Brewers Have Considered Trading Hart

[Baldkin]

Are people forgetting that the Brewers are getting more revenue from their new TV contract in a year or two (can't remember which year it increases or triples)? Last season (on their current TV deal) they were able to push the payroll to 98-100 million. Yes they lost money, but we have an owner that is willing to keep pushing payroll if he thinks it's worth the risk, so assuming the Brewers do we'll in 2013 and contend, I think it's right to expect that again. I'm expecting a 90 million base payroll capability to 110 million max, but will likely lose some money should they stretch it to the max, but it will be manageable should they draw 3.2 million plus fans again.

 

This also doesn't include the new 12.4 Billion TV deal that MLB signed, which is a 100% increase over the second one. The revenue sharing pot should also increase because of the Dodgers new huge TV deal and their current payroll status.

 

The Brewers seem to be holding back with their payroll, because they are able to and still field a competitive team, which is smart, and it gives them the flexibility to spend that money should an opportunity present itself, likely at mid-season or to extend Hart, or both.

 

1) The Brewers performance factor determined by the new CBA means they will probably get the same amount or less money overall from revenue sharing in 2013 than 2012.

2) The Brewers new local deal nearly tripled, which allowed them to go from an 80m payroll team to 90m max. It was the worst deal in MLB. Now it's something like 4th worst.

3) The new MLB deal doesn't kick in until 2014, which is why Ramirez's contract was back loaded so much.

4) They've never drawn 3.1 million fans, let alone 3.2 million.

[PrinceFielderx1]

Baldkin,

 

1.) The attendance was around 3,068,000 million. My main point was 3 million +.

2.) I don't know where you get 90 million max payroll, when the Brewers clearly have had higher payrolls in the past, by as much as 10 million more than that. We have an owner that is willing to stretch payroll that far even though he loses money should he deem it's worth the risk. Also, the Brewers management has said they have room to spend right now beyond 80 million, should they choose. Sounds like you pulled that number out from nowhere. It's likely 90 million base and around 110 million max once the new TV deal goes into effect.

3.) I don't know why fans aren't considering the new 12.4 billion dollar MLB TV deal that was just signed, which is double the old one, which should be quite a bit of additional revenue sharing dollars.

4.) I do believe the Brewers can afford a Hart extension.

[Roderick]

2.) I don't know where you get 90 million max payroll, when the Brewers clearly have had higher payrolls in the past, by as much as 10 million more than that. We have an owner that is willing to stretch payroll that far even though he loses money should he deem it's worth the risk. Also, the Brewers management has said they have room to spend right now beyond 80 million, should they choose. Sounds like you pulled that number out from nowhere. It's likely 90 million base and around 110 million max once the new TV deal goes into effect.

 

If you just include the base 25 man roster at the beginning of the year and add in the $5M from Braun's signing bonus and Aoki's posting fee, I had the Brewers basically at $101M last year. That was before the additional costs for injury and September callups and salary saved by trading Greinke.

[paul253]

Just because Mark A. stretches the payroll every now and then doesn't mean he can do it every year. If he could then it wouldn't be "stretching the payroll". At some point he's going to have to come down a little.

 

Beside, the money isn't necessarily the only thing that people consider when deciding whether or not they think Hart should be extended. I think I listed 3 or 4 other reasons, including capable in house replacements, his age, and the return we could get for him.

[PrinceFielderx1]

Just because Mark A. stretches the payroll every now and then doesn't mean he can do it every year. If he could then it wouldn't be "stretching the payroll". At some point he's going to have to come down a little.

 

Beside, the money isn't necessarily the only thing that people consider when deciding whether or not they think Hart should be extended. I think I listed 3 or 4 other reasons, including capable in house replacements, his age, and the return we could get for him.

 

I understand this and I agree. My only point for bringing this up is the payroll that the Brewers can consistently support is higher than what some people think, and the Brewers are doing a great job keeping that quiet to this point by lowering payroll from 100 million to 80 million this season, and by keeping their new TV contract exact details quiet.

[monty57]

PFx1, I agree the baseline payroll will have the ability to rise with the new money coming in, which is why I used $90MM in my statement:

 

"With say a $90MM payroll, the average salary of the 25 players is $3.6MM. For every $14MM player on the roster, you essentially need around four pre-arby (league minimum) guys on the roster just to meet your average."

 

To add to that, you could obviously only fit six $14MM players on a $90MM payroll (6x14=84), but the other 19 players, even at league minimum would equate to around $8.5MM, so really, even if we had 19 MLB-ready guys at league minimum, we can't afford to have more than five or six eight-figure salary players. In reality, we can probably afford two or three eight figure players in a "normal" payroll year, as we will never have 19 good, MLB-ready guys playing for league minimum. Braun is one of those two or three players for the foreseeable future. In that light, is Hart worthy of being on that pedestal?

 

The problem with the new TV money flowing throughout the league is that iffy players like Gomez are now being considered by some to be worth of a multi-year, eight figure contract. The Brewers' ability to raise their baseline payroll by "x" hurts them when league average payrolls rise by substantially more than "x." I certainly don't think Gomez (or a player of his talent-level) should be one of the few eight-figure guys we can field.

 

The Brewers were able to act like big money teams for a while because they were coming off of a very low payroll, they had (and used) some inexpensive, superstar prospects, and Attanasio was finding ways to generate revenue that the Seligs didn't realize. Acting like a big money team now has the team in the situation where they have big guaranteed obligations to a few players which will take up a large percentage of their projected payroll for the next few seasons, at a time when they don't have any superstar prospects to play for league minimum. Plus, the ownership group (it's not just Attanasio) have foregone profit for the chance to win, and probably would like to make some profit for a while.

 

Now, it is a benefit that the payroll will go up, because it lessens the negative effect of the long-term guaranteed liabilities. It is also good that Ramirez's contract will be (mostly - deferred pmt) gone after 2014, which will allow for the team to have some financial "breathing room." However, I do not think that it is wise to eat up that "breathing room" by guaranteeing a lot of money to Hart, when we have multiple capable replacements in-house who would play for around 3% of what hart would cost on a yearly basis, allowing us to focus our limited resources elsewhere.

 

The Brewers will be able to pay some players eight figure salaries. That's a good thing. They will not be able to pay numerous players eight figure salaries, so they really need to be choosy as to whom they will offer eight-figure salaries. They chose to essentially lock Braun up for life, which I like. However, to those saying "we can't waste years in which we have Braun," please realize that it is partially because we're going to pay Braun a lot of money that we cannot offer big contracts to some other players that we may like to sign. Personally, I prefer saving the money so we can offer "Lucroy-type" deals to some of the prospects we have. We could sign about six "Lucroy-type" deals for the total guaranteed cost of one Hart deal. I'd rather go that route.

[logan82]

The added TV revenue will only be about $13m extra per year per team.

Per ESPN

The amount baseball receives from the two networks will double to an average of about $800 million annually

If you didn't feel like doing the math.

$800m/30=$26.7m

$26.7m/2=$13.35m

 

Assuming a $90m payroll as the base that puts us at about $103m and assuming our local TV deal went to $20m then we are at about $115mish. The Dodgers TV contract may not have as big of an impact because of how it was structured and their team debt. It will only count as about $84m instead of the full amount. Add in the fact that many teams got bigger increases and our increase in payroll will not buy as much as it did even a year ago.

[monty57]

Plus $1 in additional revenue does not necessarily equal $1 in additional payroll.

[logan82]

Plus $1 in additional revenue does not necessarily equal $1 in additional payroll.

True. Increased local revenue will drive down how much they bring back in revenue sharing. On the other hand if other teams increase their revenue by more than the Brewers do we will get more back.

[brewcrewdue80]

Plus $1 in additional revenue does not necessarily equal $1 in additional payroll.

 

Upgrades to the stadium and or maintenance is also used off that revenue. One thing about Miller Park is how friendly it is for both Home/Away teams. As years go by without updating it the park will become outdated. Mark A. seems to have kept an eye on his stadium by providing a fan friendly experience as well. Something that I know keeps me and the fans going to ball games.

If you think about it from that perspective its another reason to appreciate Mark A. and Melvin in not using their resources strictly to pay for players and themselves, they use them to keep fans happy.

 

Another way I've seen people look to the added revenue is the thought, "Great more money to overpay players and line the pockets of the owners"

 

Meanwhile, the fan still sees ticket prices rise, food prices rise, parking rise and on and on. Mark A. just may keep his pricing and not raise them keeping it affordable to go to games. That may not happen or it may and if it's a result of using some of the added revenue over paying a player 14+mil then again great for us the fans.

We are a small market team for reason, the avg attendence here is harder to maintain than the big cities with Millions of people to have fight over going to a game. I believe Mark A. took advantage of Selig's mediocrity and subsequent years of top picks, the ballpark, throw some added money to bring the fans to a ballpark that as I recall many said would snub after having the stadium tax. My Grandpa still to this day doesn't watch the Brewers after that deal. As I recall originally the team's payroll operating above 70mil wasn't realistic. Sure the fans have come but what if they slowly stop going? To expect 90+mil payrolls, locking up 4-5players on 12MM+ salaries anything long term could turn disastrous if the players fail, fans grow disgust and attendence falls to the 2mil range.

 

So, to sum it up the Brewers need to make sure they are getting as much value from every dollar spent on every player from every player. Just raising the payroll 10-15mil because the added revenue says there's enough money floating around for Hart,Swisher,BUpton, et al to ask 14-16MM doesn't make the Brewers one of those teams to pay 15mil on an 11mm Brewers affordable player.

 

I think that in is the problem with the revenue is while you say yeah I'd sign Hart to 4yr 40-44mil extension. and then hear new revenue and now in your head you say well if the going rate is 4/52-56? Okay since the money is there we can do that with Hart. Hart hasn't change as a player between this year and the moment the new tv deals were made. So why should you change what you feel he is worth?

If Mark A. and Melvin sit tight and don't get lost in the overspending this team will succeed for years while teams like Cleveland who not only paid 14mil to Swisher but lost a draft pick. Letting Hart go with a QO and replenishing with an added draft pick in the 30s for someone who if successful will be on the team around the time the 14mm aging Hart's extended contract would have ended? How do you replace him then? well currently Hart is replaceable among Gamel/Green,Schafer,Aoki. depending where you play him. but if extended to say 2016 who's to replace him then/beyond? Oh, that draft pick we could have had had we just QO'd him? Or the prospects you attained from trading him?

 

Sorry turned in to a big rant. Anyone ever go to Baseball-Reference? I'll go there and check out teams payroll obligations. Remember Jack Z.? now GM for Seattle? for 2015 they only have 2.7mil in guaranteed contract money for that year! So it all makes sense why everyone links them to signing a FA. Yet they haven't shown the money. Seattle's payroll is around Milwaukee's payroll. I am in belief that Jack Z. and that organization will prosper long term like the Brewers with using the draft, extending the studs when possible and letting the playoff seasons come when they come. Trying to piece together yearly runs of potential playoffs sets up for disaster in payroll obligations and unmovable players. Wolf? Rodriquez? anyone? I am interested to see how successful Seattle is in the next 3-5years and beyond. Of course if they went and signed Bourne then that nixes how I see them.

[PrinceFielderx1]

The added TV revenue will only be about $13m extra per year per team.

Per ESPN

The amount baseball receives from the two networks will double to an average of about $800 million annually

If you didn't feel like doing the math.

$800m/30=$26.7m

$26.7m/2=$13.35m

 

Assuming a $90m payroll as the base that puts us at about $103m and assuming our local TV deal went to $20m then we are at about $115mish. The Dodgers TV contract may not have as big of an impact because of how it was structured and their team debt. It will only count as about $84m instead of the full amount. Add in the fact that many teams got bigger increases and our increase in payroll will not buy as much as it did even a year ago.

 

This post in my opinion should be pinned at the top somewhere, so everybody can see it. It's very realistic and accurate in my view. If Hart would sign a 3 year deal at 13-14 million a year, I'd do it.

 

As for what I highlighted, I believe it would go a long way in locking up good pre-arby players. I highly agree with Monty, that the Lucroy/Gallardo type deals are the way to go for the Brewers more often than not. In regards to payroll, I believe that with Fiers, Peralta and hopefully sometime soon Rogers in the rotation full time with Henderson and perhaps Thornburg in the bullpen, the Brewers can keep the payroll down, and even more manageable.

[logan82]

If Hart would sign a 3 year deal at 13-14 million a year, I'd do it.

I wouldn't. We can't tie up that much money in a player who is as replaceable as Hart is. Sure it would be a small step down but we need to allocate out money elsewhere instead of a position of strength withing our franchise.

[PrinceFielderx1]

If Hart would sign a 3 year deal at 13-14 million a year, I'd do it.

I wouldn't. We can't tie up that much money in a player who is as replaceable as Hart is. Sure it would be a small step down but we need to allocate out money elsewhere instead of a position of strength withing our franchise.

 

1.) The Brewers can afford it.

2.) I like having a tall 1B man who can bail infielders out and who can reach far for throws resulting in less borderline calls. This gives Hart an distinct advantage over many 1B man's.

3.) I like having one of the top offenses in the NL (top 2 I believe), which gives us an advantage over teams like the Reds and practically anybody else. I'm sorry, but to expect Hart type numbers from a prospect in his first couple seasons is a big "if." The Brewers finally have pitching breaking through, right now, so keep the offense in tact.

4.) I said quite a few posts back that I wouldn't hesitate to give Hart a 3 year deal and I meant it. After that deal I'd obviously let him walk and Ramirez's deal should be over with as well, if you include his option year.

[logan82]

Who said anything about expecting Hart type numbers? I said small step back. We take a small step back at a position of strength, trade Hart for somebody who will help us in the coming years and save a lot of money. I don't really see how we could justify giving Hart a 3 year contract even at his current salary compared to the alternative.

[Mr Southpaw]

How about a compromise?

 

Offer a three year deal at $34 million. Year one $11 million, year two $11 million, and year three 12 million. Hart gets a raise and we get a first baseman. If he says no, give him the QO of $13 million. He will probably test free agency an we get the pick, if not one year at $13 does not kill us.

 

The three year offer makes Hart tip his hand one way or the other. If he is not willing to give a little in home town discount, he will try free agency. I think it is a win situation either way.

[PrinceFielderx1]

Who said anything about expecting Hart type numbers? I said small step back. We take a small step back at a position of strength, trade Hart for somebody who will help us in the coming years and save a lot of money. I don't really see how we could justify giving Hart a 3 year contract even at his current salary compared to the alternative.

 

I'm not willing to take a step back with the offense at all, and why should I? This offense that is currently constructed is a top 2 offense in the NL, if not the best, and is really needed until our pitching prospects develop to where they need to be. The offense "will" take a step back should Hart not be apart of it, and how much of a step back is unknown, and that's a risk I don't believe they need or should take at all.

[KCBrewerfan34]

Ok here's the question as I see it. With a rebuilt bullpen, emerging starters, and an improving minor league system can the Brewers compete for divisions the next 3 years? If the answer is yes, you spend the money on Hart and maybe a #2 starter type becomes available at the deadline or in the off-season and we have a nice team for 2-3 years. If the answer is we're slipping back towards a rebuild then you should trade Hart now and get something better than a draft pick.

 

As previously documented I'm all for signing Hart, 3 years for $36 million would seem to be about right, he probably would agree to defer some money if the Brew asked.

 

 

GO BREW

[nate82]

Ok here's the question as I see it. With a rebuilt bullpen, emerging starters, and an improving minor league system can the Brewers compete for divisions the next 3 years? If the answer is yes, you spend the money on Hart and maybe a #2 starter type becomes available at the deadline or in the off-season and we have a nice team for 2-3 years. If the answer is we're slipping back towards a rebuild then you should trade Hart now and get something better than a draft pick.

 

As previously documented I'm all for signing Hart, 3 years for $36 million would seem to be about right, he probably would agree to defer some money if the Brew asked.

 

 

GO BREW

 

That is not even close enough to what you will have to pay for Hart and I don't see him taking a discount. 4 years at $60m is probably closer to what it would take to sign Hart.

[Raw Biz]

Who said anything about expecting Hart type numbers? I said small step back. We take a small step back at a position of strength, trade Hart for somebody who will help us in the coming years and save a lot of money. I don't really see how we could justify giving Hart a 3 year contract even at his current salary compared to the alternative.

 

I'm not willing to take a step back with the offense at all, and why should I? This offense that is currently constructed is a top 2 offense in the NL, if not the best, and is really needed until our pitching prospects develop to where they need to be. The offense "will" take a step back should Hart not be apart of it, and how much of a step back is unknown, and that's a risk I don't believe they need or should take at all.

 

I hate to beat a dead horse here but where exactly did a top 2 offense get us the past 10 years (if the Brewers are even a top 2 is another debate). The Brewers have been a top offense, middle-of-the-pack pitching for basically the past 10 years. We got 2 playoff berths, but both were more because of pitching (C.C./Sheets and Greinke/Marcum/Yo).

 

As constructed, I don't see how this pitching staff can even compare to those two staffs. I also think the offenses of those years were better as well. I would much rather take a step back offensively to move forward pitching-wise (or even for a younger hitter with more years of control). I think a top 6 offense and top 5 staff is better than a top 2 offense and top 10 staff. Those numbers are just thrown out there but you get my point.

 

Pitching and multiple years of cost-control should be the philosophy of this team. We really need to start thinking like the Rays (and even Marlins to an extent) and trade guys when they become expensive and/or only have a year or two remaining, especially if we're only project to be middle-of-the-pack. I think this offseason is the perfect time to trade Hart because I really think you could get a great package for him.

[KCBrewerfan34]

Ok here's the question as I see it. With a rebuilt bullpen, emerging starters, and an improving minor league system can the Brewers compete for divisions the next 3 years? If the answer is yes, you spend the money on Hart and maybe a #2 starter type becomes available at the deadline or in the off-season and we have a nice team for 2-3 years. If the answer is we're slipping back towards a rebuild then you should trade Hart now and get something better than a draft pick.

 

As previously documented I'm all for signing Hart, 3 years for $36 million would seem to be about right, he probably would agree to defer some money if the Brew asked.

 

 

GO BREW

 

That is not even close enough to what you will have to pay for Hart and I don't see him taking a discount. 4 years at $60m is probably closer to what it would take to sign Hart.

 

Nate, actually Hart would probably sign that deal today IMO.

[PrinceFielderx1]

Who said anything about expecting Hart type numbers? I said small step back. We take a small step back at a position of strength, trade Hart for somebody who will help us in the coming years and save a lot of money. I don't really see how we could justify giving Hart a 3 year contract even at his current salary compared to the alternative.

 

I'm not willing to take a step back with the offense at all, and why should I? This offense that is currently constructed is a top 2 offense in the NL, if not the best, and is really needed until our pitching prospects develop to where they need to be. The offense "will" take a step back should Hart not be apart of it, and how much of a step back is unknown, and that's a risk I don't believe they need or should take at all.

 

I hate to beat a dead horse here but where exactly did a top 2 offense get us the past 10 years (if the Brewers are even a top 2 is another debate). The Brewers have been a top offense, middle-of-the-pack pitching for basically the past 10 years. We got 2 playoff berths, but both were more because of pitching (C.C./Sheets and Greinke/Marcum/Yo).

 

As constructed, I don't see how this pitching staff can even compare to those two staffs. I also think the offenses of those years were better as well. I would much rather take a step back offensively to move forward pitching-wise (or even for a younger hitter with more years of control). I think a top 6 offense and top 5 staff is better than a top 2 offense and top 10 staff. Those numbers are just thrown out there but you get my point.

 

Pitching and multiple years of cost-control should be the philosophy of this team. We really need to start thinking like the Rays (and even Marlins to an extent) and trade guys when they become expensive and/or only have a year or two remaining, especially if we're only project to be middle-of-the-pack. I think this offseason is the perfect time to trade Hart because I really think you could get a great package for him.

 

I have 1 word for you "bullpen." The Brewers just need an average SP staff, with their current offense, but with a good dependable bullpen, and they will make the playoffs, and the rest is a crap shoot in my opinion.

[MNBrew]

Nothing earth-shattering going on in my thinking, just a whole lot of thoughts at just past the halfway point of the offseason....

 

While I see plenty of reason to keep Corey Hart at 1B for the next few seasons, I still lean more heavily toward trading him as a way to utilize likely-capable (& hopefully also directly comparable) players already in the system & ready for the bigs AND also to address the financially-rational "needs" (esp. for a low-end market media & media $$ wise) of manageable payroll which retains significant flexibility and increasing the pool of upper-end young talent.

 

To PFx1's last point just above, I think the teams with the best odds in the "crap shoot" are ones who not only capitalize on their greatest strengths but who also maximize their opportunities to add talent. Plain & simple, in most cases the more talent you have, the better your odds. Look at the Cardinals of 2011. Heck, just about every player they had in their lineup or brought in off the bench produced, and same goes both for their starters and their Brewers-decimating bullpen. Brewers' starters hit a rough patch & the Cardinals were ready to attack like vultures hovering over prey (granted, of course, that they were on a late-season run that pretty much no one could stop, esp. once the Braves puked up their chances to earn a playoff spot that easily should've been theirs & that, in turn, would've kept the Cardinals out of the postseason altogether).

 

So by that logic, Hart's a (usually) very solid asset and we all know that (granted, also with a noted hole in his swing and the occasionally mind-numbing lack of restraint when facing a slider headed into the dirt in the LH batter's box). The ultimate question is whether trading him would a) bring enough in return to justify the move in the first place, b) create significant enough payroll flexibility to make other needed/opportunistic moves possible, and c) be accompanied by decent enough production by the player(s) in the lineup in Hart's place. Giving up proven, reasonably affordable talent & good character's not an easy thing to do, and it's complicated all the more by Hart's oft-stated desire to be a career Brewer.

 

I'm still torn. But the Brewers probably have more talented & viable depth at AAA & on the Miller Park bench at 1B than at any other position. Gomez is in a similar position, but moving Aoki to CF or putting Schafer in as the starter post-Gomez still creates other holes (one for a more prototypical power-hitting corner OF in Aoki's case, an "I'm comfortable with him getting 100 starts in case of injury" 4th OF in Schafer's case). . . . .

 

Trading Hart may not ultimately be the best move, but it's still one that holds up so well from a baseball standpoint & a financial standpoint that it's not surprising it hasn't gone away.

[PrinceFielderx1]

MNBrew,

 

Should the Brewers make the playoffs they will have the talent to go all the way. Same with any other team that made the playoffs. Whoever plays better in those limited playoff games will advance, and anything can happen.

[monty57]

1.) The Brewers can afford it.

 

This reminds me of several years back in the housing market. "It's stupid not to take the biggest loan possible... look how quickly the home values are going up. If I only buy the $150,000 house, I'll only make $75,000, but if I buy the $500,000 house, I'll make $250,000. I can always flip the house in six months. I can just put my meals on credit card until I hit it big in real estate." Then, when the bank was foreclosing on them, it was everyone's fault but their's.

 

Sure, Melvin could possibly jigger things around to "afford" a Hart extension. However, a lot would have to go right to not end up in fire sale mode. First, we would need to work a deal similar to Ramirez's deal where Hart would take less in year one. Not coincidentally, this is because of how Ramirez's deal will balloon in what would be the first year of Hart's extension. So, with Hart's deal then escalating in year two and beyond, he and Braun would eat up a big chunk of our payroll. Throw in guys like Weeks and Yo and we would really need a large percentage of our roster to be made up of guys playing significant roles while making league minimum. If some of these prospects/league minimum guys don't pan out, then we will flounder around with big holes in the roster we can't afford to fill, leading us to decide that the only option is to give away some of our expensive players for salary relief.

 

As much as some may not like to admit it, we can't afford many eight figure salaries within our budget. We need to be very careful in doling those contracts out, because in baseball they're guaranteed, much like a mortgage in "real life." In baseball, foreclosure is spelled "fire sale," and looks a lot like the Cubs of the past few years. Braun is worth the risk. Hart is not. I don't want to have to give Braun away in a couple of years because we're paying $15MM to a worn-down Hart who no one wants. Not saying that Hart will be worn down in a couple of years, but it is a possibility, and it would destroy our team if it happened. Meanwhile we could be paying Morris $450k, and if he stunk, it wouldn't hurt us (financially) at all.

 

Just like buying that $1,000,000 house on a no-money down loan made some people feel rich, extending Hart would make some Brewer fans fell that they really were on par with the Yankees/Red Sox/Dodgers/Angels, etc. However, it won't feel good when the moving truck backs up and they start packing up your things... or when the team has to give away players for salary relief.

 

Maybe if we were the favored picks for the NL Central crown, then we could say that we need Hart this year because the extra win or two over our other 1B options could be the difference that cost us the World Series. While it's possible we could make the newly-watered-down playoffs, it's far from a sure thing. The odds are small enough, that I'd be willing to look to the future and bring in some good, inexpensive young talent with years of team control that could help us remain financially flexible, young and talented for years to come.

[KCBrewerfan34]

Ok the logic makes sense regarding the payroll and many have said we don't have any money etc... here's my question, if the Brewers don't have any money, how were they able to offer Greinke and Sabtahia and Fielder $100 million + deals? Were they phony offers? If they were legitimate I guess the Brewers would have bankrupted themselves.

 

 

Something doesn't add up.......