I don't know ... I think signing the best catcher on the market, then signing the best 3B on the market, only to play him at 2B, is pretty dang proactive for a team that won 96 games and didn't really lose a ton during the offseason.

[brewmann04]

actually i was talking about the pitching Joey