Life Without Prince Fielder
by Jordan M on Jan 26, 2012 4:06 PM CST
Email
Print
In the past few days since Prince Fielder has signed with the Tigers, a few friends who are aware that I am an avid Brewers fan have brought it up with some predictable sentiments. "It sucks that the Brewers lost Fielder," or "baseball should have a salary cap," or "it sucks how baseball teams can't keep their best players." I usually just sigh and agree because I do not feel the need to go into a lengthy lecture about the real truth of the matter. In the future I might just link them to this post to explain why everyone that's a Brewer fan should take this news in stride.
It was extremely unlikely that Prince Fielder was ever going to be a Brewer after his first six years in the big leagues. After his 50-homer season in 2007 it was pretty clear that Prince was going to make a ton of money. The Brewers offered something like 5 years and $100 million when Prince entered arbitration, and when that was turned down there was no chance Fielder was going to be a Brewer beyond 2012. The Brewers knew it, Prince Fielder knew it, and some of the fans knew it.
Prince Fielder did not ask to play for Milwaukee. He is an asset that the Brewers drafted. He was obligated to play here for 6 years, 3 for a salary far below what his talents are worth, and 3 more at a still discounted rate. He gave the Brewers organization everything he had. There's no expectation that he needed to sign here. Prince did just about everything right.
The other piece of the puzzle is that the Brewers could have afforded Prince Fielder. There is certainly an imbalance in the competitive ability of the different franchises in MLB, but there's not some imaginary barrier between teams that can afford superstars versus teams that cannot. For the salaries of Randy Wolf, Rickie Weeks, and Corey Hart, the Brewers could have paid Prince Fielder $26 million next season. The Brewers think that those three players, together, will provide more value in 2012, and they are almost certainly right. That says nothing of 9 years from now, when Fielder will be making $25 million and most likely be nowhere near the production he had as a youngster when the Brewers were paying him $500,000.
The Brewers have to pick and choose when building a team. Some teams can afford to pay market value for a star coming out of his arbitration years, knowing full well that they will be paying close to market value for a few years and most likely overpaying significantly for the last few years of a deal. The only real viable strategy for a team like the Brewers to keep superstars beyond their arbitration years to identify them early. Ryan Braun did not sign his long-term extension as early as, say, Evan Longoria, but it's very clear he could have made a lot more money if he were to test the free agent market.
The Brewers do not need Prince Fielder to win in 2012. They are much better off filling the roster off by plugging holes and relying on cheap players like Mat Gamel and Taylor Green to fill out the roster. I think most Brewer fans understand that but it did not stop me from saying it anyways. If the Brewers, say, traded Randy Wolf and Corey Hart, and not elected to sign Aramis Ramirez, they could have afforded Fielder in 2012. The team, however, would not have been improved.
When Prince Fielder next plays in Milwaukee, hopefully in the 2012 World Series, I hope the crowd stays classy and lays off the booing. He did his time and is now rich beyond anyone's wildest dreams. He did not have to stay here, and the Brewers did not really need him to stay here. We had the privilege of watching Prince play for 6 whole years. I hope he sets all kinds of records playing with Detroit, but the Brewers are in the business of winning a World Series, not giving us a sentimental Brewer-for-life when it's not practical economically or smart in a baseball sense. The Brewers will move on without Fielder, and Fielder will move on without the Brewers. They say a breakup is never really mutual, but I think this one is. Hopefully we can still be friends.
71 comments
|
Add comment
|
4 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I wish him nothing but the best
I’m glad, for his sake, that he and his father are getting along better than they have in recent years. I can’t imagine the shear annoyance of getting asked all of the questions about Cecil in Detroit, etc, etc, etc. The fact that they at least speak on occasion, should make the transition easier.
I too hope that he sets all sorts of records with Detroit and makes an even bigger name for himself. There will always be the small twinge of regret if/when he does it. For no other reason than the fact that Milwaukee wasn’t able to keep him. I won’t feel bad about feeling that way, but it won’t be an irrational, “WE SHOULD HAVE KEPT HIM” emotional rant that some will launch into.
But looking at the core group of guys on this team, we’ll be fine. The “we” in that sentence is meant for the fans. We’ll have plenty to watch for the next several years to keep us interested and to be honest, I think we may be better off. There are some understandable IF’s that go along with this: IF Gamel finds his game in the majors, IF Braun comes back strong from the possible suspension, IF Ramirez can maintain, IF they can find a long term solution at SS…
Good luck Prince. Hopefully we see you at the end of October. I’ll be cheering for you until then. :) But when you come to Milwaukee again, I won’t boo you. In fact I’ll probably tell those around me to shut it when they do. I’ll just sit back and hope you strike out. And I will cheer if you do. Afterall, you’re not a Brewer any more. :)
"The Milwaukee Brewers' line score is starting to resemble an international phone number" - Pittsburgh Pirates Radio during 20-0 shutout - 4-22-10
Anyone who's mad...
…wasn’t alive when Kareem forced his way out of town. Granted, neither was I, but he’s a guy who earned the boos he got when he returned (and earned them further when he broke what’s-his-name’s face). And now we look back and say, “Wow, Kareem was a Buck! He won a championship here!” Prince shouldn’t need that of a generation to be welcomed back. If and when he’s here again, I hope at least a part of him feels at home.
If Braun hadn't signed his extensions
Would 2012 have been his walk year? Or would he have been a Super 2? I’ve got no problem with losing Fielder, but man, how depressing would losing Fielder and Braun in back-to-back seasons have been?
by Cheeseandcorn on Jan 26, 2012 6:22 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
It's no fun to lose Prince
But TBH I would be much more upset if Weeks left.
Mark Attanasio is the best.
Jordan, your friends are right.
I’m a fan of your writing and your analysis. Always have been. I even agree with a lot of what you say in this article. I also get the point that you’re trying to make when you point out, correctly, that the Brewers could afford to bring Fielder back and simply opted not to do so because they thought they would be better going another way.
You’re presenting that choice, again accurately, as one of two possible outcomes: either they sign Prince or they trade at least 1/5 of their rotation and fail to upgrade themselves at two other positions due to a lack of resources. I’ve got no problem with that analysis either because it’s clearly the truth. What I have a problem with is this sentiment:
There is certainly an imbalance in the competitive ability of the different franchises in MLB, but there’s not some imaginary barrier between teams that can afford superstars versus teams that cannot.
Even with the qualifier that sentence is misleading. No there’s not some magical barrier between teams that can afford superstars and those that can’t. The barrier is a simple lack of access to resources regardless of the talent and capabilities of the business side team OR the baseball people in the front office. People like to hold up the Brewers as an example of the competitive balance in MLB, but the reality is that they’re the exact opposite. They demonstrate the problem far more clearly, in my opinion, than the Royals ever could. This is a franchise that does everything right on the business side, that has maxed out the income it can generate from its market, and in spite of that they’ve now lost two elite players they wanted to retain because they couldn’t begin to compete with the financial offers they received elsewhere.
Yeah, they could have traded Wolf, ignored the problems at 3B and SS, dealt another one of their core players (or two) and they might have gotten to the fringes of what Fielder signed for. MAYBE. The problem is that their should be a 3rd choice. Any sports league should reward its best run franchises, and any sports league should strive for a circumstance where a team has a shot to retain the players it wants to. Now maybe Prince would have gone elsewhere anyway. Maybe he really wanted to go to Detroit, or maybe he really wanted to go somewhere else, and if the money had been the same he’d have left Milwaukee anyway. I wouldn’t hate him for it and I wouldn’t boo him for it. That’s the business. So be it. But right now, even if it’s better than it was 15 or more years ago, this is still a league where well run businesses like the Brewers can’t compete for the top talent on the free agent market, even when that talent called this team home for six years without casting the franchise into the depths of noncompetitiveness.
It shouldn’t be a situation where a handful of teams can sign the best guy on the market and still keep the balance of their team intact while others, no matter how well their business is run, would have to gut their team in order to sign the same guy. The Tigers are a perfect example of the former: they’ve committed over almost half a billion to three guys who essentially play the same position. When they lost one of them to a blown knee, they threw 214 million at the problem and basically obliterated it by signing a check. Is that smart? Honestly, I don’t give a damn if it’s smart over the life of the contract or not. I care that it demonstrates the ongoing problem with baseball economics.
Major League Baseball has failed to fix that problem. They’ve failed to construct a system that creates economic competitiveness that can then be reflected on the field. I don’t want a league where everyone finishes 81-81, I want a league where a well run franchise can compete on the field indefinitely, and where teams that suck seemingly forever suck because their bad at what they do, not because they’re bad at what they do and they lack the resources to pursue the fixes other, richer teams that aren’t run much better can resort to. You can sigh condescendingly to your friends if you like, but they’re still right. It still sucks that the Brewers lost Fielder, it still sucks that some teams can’t keep their best players (unless like Braun they lock themselves in by signing a below market deal for an early payday), and yeah, baseball SHOULD have a salary cap. Just because you’ve adjusted your expectations (as have I) about the ability to retain Fielder and you like the moves that the Brewers made to try to stay competitive in his absence (as do I) doesn’t mean your friends are wrong.
And one more thing: it’s this sort of complacency regarding the economic structure of this league that makes me nuts. Yeah, it’s better than it was. But it’s not good enough. And every baseball fan that sighs when others complain or persuades themselves that there isn’t really that big of a problem is making it just a little bit less likely that MLB will ever get its economic house in order. And that’s a shame, because that economic imbalance distracts people from the game’s beauty and power.
Rant complete.
And get the hell out of my yard.
"fortunate, but also lucky"
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Jan 26, 2012 7:47 PM CST reply actions 12 recs
In the end I hope the solution lies in the sharing of online revenues
I wish there was a good, simple way to share revenues better but right now there’s the problem that an owner can slash payroll and keep the revenue sharing pot and turn a profit yearly on the franchise. I don’t think it’s awesome that the Brewers don’t really have an option to keep Fielder beyond his 6 years. But I guess when the only option is to embrace the underdog role and hope they run the franchise as well as possible, I guess I’m going to embrace it. Agree with everything you said though.
E: George 4 (5, throw, throw, throw, throw).
by Jordan M on Jan 26, 2012 8:04 PM CST up reply actions 2 recs
One of the primary problems with fostering a competitive balance is that the national audience isn't really there
With the NFL, and to some extent, the NBA, there’s a national interest in watching most games if they’re on TV. I know I pretty much only want to watch the Brewers in baseball, whereas I’m willing to watch an AFC matchup between two weaker teams.
Another way to help balance fianances would be to share TV revenue
Unfortunately I don’t think that there is anyway now of getting teams like the Yankees,Angels or Red Sox to share the money that they make from the seperate TV deals that they have made.
I think that the way to eliminate owners slashing payroll and still making profit year on year a la the Pirates or Marlins over the last 10 years would be, since there is penalty for failure at the moment, to have some sort of promotion and relegation system like how most league systems in Europe operate.
If the minor leagues were set free from their major league teams and left to build their own teams it would over time make owners try and win. Also since teams would only have a squad of say 40 rather than 150? players (If you include all the minor leaguers) alot of young talent would go to the lower level teams since major league teams would only be able to carry a certain amount of 18 and 19 year olds and still be able to compete.
It would also make it easier for people who want to own a major league get involved since they could take control of AAA or even AA teams and try and make it into the major leagues.
It would also save all major league teams alot of money since they would not be supporting all their affiliates but I think that this would have a proportionately bigger impact on the smaller market teams.
I realise that something like this will probably never happen because it would require the current owners of MLB teams agreeing to it and since this would jepordise their investment in what ever team they own they are almost certainly going to say no.
That's actually an interesting idea with the minors.
If its set up where MLB controls the minor league system and every year the MLB teams draft from the AAA player pool, that would probably be the best way to achieve some sort of competitive balance between large and small market teams. I think the biggest problem would be controling transfers between the different levels. There would almost still need to be a chain of affiliates from rookie or single A all the way up unless there was some sort of draft at every level.
I would prefer no draft at all
People should be able to sign with who ever they want to.
I do not see why there needs to be a chain of affiliates at every level.
I could see major league teams having an under 23 team to all younger players to develop but after that, if a player is not good enough for a franchise to be part of their major league squad, then they will have to get rid of them or be left to pay for a player that is not contributing to the team…
That's basically the set up for the Premier League, right?
Then you have the potential for AAA teams to get promoted to the major league level. Now you’re talking about threatening the monopoly power of the MLB owners which will only happen in 50 years when MLB declares bankruptcy.
That is correct
The English football system is a pyramidal system with the EPL at the top and is goes down about 13 levels.I think a similar system could work in baseball.
Having the draft at the AAA level rather than the amateur level would really increase parity for another reason
It would dramatically reduce the amount of uncertainty in the draft. So as a team with a top pick, instead of drafting a projectable 18-year-old with a 30% chance of making a real impact in the big leagues, you’d be drafting a 22-year-old with an established minor-league track record and an almost certain chance of making a nearly immediate impact in the big leagues.
So rather than getting a lottery ticket that may or may not pay off three years down the road, pretty much every terrible team would be getting a young, cost-controlled, immediate-impact player the following year. That’d be a huge factor working against continued mediocrity.
by Cheeseandcorn on Jan 27, 2012 9:57 AM CST up reply actions
It's not fiscally responsible to give every team an even shot
There’s more money to be made by MLB (forget the needs of individual franchises) if large markets acquire most of the championships, quality players, and notoriety. The system in place is designed to perpetuate that.
Mark Attanasio is the best.
This is a sign that the player's union is broken more than MLB
The overwhelming majority of baseball players would be well served by a balanced league. The more spread out the talent, the more money there is for teams that aren’t playing in New York to pay their players. If the player’s union were to cater to their actual base – the players that are in the league for under 5 years, there would be a much different collective bargaining agreement in place.
The fact that the compensation system remains in place as it is, is at least partially due to the player’s union allowing it to happen to line the pockets of its richest constituents.
This is true
Though it’s interesting that vastly different league structures have proven to be wildly successful. The NFL is probably the most financial successful sports league in the world, and it’s also probably the most socialistic major league sports league we have. On the other hand, the English Premier League is the most successful league in the world’s most popular sport, and it’s about the closest thing we have to a pure, unfettered free market.
Wild speculation: I think at its core, MLB wishes it could be the English Premier League with four or five teams dominating the standings and developing global brands, but it realizes that most of its social/structural factors are pushing it toward an NFL-type structure.
by Cheeseandcorn on Jan 27, 2012 10:18 AM CST up reply actions
A modified Premier League model
The MLB holds its monopoly power too closely to truly become a Premier league. They won’t even let Mark Cuban into the league as an owner that’s going to pour loads of money into his team, let alone a system that allows promotion and demotion.
I think American fans are more focused on championships than civic pride like a lot of the Premier League teams do. The BCS exists, because American fans want to be able to crown a winner and aren’t happy (anymore) with widely appreciating the accomplishments of a small school that manages to go 8-4. I’m guilty of this. Premier League fans can still appreciate the 2nd tier of teams below those 4 or 5 dominant teams. Heck, they can even appreciate teams trying to get promoted to the EPL, in the first place. That just won’t happen in America.
You're right that the EPL model would never work in the U.S., for exactly those reasons
I didn’t necessarily mean that MLB wants an exact EPL model like a tier system – more that the league would rather that the Yankees, Red Sox, Phillies, Cubs, Dodgers, etc. towered over the league year after year and became massively valuable international properties, rather than having a bunch of small- to mid-market teams like the Brewers, Rays, and Indians periodically surge to the top, then fall back.
by Cheeseandcorn on Jan 27, 2012 11:20 AM CST up reply actions
The EPL model still has it's dominate teams
Man U, Chelsea,Arsenal,Liverpool etc. but what it allows is teams over time to compete and get to the top. Only 10 years ago Man City were in the 3 tier of English football but look at them now. Also a team like Leeds Utd went from semi-final of the champions league in 2001 to the 3rd tier of league football in 5 years.
If a team is well run it can finish near the top but if it is badly run then it will end up being relegated.
An inherent advantage exists regardless, systemic or structural advantages are excessive
The big markets don’t need the advantage of baseball’s economic system to help them acquire the most quality players, pennants, championships, etc. The advantage those cities have is inherent in their status as big markets. Free agents often choose New York, Chicago, LA, Boston, and Philly (among others) because they prefer to be in those larger markets and for any possible additional marketing/branding opportunities that may be included. And they should have the ability to make that choice. Free agents have earned that choice. While your right hat the system does perpetuate those choices, those cities don’t need additional economic advantages over places like Milwaukee, Cincinnati, Tampa, or Toronto. An advantage already exists and will keep those franchises relevant (aside from self-imposed collapses). The extra structural advantage of economic power of the teams of the big markets skews the system and robs small and middle markets of the ability to develop sustained success.
As baseball is currently constructed, you’re correct. Baseball is currently better off if large markets acquire titles and big name players because that’s where the money is. Baseball grows in the short term, but becomes more and more top heavy resembling the AL East with absolutely trapped teams at the bottom unless the stars align. A sport is in trouble when some team can afford to only measure success by championships and equally well-run teams measure success with playoff appearances. In the long term, baseball is worse off as whispers of contraction become full-fledged arguments and cities and whole fan bases disappear and are turned off/disillusioned. In the long term, expansion of the game slows, maximization of revenue doesn’t occur, and baseball loses. In the long run, it is more fiscally responsible for every team and every market to have a shot at success if they make sound baseball decisions over a duration (this all goes out the window in self-imposed financial messes like the Mets or Dodgers but that’s another debate for another time).
by Brewcityhoya13 on Jan 27, 2012 11:01 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Don't forget the most recent CBA
It favors the teams built with free agents by changing the draft compensation so those Free Agent teams now won’t lose any draft picks. The Yankees can sign everyone and get the 28th best player in the draft rather than the 70th best prospect. That’s an enormous difference. If they can fill even one more position on their 25-man roster with home grown talent, that’s $10+ million they can give to their next free agent. It’s going to be a contributing factor to the price of free agents, which will actually then loop back and feed itself, because only the biggest markets will be able to afford the inflated prices.
Of course, those teams can’t just wait for player’s to slide because they’re demanding overslot money, but I hardly believe that will offset regaining their 1st round draft picks.
I still can’t believe the owners all agreed to that CBA when it has the possibility of substantially weakening at least half of them over the duration of the deal.
In another area entirely, the rich teams have caught up in talent evaluation to the small teams. Moneyball is, effectively, dead (if it ever really existed at all). That favors the rich teams that much more. Baseball is broken and without a hard salary cap, it will never be fixed.
Although well written, and making some good points
I would disagree that the team has maximized income from the market. Yes, they have done a very good job bringing in fans and “making money (revenue)” but the fact of the matter is that they have made some very bad decisions in the front office that have actually decreased the profit that could have come into the franchise.
You also dont really address the issue of scouting and player development. Small market teams like the Blue Jays, Rays, Padres, Reds, and even the Brewers have proved that if you scout well, and you develop players well, you dont need big name free agents to succeed.
The majority of teams in the league actually lose money. Even the big market teams that spend lavishly and win pennants and playoff berths typically lose money. The Brewers by all accounts, last year simply broke even or made a slight profit. The issue isnt about being able to spend to improve or retain talent, its the ability of the FO to identify and develop talent acquired via trades and the draft.
Doug Melvin began his tenure as GM with a team he inherited that had a very good long term goal (sans great pitching depth in the minor leagues) and that goal was to build a contender through the draft and developing talent. But he has become a GM with an incredibly short term goal, and in the long run this will be the thing that will tarnish his “legacy”. Most regulars here know my belief that the team could have been just as good last year without the Greinke and Marcum trades, and after this year it could possibly be that all they got out of those deals was one playoff appearance and $55 million spent on players who could have done the same job (in terms of the overall W-L record) for $19 million.
You can't make an assertion like this
I would disagree that the team has maximized income from the market. Yes, they have done a very good job bringing in fans and "making money (revenue)" but the fact of the matter is that they have made some very bad decisions in the front office that have actually decreased the profit that could have come into the franchise.
Without any evidence. Examples, please.
by Cheeseandcorn on Jan 27, 2012 10:22 AM CST up reply actions
It's all about perspective
BtC has always been focused on a reasonable winning record and he’s 100% correct that the 2013 Brewers would have been much more likely to win 85 games before the Greinke trade than after it. The 2011 Brewers would’ve had absolutely no chance of winning as many regular season and postseason games as they did in 2011 without Greinke.
I want the potential of postseason success, not a perpetual 85-77 record. I agree 100% that managed correctly, Brewers organization could have a >.500 win percentage every season. I don’t make time to closely follow a team that’s clearly going to max out at 85 wins. I really don’t. I’m certainly not going to spend money to travel to a game to see that team. Most people feel the same way.
Playoff success maximizes profit, not moderate regular season success and that’s where the logic breaks down.
by ecocd on Jan 27, 2012 10:32 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
I'm just confused by the assertion that the team hasn't "maximized income from the market"?
What potential revenue streams are they missing? Is btc now getting into marketing analysis in addition to player economics? Or is this all just about “maximizing income from the market” simply by somehow winning more games by trading Fielder for Hudson?
by Cheeseandcorn on Jan 27, 2012 11:17 AM CST up reply actions
The point
Is that if they are maximizing the market with attendance and other sources, but could have had the same success on the field (which would have also drawn fans) but at a much cheaper price, then its not truly maximized
Your definition of "lose money" intrigues me
What is it like living in your world? This isn’t a problem for MLB or the collective bargaining agreement would have stalled like it did with the NBA where most of the teams truly were losing money.
By your definition the Royals are one of the best run organizations in all of MLB. Their profit margins are probably very high even though their team is a joke. Mark A could certainly cut payroll to $40 million and possibly make even more profit than he does right now. I wouldn’t say that would make them a well run team.
by ecocd on Jan 27, 2012 10:47 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
If your argument is, "well if they never made a bad decision, they would be better"
That’s foolish. And we’ve already addressed countless times the flaws with the “sometimes small-market teams win” argument.
I still don’t understand how you can either not comprehend or choose to ignore the obvious wealth disparity in baseball. It seems like every time someone brings it up, you make a comment like this, someone refutes it, and then you disappear.
"Our attitude is we look at ourselves and we grade ourselves. And even if we don’t like what’s happening on the other side, we don’t make a — it’s not our business" - Tony Larussa
by mnbrewer on Jan 27, 2012 11:06 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Your full of it
I have never said that there was a problem with income disparity. It exists, the problem I have is that people think that money is the main determinant of success in this game. And it isnt by a very wide margin.
Small market teams win because of player development and scouting. Not because of income disparity. Its much easier to win on the cheap that some like to fear, and quite a number of teams have proved it. Mark A’s approach is completely opposite to cheap alternatives, and since you are a Brewer fan you think its the best way for the franchise to be won.
The simple reality is that if he had a baseball management side that maximized trades, contracts, scouting, etc, to go along with a business management side that has its eye on profits while also caring about winning, the guy would have a heck of a lot more money in his pocket than he does right now.
Again, it's the "well this one time a small-market team made the plofayfs" argument
The only small-market in the past decade to win was Florida, and they were forced to hold a fire-sale rather than compete long term. The A’s and Twins have had success, but now they’re both terrible, and I haven’t even mentioned the 15 or so other teams that just wallow away in small-market obscurity.
The fact is that yes, obviously it is possible for a team to scout well, get lucky, and win 90 or so games with a team of pre-arb players, but the system is inherently unfair as evidenced by the actual performances of teams vs. their payrolls. And suggesting that nothing needs to be done about it because there is a shred of opportunity is a disservice to the game.
"Our attitude is we look at ourselves and we grade ourselves. And even if we don’t like what’s happening on the other side, we don’t make a — it’s not our business" - Tony Larussa
by mnbrewer on Jan 27, 2012 12:32 PM CST up reply actions 3 recs
This is a great point
If your standard for success is winning the World Series, the only successful small-market team in the last two decades has been the Marlins, and no one would use them as a model for long-term sustainability.
If your standard for success is an extended period of contending baseball with multiple postseason appearances, well, then the Brewers make a pretty good example of that.
So either way, this myth that btc keeps asserting of a viable small-market model for successful baseball that’s not at all what the Brewers are doing is just that – a myth.
by Cheeseandcorn on Jan 27, 2012 1:07 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
I would still contend that the Rays are the model
They have maintained a high level of success for the past 3 seasons, and it has been because of scouting, and in spite of the fact that they dont sign big money free agents.
The Brewers and Rays have had playoff teams 2 of the past 3 seasons, but that off year for the Brewers was no where near playoff caliber baseball, and after this year, the chances go down dramatically of that happening again in the near future. Whereas for the Rays, because of how well they have scouted, they have a much larger window open for them to contend. And they will have done it at a much cheaper cost.
I would say the Rays are the model and teams like the Blue Jays, Padres, Royals and Rockies are all following it, and that the Brewers would be the anti-model for small market team success.
No one is saying teams like the Rays aren't good at what they do
They just happen to have marginally more success than the other small-market teams, and they still haven’t won the World Series, even after benefiting from a decade of top-5 draft picks.
You can talk all you want about them or any of the other teams, but the very fact that we are praising them shows that they have had to combat an unfair system, and until there is equality of opportunity in baseball, the league has a big problem that it needs to address.
"Our attitude is we look at ourselves and we grade ourselves. And even if we don’t like what’s happening on the other side, we don’t make a — it’s not our business" - Tony Larussa
by mnbrewer on Jan 27, 2012 1:33 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
I agree that there is disparity
But I dont see it as a problem becuase of the way that small market teams can be successful. I would consider the way the Rays have done things to be quite successful over the past 4 seasons, and going forward with a very nice outlook for success.
Yes a World Series is the ultimate goal, but I dont think that not winning one makes your model unsuccessful. Teams that spend big may have a better chance of winning a world series from year to year, but spending big isnt the thing that gets them to that mountaintop. The Mets have been nowhere near the playoffs for quite some time now and spend tons, the Phillies, Yankees and Red Sox are all World Series Champion-less over the past 4 seasons with a philosophy of spending big on free agents.
If this werent the Brewers we were talking about and just small market team X, and told you they did things like spend quite a bit of money on free agent contracts, trade prospects from a position of weakness for expensive veterans, and hold onto high value arb eligible players until the very end with the only thing in return being the 2 draft picks, you would think its a horrible model to run your franchise on. And in the realm of small market baseball, the Brewers are really the only team ever that has had the level of success they have had doing the things they do.
I would argue that a NLDS appearance
would be another thing we obtained by “holding onto high-value arb eligible players until the very end”.
by Archibaldcrane on Jan 27, 2012 1:58 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
And in the realm of small market baseball, the Brewers are really the only team ever that has had the level of success they have had doing the things they do.
You say that like it’s a bad thing.
We pull our pants up and do our jobs here.
by Rubie Q on Jan 27, 2012 2:14 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
That's because, to him, it is
"Our attitude is we look at ourselves and we grade ourselves. And even if we don’t like what’s happening on the other side, we don’t make a — it’s not our business" - Tony Larussa
I say it like its an unsustainable thing
I was around from 85 through 2008. 2 .500 seasons and a couple of playoff appearances dont really amount to much if they wind up costing 15 or so years of futility (not that the model employed now was the thing that made those teams so awful).
As long as we keep drafting well, I see no reason why we can't be in the playoff hunt 2 out of every, say, 5 years.
Do you?
by Archibaldcrane on Jan 27, 2012 2:31 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
His machine says we'll lose 100 games in 2016
"Our attitude is we look at ourselves and we grade ourselves. And even if we don’t like what’s happening on the other side, we don’t make a — it’s not our business" - Tony Larussa
Drafting Well?
I, and many others, even fans would say that the last few drafts have been anything but good. Last year was average, the two previous years were quite bad.
So would you say if we're dicking around in the 80-wins range a few years from now
we can just blame the draft for not pushing us over the top eh?
by Archibaldcrane on Jan 27, 2012 3:43 PM CST up reply actions
I like how in your post you acknowledge that big-market teams have a better chance
And then later you try to backtrack by saying all is fine because “the Phillies, Yankees, and Red Sox are all World Series Champion-less over the past 4 seasons.” Imagine how laughable it would be if Brewers fans, Pirates fans, or Royals fans complained because their team hasn’t won a championship in 4 years.
"Our attitude is we look at ourselves and we grade ourselves. And even if we don’t like what’s happening on the other side, we don’t make a — it’s not our business" - Tony Larussa
by mnbrewer on Jan 27, 2012 2:21 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
A couple of problems with your argument:
-If you have a model and only one team is actually capable of successfully following it, it’s not a model; it’s an anomaly. (The Blue Jays seem to be on track, but they still have yet to finish higher than 4th or get more than 85 wins under this GM, so I’ll believe in their success when I see it.)
-You’re creating a false dichotomy between the Rays’ model and the Brewers’ “anti-model.” The Rockies, for example, are following a model that’s much closer to the Brewers’ than the Rays’ – signing their young stars to long extensions, making mid-level free-agent signings to plug key holes (Cuddyer/A-Ram), trading for cost-controlled players, and trading for pitching. (Perhaps not coincidentally, they’ve also been arguably the most successful non-Rays team on your list.) It’s not an either-or – it’s a spectrum, and most small-market teams are combining elements of both of the strategies you describe.
by Cheeseandcorn on Jan 27, 2012 2:16 PM CST up reply actions 3 recs
I like this statement
But the 2nd part only makes a good comparison if you look at this year, because before Cuddyer, they werent in the habit of spending a lot of money on free agents (mid 2000s yes, but not so much in the last 5 years or so).
I need help finishing this sentence:
if you look at what the Rockies did this year, it seems pretty similar to what the Brewers are doing, but we should ignore it because ….
We pull our pants up and do our jobs here.
The Rockies didnt trade away 4 top prospects
For $18 million worth of veterans that improved the team by 7 wins.
Carlos Gonzalez also spent a big part of the year nursing injury.
So it's just trading for veterans that's the issue?
Because the Rockies brought in a bunch of old dudes — Scutaro, Cuddyer, Casey Blake, Ramon Hernandez — this offseason, and that doesn’t fit very well with the Rays’ model.
We pull our pants up and do our jobs here.
Blake, Hernandez, Scutaro
Were all very small contracts. Nothing like the ones given to Wolf, Suppan, or ARam. And the Cuddyer contract, although not one I would have liked for the Brewers either, wasnt a huge one by ARam, Suppan standards.
And the smaller ones are place holder contracts if anything until guys like Nolan Arenado and Willin Rosario arrive. To top it off, they unloaded vets for high upside prospects like the Brewers could have done with Fielder.
Funny that without those 7 wins
we wouldn’t have made the the playoffs this year.
If you’re saying we should’ve forgone the playoffs this year to build down the road, that’s fine – but acknowledge you’re advocating such a sacrifice.
by Archibaldcrane on Jan 27, 2012 7:00 PM CST up reply actions
Rays
have been in the playoffs 3 of their last 4 seasons. In the 10 seasons before that, they were consistently in the bottom of their division.
But don't see
Philadelphia Phillies
New York Yankees
Boston Red Sox
"Our attitude is we look at ourselves and we grade ourselves. And even if we don’t like what’s happening on the other side, we don’t make a — it’s not our business" - Tony Larussa
I didn't address scouting and player development because they're not relevant to my point.
I don’t dispute that there are multiple ways to construct a successful franchise. The point is that every franchise should be able to choose which method they like, or mix and match approaches as needed. The economic structure of the league is such that some, in fact many teams, can’t choose between those methods. The fact that you don’t approve of the approach the Brewers have taken doesn’t mean anything I said above isn’t true. The current system is simply not one that encourages competitive balance to the extent that other professional sports leagues do. Scouting and player development don’t have anything remotely to do with that.
In short, not everything is about your philosophy on how to build a good organization.
"fortunate, but also lucky"
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Jan 27, 2012 5:29 PM CST up reply actions 6 recs
Rec'd mostly for that last line
I feel it could be applied to almost every discussion with btc.
by Cheeseandcorn on Jan 27, 2012 6:00 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
This is the greatest post I think I've ever read on here
"Our attitude is we look at ourselves and we grade ourselves. And even if we don’t like what’s happening on the other side, we don’t make a — it’s not our business" - Tony Larussa
Baseball shout NOT have a salary cap.
There needs to be more revenue sharing. We don’t need every team to be equal. We just need to be a little more balanced. We need to narrow the gap between the top salary teams and the low salary teams. Share a much much larger percentage of local TV contracts and something like 50% of ticket sales. I really have no problem with some teams having more star players. Narrow the gap to somewhere around $50m. Smaller market teams would get to keep one or two of their own stars while bigger city teams would get to keep 4-5. Your shared revenue has to go to player salaries or it goes back to MLB.
All a cap does is put more money in the pockets of owners of bigger city teams.
Give him an offspeed pitch down and in. He will swing and miss.
Except there's no broader revenue sharing without a cap.
The owners have said that ad nauseum.
"fortunate, but also lucky"
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Jan 27, 2012 8:58 PM CST up reply actions
TSSC's post aside
I enjoyed Jordan’s perspective that every team can afford any free agent, it’s a matter of utilizing resources.
But that's like saying
Any middle-class person can afford a Ferrari, they just wouldn’t be able to eat.
"Our attitude is we look at ourselves and we grade ourselves. And even if we don’t like what’s happening on the other side, we don’t make a — it’s not our business" - Tony Larussa
by mnbrewer on Jan 27, 2012 11:08 AM CST up reply actions 4 recs
This.
"fortunate, but also lucky"
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Jan 27, 2012 5:30 PM CST up reply actions
Something to say? Choose one of these options to log in.
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Brew Crew Ball
Related FanShots on Brew Crew Ball
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
NL Central Standings
| W | L | PCT | GB | STRK | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Chicago
|
0 | 0 | .000 | 0 | Lost 0 |
|
Cincinnati
|
0 | 0 | .000 | 0 | Lost 0 |
|
Houston
|
0 | 0 | .000 | 0 | Lost 0 |
|
Milwaukee
|
0 | 0 | .000 | 0 | Lost 0 |
|
Pittsburgh
|
0 | 0 | .000 | 0 | Lost 0 |
|
St. Louis
|
0 | 0 | .000 | 0 | Lost 0 |
(updated 2.22.2012 at 7:06 PM CST)
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Evan Longoria confirms he’s dating Playboy model Jaime Edmondson
- Matt Moore understands Rays promise him nothing
- Stan Musial or not, it’s time for Albert Pujols to finally accept the ‘El Hombre’ nickname
- The 10 best things about being a Giants fan
- Spring Swing: Joe Maddon and Co. welcoming big expectations for Rays
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
