Brewers Payneful Nightmare:
Part One

{image2} Like every media outlet in town, we at OnMilwaukee.com felt compelled to examine the latest episode and the implications of the shakeup at One Brewers Way. What will be the impact of Ulice Payne's dismissal on the Brewers, its fans and the state of big league baseball in Wisconsin? But more importantly, how did it come to this? Who helped, and who was to blame?

Since there is so much to scrutinize, we will try to sort through this mess in three parts, beginning with Payne's motive for going public and the Brewers' ownership's reluctance to spend.

In part two, we will try to understand fan allegiance or lack thereof, local and state politicians role in igniting or defusing the situation, and the media's accountability in presenting a balanced and accurate account of the circumstances. Finally, we hope to analyze baseball's responsibility as an industry and how its players' union and large-market owners control the game.

But first, a quick recap of this month's events ...

As it stands, there's a financial settlement, and now everyone's smiling. Baseball uses a broom to symbolize a sweep, and Ulice Payne and the Milwaukee Brewers would like to use that same broom to sweep their recent tantrum under the doormat.

For the umpteenth time in the club's long-suffering history, the Brewers awoke in a cold sweat this month when Payne, then the team president, had a sudden case of conscience.

Given the public's knee-jerk reaction and its overwhelming support for the former executive who claimed his hands were tied when he spouted out about the team's budget plans for 2004, it may not make a difference who wronged whom in today's court of public opinion. But things may not be what they seem.

There are those who haven't bitten on Payne's emotional plea as many others have. There are some who view his change of heart as a tactical maneuver to save face. They see his public announcement as nothing more than self-promotion and self-preservation.

A great majority of fans, including politicians and media, believe that Payne's undoing and the woeful business practices of the Brewers lie squarely on the pocketbook of the club's Board of Directors and its holier than thou attitude toward new investors and fans.

At the core of the disagreement was an apparent power struggle between employee and employer that rattled the batting cages at One Brewers Way. It's amazing no one put an eye out with all the finger-pointing going on behind closed doors.

Nonetheless, Payne's public revelation of the Brewers future fiscal game plan triggered the chain of events that led to his dismissal.

Oddly enough, it shouldn't have come as a shock to anyone following this franchise's fragile existence, particularly, in recently years, and specifically, in light of the public relations awareness campaign spun as early as August.

Ulice Payne:

We begin with Ulice Payne, for without his public discontent with the Brewers budget, fans and media, alike, would have focused on General Manager Doug Melvin's ability to pull off a trade for the franchise's top player this winter.

Payne and Melvin briefed patrons back in August that the Brewers needed to address Richie Sexson's and Geoff Jenkins' contract status beyond next season. Both All-Star players would enter the final year of their three-year contracts with substantial bumps in pay, reported to be well above $8 million apiece.

Both Brewers executives, though stating that they were prepared to negotiate contract extensions, laid the groundwork that one, and perhaps both players, may be gone before next July's deadline. Understanding the market value would be greater if a deal could be struck this off-season rather than gambling on the uncertainties of a new season, the logic was warranted, pure and simple.

The wheels were set in motion before the last pitch of the 2003 season. The decision to reduce payroll was already on the table.

The Brewers plan, to build on the perception that a 12-game improvement was a positive sign for the future, also called for finding ways and talent to help the team escape the National League Central cellar -- a place warmed by Brewers seats for two straight seasons, even with Sexson and Jenkins.

In addition, the summer spin, which became part of the new plan, included hyping the Brewers young prospects, quickly becoming the darlings of the minor leagues. The party line swirling about was that this new breed would lead Milwaukee to the promise land by 2005 and 2006. Bold words meant to buy time. Again, this reflected brilliant baseball judgment. The Brewers charted the progress of Minnesota's farm system fortunes and their eventual impact on the big league team. It was the blueprint to follow.

Though met with a spattering of criticism, fans softened to the plan. They believed this was the sensible direction to building a winner.

Even at the Brewers recent Fan Forum, the objective was once again echoed by Milwaukee's brass that a trade was quite possible and the future looked brighter with a resurgent farm system. People accepted it. They put their faith in these strategists.

Then came the awakening.

Why would Payne speak out against a plan he and Melvin had, according to all reports, endorsed? Why would he choose to speak out at this time, a crucial period for launching the season ticket campaign? Why jeopardize Melvin at the trade table?

It made no sense.

Why would Payne sabotage the future? Why do this to the fans, who he claimed were his main motivation for restoring a positive attitude toward the Brewers?

Payne was the people's president. So why do this now?

Perchance, Payne wasn't who he proclaimed to be -- someone for the people. His actions, regardless of his supposed in-fighting with Board members, were nothing more than Payne looking out for number one.

There is no other explanation that can justify it. For even if there was strife between Payne and the Brewers Board of Directors, as a voting member of that Board, he had an obligation to up hold the integrity of his office.

He was given an option to invest his own money into the franchise and elected not to. Had he done so, perhaps, one may understand his distain for reducing the budget. But let us not forget that it was his plan that was initiated before the season's end and approved earlier this month.

It just seemed ironic that he chose to speak out publicly. Unless he was worried that the honeymoon season was now over and the heat would soon be turned up on him. There's no excuse to undercut unless the only way to get out was to spout out.

Perhaps, the fact that less than 3,000 fans showed up at the Fan Forum was truly an eye opener. Was this the first indicator that his star was dimming?

He made the comment afterwards that the low turnout was a sign that people believed in his plan. Didn't they?

And if he truly had a change of heart, why not resign?

Or was it better to breach his contract, for as a member of the Board, his actions were viewed as taboo.

Was it calculated? Mentioning his five-year contract in terms of no-cut suggested he was already counting the money. He used public sentiment to his advantage, putting him in a win-win situation. Did he honestly expect fans to believe he did this for them? Doubtful. Besides, it's not his problem anymore.

How Payne helped the Brewers: He gave the fans something to believe in. He slid down Bernie's slide and hung out with the Buckethead Brigade. He told us he would run the Brewers like a business, and canned Jeffrey Hammonds and Alex Sanchez to prove his case. And let's remember to place credit where it belongs. The positive strides shown last summer were made on the field. So credit Melvin and his staff, Manager Ned Yost, the coaches and players who made the decisions, swung the bats and caught the baseballs. This trio gave fans hope in the team's future, and reminded Milwaukee that they still care whether the Brewers field a competitive team.

How Payne hurt the Brewers: When the smoke clears and Payne banks the millions of dollars he'll receive in this settlement for serving one year -- mind you, the easiest of his five-year run -- the Brewers will still be there. Bruised and battered, the franchise must go on. Rather than selling tickets, it'll have to deal with damage control, putting them behind the eight ball, again, further from the promises of building a winner. Payne ripped on the team's ownership, while providing no solutions about how to move them aside. Fans are angrier than ever, and Payne should have known when accepting the job, that he would have little real power. If he knew that all along, then his hand shaking and baby kissing was just a lie.

Brewers Ownership:

As much as Payne is responsible for any future decline in ticket sales and Melvin's inability to get a fair trade offer for Sexson and or Jenkins this off-season, the Brewers Board of Directors has a responsibility to do everything possible to put a winner on the field, perhaps more now than ever before.

For 11 frustrating seasons, the Brewers have stared up at the rest of baseball like a beggar in the streets. Hat in hand, the club expected too much from the public. Many fans truly believe the Brewers have not held up their end of the bargain. It's time for the Board to stand up and be accountable. It's time for it to go to work for the fans.

{image1} Whether or not you accepted the promise that Miller Park would create new revenue streams is not the debate here. It has. What's in question is why the payroll has gone down each year since the roof opened? It is no coincidence that the team's record and attendance has nosedived, too.

Many point to poor management. Many think that ownership lacks the savvy to walk alongside owners with deep pockets. Many have come to believe that the Brewers, like so many small market clubs, is just a glorified Triple A team. Those are deep-rooted sentiments that just don't go away.

Appreciation of the Selig family for bringing Major League Baseball back to Milwaukee and standing steadfast during the Miller Park debate only goes so far when it comes to loyalty.

Loyalty has to be a two-way street. Saying you're trying to be competitive and then cutting payroll does not jive. Saying the team is building from within does not work anymore -- not after the Greg Vaughns, Jeff Cirillos, John Jahas, David Nilssons, Jose Valentins, Mark Lorettas and perhaps the Geoff Jenkins and many others adopted the grow and go philosophy.

And as much as fans are allowed to understand how big league baseball works in small markets, the Brewers fragile existence really boils down to choice. Just as fans have a choice to purchase tickets.

People want accountability. And right now, they don't think the current ownership is totally committed.

It's easy to play with other people's money. Whether the Brewers spend $30 million, $40 million or $50 million next year, they won't contend for the pennant. Besides if they had to up the ante, it would have been reflected in ticket prices.

Fans are led to believe Brewers owners don't receive dividends for their investments. Well, apparently, neither do fans, and they're stuck paying the tax for Miller Park for at least 10 more years. On top of that, the few who choose to visit the ballpark must pay a good day's wage to watch major league millionaires earn a living playing a game.

This off-season, 25 of 30 big league clubs hope to trim payroll. It's called being fiscally responsible. Admirable. Here's Milwaukee's chance to break the chains of losing. With a bumper crop of free agents wouldn't this be a perfect time for aggressive market thinking? While others scale back, the Brewers could catch up to the pack.

If nothing else, it would be a positive sign to fans. Otherwise, fans have cause to ask the Brewers owners to sell. The media has already suggested putting out the for sale sign. Even politicians have asked the Brewers to sell, but they don't count.

It has been reported that this ownership group has lost millions of dollars and has not taken dime-one. It has a debt in excess of $100 million, too. That's why they won't sell -- the timing isn't right. They aren't going to take a loss on their investment, no more than any of us would.

Besides, who in their right mind would invest in a small-market franchise without having the ability to decide its future? This could be another reason why Payne could not lure new investors. No voice, no support.

If the ownership group was willing to sell and say they found someone foolish enough to payoff the debt, do you honestly believe they would want to keep the Brewers in the 32nd largest market in the country? Think again. That is the risk with selling.

There's the issue of the 30-year lease. But, frankly, anyone with the wealth to buy a big league team and assume its debt would have the resources to get out from underneath a lease. Be careful for what you wish.

How the owners have helped the Brewers: They brought the Brewers to Milwaukee and have kept them here, even as they continue to bleed money. They have created and sustained thousands of local jobs in running a club and building Miller Park. Less tangibly, the Brewers add to Milwaukee's reputation as a Major League city and bring in tourist dollars, too.

How the owners have hurt the Brewers: They have demonstrated that they are not very good at building a winning team. They have made poor hiring choices in the front office (Sal Bando sticks out like a sore thumb), which has trickled down to mediocrity or less on the field. They have oversold their product repeatedly to a now-fickle public. Wendy Selig-Prieb, the prime example of an inept owner, said she would step aside and let new blood run the club, but when Ulice Payne got a little too vocal in his opposition to business as usual, they fired him. The owners have been unwilling to sell the team, and in fact, made it unsellable by creating a mountain of debt caused by decades of mismanagement.

Next week: Brewers Fans and Politicians

Gregg Hoffmann, Jeff Sherman, Bobby Tanzilo, Andy Tarnoff and Mario Ziino contributed to this report.