hope they lock em upThe Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel's Tom Haudricourt and Drew Olson report the Milwaukee Brewers likely made their first pitch to SP Ben Sheets for a long-term contract. The team wouldn't comment on it, but the benchmark being used is Minnesota Twins SP Johan Santana's four-year, $40 million contract signed over the winter.
DON'T DO IT, BEN!! IT'S FRIGGIN' MILWAUKEE!!!Originally Posted by bnorris85
id so rather him be in milwaukee than on either NY team or Boston (well id love him to be on boston, but its better for baseball if he is not)
It'd be a miracle if both Milwaukee AND Minnesota could lock up their stud pitchers to such reasonable deals. The Twins got lucky, I wouldn't expect the same for the Brewers. Who knows, though.
I disagree. It's better for baseball if the owners are willing to be competitive.
Auction League: Bitches Brew - 2006, 2007, 2008 Champs
NYYFans.com League: Bad Apples 2008 Champs
Don't you think its better for baseball if one of their rising young stars is in a big market team than a small one? I mean how many times do you see the Brewers on national TV?
Slaughter Is The Best Medicine
-=2009=WORLD=CHAMPIONS=-
FIRE JETER
Why is it better for baseball? So yet another great player can waste his career with a franchise that will never be competitive?
Well, I'm sure the Brewers do have some fans and they would probably like keeping their all-star pitcher. At least with Sheets, they have a reason for going to the games. And who's to say that with Sheets and that great farm system that they can't have a window of oppurtunity to contend? Put me in the camp that believes that its good for baseball that talented players are spread around baseball.
And you know the Brewers will never (please note that never means NEVER, EVER, in the future of mankind will they even have a shot at being even considered in the hunt for the wild card) be competitive how?
I don't think it had much to do with luck - Santana smartly signed that contract. He's set for life, now, at 26 years of age. $10 million/year is great money when, really, all you've had is one good season and a fantastic, super-great half of a season. Pitchers get injured; pitchers don't always play like Cy Young; etc. And when this contract expires, he will still be relatively young at 30 years old and capable of a more lucrative contract.
Good point, why gamble he stays healthy throughout this season. Stuff happens. Now he's set for life and if the team is not looking good in 4 years he can sign with a contender.
If I'm ben sheets, I jump at a 4 year 40 million contract. Like crazy. This was a break-out year for him, and he should pounce on the chance to set himself up for life. Remember that that deal is also buying out two arbitration years. I don't know what his number is this year, but I'm sure its under 10 per year. So the real value is probably something like a guarunteed 33 mil over three years. That's maybe 3 mil less per year than he'd make elsewhere, for two free agency years. We're talking about paying 6 million dollars in order to get rid of huge pile of risk (suckitude, arm injury, etc). For a guy with a family, thats a big deal. And everyone here who is going to say that you're already set for life on 8 million is retarded. People really want to live very well.
edit: You guys beat me to the punch while i was writing. swine.
Last edited by Beast Master; 03-30-05 at 07:58 PM. Reason: previous posts
This off season, Matt Clement signed to a contract paying him $8.5M/per. Derek Lowe signed to $9. Pavano is making nearly $10. Wright makes $9.
Santana at $10M per year for four years, in this off season, is an absolute steal for the Twins.
You do have a point, though, in that Santana is the only one in that group who isn't a free agent.
Sure they could be competitive...once they move into a bigger market and get a real stadium.
My point is that I don't buy into this "good of the game" crap in hoping that great players stay with miserable teams. If Sheets wants to stay with the Brewers, good for him. If not, then somehow the game will survive.
Personally, I hope he's greedy and wants to pitch in the spotlight. As far as I'm concerned he'd look best in a Yankee uniform.
What exactly do you mean by "yet another"?
As I recall, there really aren't too many great professional athletes in general who stay on franchises for less money than they could possibly get as a FA for teams who will have little chance of being competitive. You surely cannot be talking about Santana's recent 4-year deal as the Twins have racked up three consecutive division titles with an ALCS appearance thrown in. It's important to remember that to some teams, being "competitive" doesn't mean you're in the World Series every other year. To some, it means finishing with a record above .500, or getting into the post-season via the WC, or winning your division. Not every team can march into the World Series every other year as the Yankees do and are still considered "competitive" ballclubs. Perhaps not elite, but most certainly competitive.
More often should they end up having one of the top 5 starting pitchers in baseball in a few years time (whether Sheets is that remains to be seen). A superstar player brings more attention to a small market team. The Brewers don't get ESPN/Fox broadcasts. But Sheets vs Prior/Perez/Hudson/Mulder/Schmidt/Pedro/etc should have a shot (probably not in '05, but not that far down the line). A stud ace signing for a "home town discount" allows the organization a better foundation to build a core around and those two then serve as possible enticement to other stars/superstars to take a chance. Ben Sheets or Johan Santana go to NY or Boston and they can probably make more money, have more stature and have a better chance to win. If they stay in Milwaukee and Minnesotta they can probably make a ton of money (if less than in scenario 1), become stars (if not host SNL), and can help create/assist a situation to win (if not make the playoffs EVERY year). They also bring a pile of pluses to a team/franchise that needs it as opposed to teams such as the Red Sox and Yankees who don't. They can accomplish more "for baseball" and for their individual franchises than they can in cities and for franchises that need absolutely no assistance whatsoever, even if they might not be able to accomplish as much individually (which is of course a relative term and also not necessarily a true one).
I'd love to see more of Ben Sheets myself and I'd certainly welcome him into pinstripes. But if I have to hope for Mets, Braves, and the occasional ESPN/Fox broadcast to see him for the sake of another city and thousands of fans actually being able to enjoy baseball in a fraction of the way that I have been allowed to... well, that doesn't seem like much of a sacrifice.
In light of the confiscatory revenue sharing and luxury tax, the Yankees will be paying a portion of Sheet's contract if he re-signs with the Brewers or signs with another "small revenue" team.
Consequently, it hardly seems unfair that every talented young player in their prime signs with the Yankees.
Nothing to say
But what happened to people's guarantees when we did the JV for RJ trade that we would just be able to go out and sign anyone we want to replace RJ? Milwaukee can't do this, we're entitled to Sheets!
NEW link for NYYFANS companion site for politics and more: www.editorialme.com.
Why is it that they will "never be competitive" because their good players leave them for NY and Boston!
NEW link for NYYFANS companion site for politics and more: www.editorialme.com.
Given his injury history Sheets should probably go for a 3 year deal with the Brewers and then get the hell of there afterwards.
Oh yeah, cuz the Green Bay market kills the Packers.
I remember reading that Selig was richer than Steinbrenner. He was just a cheapskate.
Fantasy Baseball: Larrupin' Lou's; New York Knights.
So? Give players a reason to stay. Pay 'em what they're worth.
Carl Pohlad is one of the cheapest people in baseball, which is an impressive feat considering he's a billionaire. Only a matter of time before he starts dumping salary. Does Santana have a no-trade? If he's interested in staying in Minnesota, I hope for his sake he does. Even Pohlad's own players look longingly at other teams (Torii Hunter comes to mind). So yes - I am referring to Johan Santana.
Elite players should want to play for elite clubs. Nothing wrong with it and as a Yankee fan the more that want to join the party, the happier I am.
Evidently that's what they are doing now.
NEW link for NYYFANS companion site for politics and more: www.editorialme.com.
The reason the franchise will never compete is because large markets basically use teams like the Brewers as farm systems. The only way they can compete is by keeping guys like Sheets. MLB really needs a harder luxury tax or a cap, so that there are more than 5 or 6 teams that have a chance to win every year.
And the lord said "Go Sox"
IMO, the problem arises when the owner feels he's done his duty by signing that one big name, but then surrounds that big name with crap (see Texas Rangers/Alex Rodriguez).
THAT, IMO, is what keeps them non-competitive.
Auction League: Bitches Brew - 2006, 2007, 2008 Champs
NYYFans.com League: Bad Apples 2008 Champs
Actually, Hicks surrounded Arod with alot of quality players, it just wasnt done the right away. They never had any pitching.
I read a blurb on my ESPN Gamecast program on my cell yesterday about this. Ben wants to stay because he has had discussions with the new owner and he likes the road they are going down. He is looking to make the team seriously competitive, and Ben is one player the team could definately be built around.
Good for him for staying. I actually admire that he's not going for the huge payday he could get if he went to FA.
NYYFans FBB: Evil Empire
"Even though sometimes I can really be a monster... today, I'm just a sea monster."
................ baseball
Large markets don't "use" anything. They don't have any special say in the affairs of "small" market clubs. None of that changes the fact that guys like Carl Pohlad are cheap.
The Twins say - Hello!
Big hat, no cattle.
Tell them I said "What's up" back.
Afterward, go read through the rest of the thread as the Twins have already been covered.
I never intended to suggest that free agency was "unfair." It is what it is. Its the prefered way to go in my book. But it doesn't mean that I don't hope that the little guy gets the gold from time to time. In fact I'll feel better signing the star of a small market team if Santana and Sheets are still in their small markets. I wasn't speaking towards some sort of moral or ethical approach. Just explaining why I feel that this sort of thing is "best for baseball."
I hate to ignore your collective bargaining because it IS connected. But I regretabbly have no time to go there at present. Plus, its a messy arguement to have that brings morales, ethics and "fair/unfair" into the equation. Me smiling at the idea of Sheets in Milwaukee is just a pov and nothing more. Doesn't seem to involved ethics or morals of any kind (at least not of the business sense).
I don't think you worry about injury anymore. Sheets is a guy that notched 34 games and 200+ innings the past 3 years. That is NOT an injury prone player. He may be as durable as anyone now.
You're only as good as your last loss.
Santana has a no-trade in the third and fourth years of the deal. Brad Radke didn't look too longingly before he took significantly less money to stay in Minnesota. Santana must've liked the situation in the Twin Cities or he wouldn't have given up what would've been two very big FA years in 2007-08 as a pitcher entering his late 20s when he'll most likely hit his prime. Security obviously plays a role in his signing showing that committment, but I don't really get the feeling he's too concerned about "losing it". He pitches with as much confidence in his stuff as any pitcher I've ever seen.
Elite players should and will play wherever they choose, but I think it would be more refreshing than anything else to see players and teams showing loyalty and make their fan base aware that the team's more popular players will actually be sticking around for a while. It may be a business, but I don't see how any fan can think of it and enjoy it in that aspect when they aren't profitting off of it. To me, it's still just a great game that I'll always love and follow so long as it exists.
Tell that to all the A's fans whose "Hudson" and "Mulder" shirts are currently sitting at the bottom of their closets.
That's exactly why I said it would be more refreshing than anything else. It isn't just the player who has to show loyalty. Hudson and Mulder weren't given the opportunity to stick around. And you're worried about yet another staying with their team? You can count them on one hand. Santana staying in Minnesota? Kerry Wood signing an extension with the Cubs (last spring)? Roy Oswalt's extension with Houston? Jake Peavy's recent four-year deal with San Diego? These would be great examples, but they just don't work. Why not? Because all of them are competitive ballclubs who are trying to build championship teams.
When Ben Sheets and Oliver Perez stay where they currently reside on a major league roster, then you can make a case.
Let's be clear here - I'm not "worried" about anything. My position is that I don't care if it's in the best interest of baseball, nor do I buy it anyway. I'd prefer the Yanks to have a shot at the best players in the game.
I brought up Mulder and Hudson because this idea of "loyalty" always seems to be imposed on ballplayers and not the ballclubs. Giambi was torn a new one when he left Oakland to sign with the big ,bad Yankees. meanwhile, he'd offered Oakland a hometown discount to stay - provided they give him a no-trade. They refused.
I think the "loyalty" thing is overrated. If Derek Jeter decided he wanted to go play for the Dodgers at the end of his contract, I'd wish him lots of luck (provided he doesn't play us in a WS).
And I don't blame you for that, it's a great feeling to be able to seek out and sign the top of the crop players in the game, even if it isn't how the Yankees built their dynasty during their championship years from 1996-2000 without the Giambi's, A-Rod's, Sheffield's, Brown's and Randy Johnson's of the baseball world. However, that's a different discussion.
I agree with you completely on this point, I even mentioned that the notion of loyalty in baseball is only realized if both the player and team are willing to show committment in my previous post.I brought up Mulder and Hudson because this idea of "loyalty" always seems to be imposed on ballplayers and not the ballclubs. Giambi was torn a new one when he left Oakland to sign with the big, bad Yankees.
If Jeter has any desire to play once his current contract finished, he should be doing it for minimum wage. He's going to be making $21,000,000.00 as a 36 year old - $1.75 million a month, $403,846 a week, $57,534 a day, $2,397 an hour. It's going to be fun comparing that to his production in 2010.I think the "loyalty" thing is overrated. If Derek Jeter decided he wanted to go play for the Dodgers at the end of his contract, I'd wish him lots of luck (provided he doesn't play us in a WS).
Apparently not different enough that you felt the need to take the shot. Was David Cone a surprise pick up we made during that run? How about Cecil Fielder? Clemens?
How did the Yankees build that dynasty? With homegrown products like Paul O'Neill, Tino Martinez and Chuck Knoblauch (the last name being considered the top if not one of the best 2nd basemen in the game at the time)? The '96 World Series MVP was one of the premiere closers in baseball at the time we acquired him. Sammy Sosa was thisclose to being a Yankee in 2000 - do we lose that year if he's playing in left instead of Justice?
Let's take off the rose-colored glasses about the Dynasty years. It was a special run with a special group of guys, but it doesn't present any special formula for winning, nor have the Yankees been doing anything that different since then. We just haven't been able to seal the deal since '00. We had some guys that came up through the system because we had been rebuilding in the early part of the decade, but the Yankees always surrounded them with superstars when the opportunity arose.
much rather see sheets stay in milwaukee then see him dealt to the sox at the trade deadline for hanley ramirez and co. when the brewers inevitably fall out of contention once again.
There are about a billion teams with more to offer than the Sox if Sheets if available at the trade deadline. I wouldn't worry about that.
Thankfully, one of those teams is not the Yankees.
Most teams, I would believe have enough to get Ben Sheets, its just what you are willing to give up to get him. If the Yankees gave up half the farm system, they could probably get Sheets but I wouldnt imagine they would want to do that.
If Pedro got a $14 mill/year contract for 4 years at age 32 coming off his worst season, having arm trouble, and with his prima donna attitude... Sheets should get ATLEAST the same ammount at age 28 (when he's a FA) as long as he stays somewhat healthy and remains consistent. He'll never win a Cy Young with Milwaukee, he'll never get as many wins or as much fame as he would if he went to a bigger market team. He should sign with a team who actually cares about WINNING and doesn't trade away all of their good young players during the trade deadlines.
Why would you want to stay in Mil-freakin'-waukee Wisconsin which never draws any fans for their baseball team, has owners who don't care about the team and it's future.. when you can go to Boston or New York for alot more money, fame, endorsements, playoff appearances, rings... etc.
I know there IS such a thing as a hometown discount, but not that much and not for a team that doesn't care about winning.
The way a team plays as a whole determines its success. You may have the greatest bunch of individual stars in the world, but if they don't play together, the club won't be worth a dime." -Babe Ruth
No kidding. If Sheets were put on the market mid-season, the two richest teams in baseball would be left at the end of the line.
1) Different people have different principles and desires. One guy might take less wins/money/endorsements/fame for a life he prefers (not everyone wants to be famous or live in a big city or experience such things). Not saying that Sheets doesn't want that stuff. But its a real possability.
2) Its a new owner with a new ballpark and a pretty decent core of young players. Its a division that might be pretty open in the near future. Sheets could very well put his faith in the club to make a commitment to improvement and success and put his faith in the fans of Milwaukee to support them as they build that. That faith might very well be misplaced, but noone ever suffered that much by taking a chance that garners $40 million and freedom at age 32 as the downside.
Definitely. It makes sense because the two teams suffer from chronic mismanagement of their farm system, althoug the Sox are getting better. Interestingly enough, Baseball America rates the Cardinals as the worst farm system, but I take those rankings with a grain of salt.
The more I hear, the more it sounds like he will stay with the Brewers.
(tangent)
Why do people seem to always insist that any owner of a small market team is "cheap?" Some are, but how long would Steinbrenner keep fielding $200 million dollar teams if you took away 3/4 of the fans at every game, YES, FOX/ESPN games, playoff income, merchandise, etc...
Sure, if you put out a good enough team you should eventually, with a little luck, gain more fans, but I don't think a team taking in $50 million in revenue is very cheap for refusing to pay $100/year for several years hoping that they will win something. The Yankees and Redsox, despite huge payrolls, are still making their owners a profit every year, while "cheap" owners lose money or struggle to break even a lot of the time.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
