Brewers with lowest payroll in Majors for 2016

[monty57]

The bottom line is the Brewers aren’t going to build a sustainable winner unless they develop pitching. Saying we can’t develop one, so we gamble to hopefully sign one isn’t the best path for a sustainable winner. With our current pitching depth, Im not so sure we don’t already have a Jacob Degrom, Corey Kluber, Kyle Hendricks, or Dallas Keuchel somewhere in the system.

 

Maybe they do, maybe they don't. However when the time comes to compete and that guy isn't there what are you going to do? Nothing? Nope, you are either trading for one or buying one. You surely aren't sitting on your hands hoping he just pops up while you waste away good seasons.

 

Yea, and it doesn't need to be an "either/or." Hopefully they can develop one, better yet two or three really good SP. That doesn't mean they still can't or shouldn't go out and try to get an ace, TOR, #1, whatever you want to call it. They will have a ton of money to spend, especially if they move Braun. At some point you have to go "all in" especially when you're just spending money to do it, instead of trading a bunch of top talent to get that pitcher.

 

I agree with this. Just as an example, let's say Peralta, Davies and Nelson look good next year plus Hader comes up and performs well, so going into 2018 we have what looks to be a fairly solid rotation, with a base payroll around $65,000,000. We could add a $25,000,000 stud at the top-of-the rotation and still have room in the payroll for future raises and additions, especially if we're willing to trade away some "proven" guys with higher salaries when prospects are ready to come up and play for league minimum.

 

I wouldn't even call this "all in," which to me connotes that we are going for it today at the expense of tomorrow. I don't want to see that, but I think that in the not-too-distant future they should be in a situation where they can play for "today" while still building for "tomorrow." As you mentioned, spending money while still remaining well under the Brewers' likely payroll max is well within reason, and none of the future (prospects) have to be sacrificed to win "today."

 

Note: the above is just an example of what could be. It's meant to be theoretical, and a lot of the pieces could be changed to try to make the puzzle work.

[ZBTMP]

 

I agree with this. Just as an example, let's say Peralta, Davies and Nelson look good next year plus Hader comes up and performs well, so going into 2018 we have what looks to be a fairly solid rotation, with a base payroll around $65,000,000. We could add a $25,000,000 stud at the top-of-the rotation and still have room in the payroll for future raises and additions, especially if we're willing to trade away some "proven" guys with higher salaries when prospects are ready to come up and play for league minimum.

 

I wouldn't even call this "all in," which to me connotes that we are going for it today at the expense of tomorrow. I don't want to see that, but I think that in the not-too-distant future they should be in a situation where they can play for "today" while still building for "tomorrow." As you mentioned, spending money while still remaining well under the Brewers' likely payroll max is well within reason, and none of the future (prospects) have to be sacrificed to win "today."

 

Note: the above is just an example of what could be. It's meant to be theoretical, and a lot of the pieces could be changed to try to make the puzzle work.

 

The problem with that scenario is Im still not sure the Brewers score enough runs to make a difference in the short term and you've got a albatross on the backend when you need to lock up future stars. The Brewers were 24th in runs scored with healthy contributions from Lucroy and Braun. I dont know if you can expect much more offense growth from Villar. Sure Broxton, Arcia, Santana, Brinson will add positive contributions, but will they all be above average regulars in 2018?

 

I'm not ready after next season to throw 25 million for 7 years and a first round pick at a 31 year old Yu Darvish or Lance Lynn. I'd rather they give shots to Wilkerson, Woodruff, Ortiz to see if they got something useful there.

[MrTPlush]

You could defer money quite easily to lessen the blow. They really could easily front load a deal although financially that is a bad investment for a club. Still one could do it.

[Greenleaf1]

I think there are scenarios where it makes sense to sign a big expensive pitcher in free agency and scenarios where it makes sense to trade for one or just go with our own young guys, but it really depends on a lot of factors. How are our young guys performing? What other deals have we made to lead up to that point? Who's available on the market and for what price? Who's available to trade and what pieces do we have that could be expendable?

 

I think we'll have a much better handle on this after next season.

[monty57]

I'm not ready after next season to throw 25 million for 7 years and a first round pick at a 31 year old Yu Darvish or Lance Lynn. I'd rather they give shots to Wilkerson, Woodruff, Ortiz to see if they got something useful there.

 

I agree the scenario has to be right. Don't sign a big deal just to sign one, but making a big play when it looks right would make sense. Like you, I don't want to sign a 31-year old to a 7-year deal. The problem is always going to be that only a few guys you'd like will be free agents every year, and there isn't always a match-up that fits perfectly into your team's schedule. That's probably why the Cubs signed Lester before anyone thought they were ready to compete. He was available, and they figured he'd be on their team when they were ready. That's why, while I don't expect it, I wouldn't be completely shocked if the Brewers spend some money in FA this offseason if the right guy is available.

 

As to who could be a starting pitcher they could go after in the offseason prior to 2018, I don't really want to completely derail the thread, but an example could be someone like Tyler Chatwood, who will be a 28-year old FA going into 2018, or Jarrod Parker who will be 29.

[FVBrewerFan]

The problem is always going to be that only a few guys you'd like will be free agents every year, and there isn't always a match-up that fits perfectly into your team's schedule. That's probably why the Cubs signed Lester before anyone thought they were ready to compete. He was available, and they figured he'd be on their team when they were ready. That's why, while I don't expect it, I wouldn't be completely shocked if the Brewers spend some money in FA this offseason if the right guy is available.

 

This is a great point. Needle in a haystack to find a great SP that wants to sign with the Brewers. So when you find one, it may not quite by the right time yet. That's not all bad. It does send a signal to the team that it's time to start winning, for whatever that's worth I would think it's some motivation.

 

My whole thing is I want to avoid a Sabathia/Greinke type trade in the future. I rather give up money than future talent. That doesn't mean Ortiz, Woodruff, or anyone else is blocked. If someone is better than the five in the rotation, they will get their chance- believe me. Plenty of Nelson/Anderson/Peralta types, that will all be sorted out.

 

I would still be shocked if they signed a big time arm THIS off-season. Then again, I get the feeling Mark A is less patient with rebuilding than I am.

[Ennder]

Getting what you pay for this year. Only 1 playoff team on that list is under 100million. Cleveland at 96.3.

The avg of the 10 teams to make is 161.16mil

Remove highest and lowest LA/Clv is drops to just 158.19mil.

 

12 teams total on this had payroll under 100million. 5 of them were between 96-100.

Leaves just 7 teams below 90mil and as can be expected 6 of 7 of them in the bottom 10 W/L record for 2016

Cincy, Philly, Oak, Atl, Tam, and Milw. Miami at 79wins 14th worst record.

 

That's 60mil roughly on the lower 1/3 of the League in payroll. Which is 60% over their total team payroll. That's the equivalent of the upper 20 teams having 40man game day roster on the season vs 25.

 

But this is very rare. There is almost always 1 or 2 low end payroll teams in the playoffs.

[reillymcshane]

I think the key is creating and keeping financial flexibility.

 

I don't want us signing a 30+ year old free agent player for 5-7 years and $100-200M. Those deals rarely work out well.

 

With financial flexibility, you can:

 

- Make modest free agent signings when necessary.

- Make trades for players, absorbing salary in the deal (but not being stuck with a really long term contract) so you don't have to give up as much as you normally might.

- Sign our own players to extensions. You can sign your own guys through their arby years, plus with a year or two of team options. This gives you a player for 7-8 years. We did this with Lucroy, Gallardo and Braun (at least with his first contract).

 

There will always be exceptions to the rule, but if you are wise with your payroll, financial flexibility will really help this team. I think one of the big reasons we've lost in the past 5-6 years is the lack of depth. We've been forced to overpay for mediocre players (primarily pitching - Garza, Lohse, Suppan, Wolf) and not had money to fill holes or add depth. We've lived with too many black holes on this club, and it's killed us. Bringing in depth doesn't have to cost a done - but it does cost something. I'd rather have a Jerry Hairston Jr at $3M than a César Izturis for $1M. Too many times we ended up with an Overbay or Alex Gonzalez or whomever because that's all we could afford.

 

Of course, you have to produce good, young players from the minors (and keep producing them). You have be willing to deal guys when you have younger and cheaper replacements (such as when we dealt Hardy and Overbay). Those moments are risky - but so is ending up with an old, overpaid team with horrible depth.

[CheezWizHed]

I don't want us signing a 30+ year old free agent player for 5-7 years and $100-200M. Those deals rarely work out well.

 

While that hasn't worked out for us, that isn't a universal truth. Where would the Cubs be without their FA SP additions? They would be the 2011 Brewers. All offense, no pitching.

 

I don't think the Dodgers regret signing Zack Greinke.

 

Certainly larger market teams have the payroll to better manage the risk of those signings. But there are times when those signings make perfect sense. We just need to do better at identifying the SPs we should target and stop giving big money to #3/#4 SPs.

[reillymcshane]

I don't want us signing a 30+ year old free agent player for 5-7 years and $100-200M. Those deals rarely work out well.

 

While that hasn't worked out for us, that isn't a universal truth.

 

I don't think anyone feels there should be blanket rules - as noted - there are always exceptions.

 

Where would the Cubs be without their FA SP additions? They would be the 2011 Brewers. All offense, no pitching.

 

The Cubs have made one large FA pitcher pickup - Lester. 6 years and $155M. The deal has been great so far for the Cubs, but we will see how it ends up. The other FA signings pitcher signings have been for 2 years (Hammel and Lackey - I believe Hammel has a club option for a 3rd year). The Cubs financial resources and their lack of long term commitments allowed them to make all these deals - only one of which was long term.

 

 

I don't think the Dodgers regret signing Zack Greinke.

No they don't. But I bet the Dbacks do (but there's time for that to change).

 

But even with Zack's quality pitching in LA, it's using hindsight to pick out the successes. I can name lots of $100+ contracts that were bad investments - Prince Fielder, Carl Crawford, Barry Zito, Mike Hampton, Josh Hamilton, for example.

 

People often say things like, "When you sign a guy to a big contract, you know the last year or two are often throwaways." That's fair, but it's all about managing your finances so that you can afford to swallow a $20M contract during those years and still be competitive. It's a lot harder on a smaller market team.

 

 

Certainly larger market teams have the payroll to better manage the risk of those signings. But there are times when those signings make perfect sense. We just need to do better at identifying the SPs we should target and stop giving big money to #3/#4 SPs.

 

To me it's all about being smart. You have to do that in so many ways - draft well, develop players well, trade well - and make smart free decisions. And even then, there's so many variables you can't control, that despite all the best planning can cause things to blow up (or get better - who saw Jake Arietta becoming a Cy Young pitcher). Just gotta do the best and hope things work out in the end.

[monty57]

Where would the Cubs be without their FA SP additions?

 

Wasn't Lester the only FA signing, or at least the only big one? I believe the rest came over in fairly unheralded deals that have turned out very well for them.

 

If we can find most of our starters elsewhere, in our case mostly coming up from the minors, then signing one bigger deal, even if as I mentioned earlier it's a guy like Parker or Chapman and not some probably unattainable "true ace" like Bumgarner or Kershaw, then we could have a playoff-caliber rotation.

 

Same is true of our offense. Most of our guys will likely come from the farm or from deals like the ones where we got Villar or Broxton. However, if we can't find someone at a position, hopefully with good payroll management, we will be able to fill in some holes via free agency or "salary dump" trades as Reilly mentioned.

 

I don't dislike free agency, you just generally can't get undervalued player there, so they have to come from other places. When we're ready to hit the FA market, I hope we target guys who will be on the team for a good part of their prime, instead of signing guys who are already past their prime and hoping they'll defy nature and play well into their mid-30s. I also hope we keep a continual stream of prospects coming up, as paying them league minimum is how we will be able to keep payroll low enough that we can eventually dip into the FA market when needed. It also means that we're probably trading away some guys who are getting expensive to restock the farm and replacing them with the inexpensive guys from the farm.

[monty57]

In re-reading my posts, it kind of sounds like I'm talking both sides of the argument, so I'll try to clarify.

 

If we have a continual stream of average-to-above average guys coming up from the farm, that keeps the payroll down, allowing for us to sign some players in free agency. I don't think we should build our foundation on free agency, but rather fill in where needed. We have some good pitching coming up through the minors (better than I can ever remember), so we could have most of our rotation filled from guys who are currently "Brewer property." Because of all the young, cheaper guys, we could afford to make a huge signing. It may not happen, but we could do it, and it probably wouldn't cripple us long-term as long as we maintain a strong farm.

 

The more likely scenario (in my opinion) is that we sign a good pitcher who is coming into his prime who may not classify as an "ace" (there are few guys who do), but could be our #1 or 2 starter to go along with the talented young guys. If some of the young guys hit their ceiling, then I'd be happy to have a 30-year-old Parker or Chapman as our #3. Ideally, if things went really well, by the time the 29-year-old FA we sign gets to be 31 or 32, we will have in house replacements allowing us to trade him away and continue to bring in youth, even when we're competitive. That youth could then be used to replace someone in the future, allowing us to keep a lower payroll by cycling older, proven talent that is becoming expensive for younger, unproven talent with more team control.

 

This "continual cycle" strategy may seem far-fetched, but I think that's what Stearns intends to try, and I'm looking forward to seeing if he can pull it off.

[MadThinker88]

Where would the Cubs be without their FA SP additions?

 

Wasn't Lester the only FA signing, or at least the only big one? I believe the rest came over in fairly unheralded deals that have turned out very well for them.

 

If we can find most of our starters elsewhere, in our case mostly coming up from the minors, then signing one bigger deal, even if as I mentioned earlier it's a guy like Parker or Chapman and not some probably unattainable "true ace" like Bumgarner or Kershaw, then we could have a playoff-caliber rotation.

 

Same is true of our offense. Most of our guys will likely come from the farm or from deals like the ones where we got Villar or Broxton. However, if we can't find someone at a position, hopefully with good payroll management, we will be able to fill in some holes via free agency or "salary dump" trades as Reilly mentioned.

 

I don't dislike free agency, you just generally can't get undervalued player there, so they have to come from other places. When we're ready to hit the FA market, I hope we target guys who will be on the team for a good part of their prime, instead of signing guys who are already past their prime and hoping they'll defy nature and play well into their mid-30s. I also hope we keep a continual stream of prospects coming up, as paying them league minimum is how we will be able to keep payroll low enough that we can eventually dip into the FA market when needed. It also means that we're probably trading away some guys who are getting expensive to restock the farm and replacing them with the inexpensive guys from the farm.

 

Other big free agent signings for the Cubs: Ben Zobriest & Jason Heyward.

Having these guys allowed a good manager in Maddon to mix match and adjust as needed. It also allowed further development time for some players as needed and provided great depth.

[And That]

It's not a given that the Brewers would have been able to sign Hammel and Lackey to those deals. May well have taken more years/money for both.