Brewers 2018 Payroll (updated 01/13/18)

[reillymcshane]

MLB Trade Rumors has released their arbitration predictions. So I put together Milwaukee's roster of what we have thus far:

 

[pre]C Manny Pina 0.55

C Stephen Vogt 3.065

1B Jesus Aguilar 0.55

1B Eric Thames 5.0

2B Jonathan Villa 2.55

SS Orlando Arcia 0.55

3B Travis Shaw 0.55

LF Ryan Braun 20.0 ($4M deferred)

RF Domingo Santa 0.55

CF Keon Broxton 0.55

OF Lewis Brinson 0.55

OF Brett Phillips 0.55

INF Hernan Perez* 2.2

SP Chase Anderson 4.75

SP Jimmy Nelson 3.7

SP Zach Davies 0.55

SP Brandon Woodr 0.55

S/R Brent Suter 0.55

S/R Josh Hader 0.55

RP Jeremy Jeffress 1.70

RP Corey Knebel 3.65

RP Jacob Barnes 0.55

RP Oliver Drake 0.55

RP Eric Sogard 2.4

RP Boone Logan 1.875

P Yovanni Gallard 2.0

SP Jhoulys Chacin 8.75[/pre]

TOTAL: $69.34M

 

The asterisk (*) indicates the player is arbitration eligible. The number is an estimate from MLB Trade Rumors.

 

MLB Trade Rumors Projected Arby Numbers: https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2017/10/projected-arbitration-salaries-for-2018.html

Cot's Salaries:

[MadThinker88]

Looks like the Crew has some money it can go spend. I trust DS will make some wise purchases & move that number up...

[adambr2]

I realize they take his entire body of work into account, but 3M seems a bit generous for Villar given the year he's coming off of. I'm also not crazy about 4M for a backup catcher but we're not brimming with other options.

 

Nelson's career numbers don't look like someone who is going to make 4.7M in his first arby year to me. Old school numbers are somewhat meaningful in arbitration and his career ERA is fairly similar entering arbitration to what Anderson's was when he was awarded 2.2M in his first go-around. I'd guess closer to 3.5M for Nelson.

 

Either way we'll be paying him for what will most likely be a lost year, but I suppose we have little choice if we want to retain his rights.

 

The rest look about right to me and likely to be tendered besides Torres who I agree will go non-tendered.

[MrTPlush]

$3mil seems pretty accurate for Jonathan Villar. If he was at SS still it would be notably higher. Jean Segura got $2.6mil a few years ago and he had a way worse offensive resume. He had the one good half season and 2.5 years of just terrible output. Villar can say he was good all of 2016 and has only one bad year.

[Lathund]

I realize they take his entire body of work into account, but 3M seems a bit generous for Villar given the year he's coming off of. I'm also not crazy about 4M for a backup catcher but we're not brimming with other options.

 

Nelson's career numbers don't look like someone who is going to make 4.7M in his first arby year to me. Old school numbers are somewhat meaningful in arbitration and his career ERA is fairly similar entering arbitration to what Anderson's was when he was awarded 2.2M in his first go-around. I'd guess closer to 3.5M for Nelson.

 

Either way we'll be paying him for what will most likely be a lost year, but I suppose we have little choice if we want to retain his rights.

 

The rest look about right to me and likely to be tendered besides Torres who I agree will go non-tendered.

 

Jimmy has pitched 611 innings, while Chase was around 420 at this point last year. That, combined with the fact that while the overall body of work matters, the latest season carries more weight (And Jimmy had a fantastic season in 2017) and I think they're fairly close. They've been quite accurate with their predictions in the past.

[liveforoctober]

I liked Vogt - and I can't speak on his ability to call a game/handle a pitching staff - but how difficult will it be to get a .250+ hitting catcher with a bit of power who is even an average defender to be our back up to save a few million?

[pacopete4]

I liked Vogt - and I can't speak on his ability to call a game/handle a pitching staff - but how difficult will it be to get a .250+ hitting catcher with a bit of power who is even an average defender to be our back up to save a few million?

 

[sarcasm]I don't know. Susac looked pretty good out there.[/sarcasm]

[wibadgers23]

So how much do we think Mark is willing to spend? How high has he gone in previous seasons?

[SoCalBrewfan]

They were above $100M for a stretch, so you'd think there's plenty of money to play with. I'd also expect an effort to get some guys signed to longer-term deals for cost certainty, as they attempted with Villar. Knebel, Nelson and Anderson seem the more urgent of those, but Arcia, Davies, Santana, Hader, Shaw are also candidates if they want to be aggressive. They don't really need to save money, but Torres, Villar, and Vogt seem like they could be on the salary chopping block nevertheless.

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/cots/national-league-central/milwaukee-brewers/

[Roderick]

I wouldn't pay Jeffress $2.6M. Offer him $1.5M with incentives that can reach $3M. Not afraid to let him see what he can get elsewhere. We can always bring him back at the midway point of the season now that he has turned into the next boomarang KRod.

[KeithStone53151]

Being an accountant, I've tracked brewers payroll and arbitration myself for a handful of years. I always try to do my own arbitration estimates before they come out. I was fairly close on most but I have issues with a couple.

 

For the guy saying 3 million for Villar was high. I had it at 2.8. Plush already noted the 2.6 Segura got, and don't forget they account for your entire body of work...not just the most recent year.

 

For Nelson I had 3.9. Chase Anderson got 2.45 and Wily Peralta got 2.8 their first go-round. Nelson for his career hasn't been much better than Anderson prior to this year. He's sitting on a 4.12 career ERA with a 4.04 FIP. Even this year, his "breakout" he only had a 3.49 ERA. Looking at silly stats like wins and losses would hurt his stock further.

 

For Knebel I had 5.2. The first comp i used was the 5 million John Axford got in 2013. He was the closer for longer, which no doubt helps his cause. It's also 5 years later and salaries are going up like crazy. Knebel had an incredible season including an all-star appearance, I think that boosts his stock just past the 5 million mark.

[MadScientist]

I liked Vogt - and I can't speak on his ability to call a game/handle a pitching staff - but how difficult will it be to get a .250+ hitting catcher with a bit of power who is even an average defender to be our back up to save a few million?

I seem to remember a number of years the Brewers couldn't find a primary catcher that fit that description. Vogt's arm is enough for me to not cry if the Brewers say goodbye to him and go with Bandy, and whoever in AAA as backups. Money saved here can always be put to a more important piece (or buying a decent AAA franchise).

[Outlander]

Players had a 34/41 success rate against Bandy so the defensive upgrade isn't there which would leave me to believe they stick with Vogt even if it is an overpay.

[MrTPlush]

They have room to work with, but you can't forget about future arbitration salary increases or potential long term deals we may hand out. That will make a lot of that money disappear fast. Of course we also will be getting on that new TV deal bandwagon in 2-3 years too and dumping Braun's salary. While we won't have some fantasy land TV deal we will get a healthy bump compared to what we have now.

 

They could easily make a major move without negatively hurting their payroll now or in the future. Do they do that in the coming years? That is the real question. I guess I don't see any excuse not to add some notable help the next few years. Even if that isn't a $20mil+ guy.

[Roderick]

Players had a 34/41 success rate against Bandy so the defensive upgrade isn't there which would leave me to believe they stick with Vogt even if it is an overpay.

 

Small sample size, but Bandy had a much higher catcher ERA than Pina back at the beginning of the year when they were both playing. I think Vogt sticks around for his lefty bat if anything.

 

Pina cERA: 3.80

Vogt cERA: 4.31

Bandy cERA: 4.87 (back when the pitching was bad in April though for the most part)

[reillymcshane]

A few things to remember about arbitration:

 

1. It's a numbers game. They love HRs and SBs and RBIs - stuff like that. Villar's team is going to toss out 60 steals - and that will work well. For right or wrong, that's how the system works.

 

2. It's cumulative. The judgement is not just based on the previous season. It's guy's entire career. So Villar's crappy 2017 is mitigated by his very good 2016.

 

3. Comparisons are the order of the day. A player with similar years and production and position is going to likely draw a similar salary to a player who came before him.

 

The MLB Trade Rumors numbers are by no means perfect. But they are a good starting point. You can probably slide things either way 10-15% and you'll have a correct number.

[adambr2]

I just find it kind of hilarious that the entire baseball world has advanced into the 21st century by now with the lone exception of arbitration panels who are still stuck in the 80s. It makes absolutely no logical sense and guys end up non-tendered at times because GMs these days are not stupid and they're not going to pay a player double his open market value just because an arbitration panel likes old school numbers.

 

That's exactly what happened with Chris Carter last year -- if the Brewers thought they could tender him at closer to his real market value at the time, 3M or so, good chance they would have. Unfortunately for Carter, David Stearns is not insane and thus isn't going to pay $8-$10M for a $3M asset just because he hit 41 HRs.

 

Potentially, the same thing could happen to Villar. I'm not saying he's worth significantly less than 3M, but if the Brewers believe that his 2016 steals count will overinflate his arbitration numbers too much for their liking, they might go a different direction.

[KeithStone53151]

I just find it kind of hilarious that the entire baseball world has advanced into the 21st century by now with the lone exception of arbitration panels who are still stuck in the 80s. It makes absolutely no logical sense and guys end up non-tendered at times because GMs these days are not stupid and they're not going to pay a player double his open market value just because an arbitration panel likes old school numbers.

 

That's exactly what happened with Chris Carter last year -- if the Brewers thought they could tender him at closer to his real market value at the time, 3M or so, good chance they would have. Unfortunately for Carter, David Stearns is not insane and thus isn't going to pay $8-$10M for a $3M asset just because he hit 41 HRs.

 

Potentially, the same thing could happen to Villar. I'm not saying he's worth significantly less than 3M, but if the Brewers believe that his 2016 steals count will overinflate his arbitration numbers too much for their liking, they might go a different direction.

 

There is zero chance that villar is non-tendered. It baffles me that the idea even found it's way to the table. I Don't think there's any circumstance in which we wouldn't tender him at this stage with the team control remaining, but especially given our payroll flexibility.

[OnTheBlack]

I just find it kind of hilarious that the entire baseball world has advanced into the 21st century by now with the lone exception of arbitration panels who are still stuck in the 80s. It makes absolutely no logical sense and guys end up non-tendered at times because GMs these days are not stupid and they're not going to pay a player double his open market value just because an arbitration panel likes old school numbers.

 

That's exactly what happened with Chris Carter last year -- if the Brewers thought they could tender him at closer to his real market value at the time, 3M or so, good chance they would have. Unfortunately for Carter, David Stearns is not insane and thus isn't going to pay $8-$10M for a $3M asset just because he hit 41 HRs.

 

Potentially, the same thing could happen to Villar. I'm not saying he's worth significantly less than 3M, but if the Brewers believe that his 2016 steals count will overinflate his arbitration numbers too much for their liking, they might go a different direction.

 

There is zero chance that villar is non-tendered. It baffles me that the idea even found it's way to the table. I Don't think there's any circumstance in which we wouldn't tender him at this stage with the team control remaining, but especially given our payroll flexibility.

 

 

I don't quite understand it either. I also don't agree that arbitration panels are using the antiquated metrics that were suggested and I believe their impact is overstated. A handful of cases go to arbitration each year...so I'm not sure the panel is to blame for Carter potentially earning more money coming off a 41 HR season with an .820 OPS.

 

Either way, Villar is too good and too young and 3 million or even 4 million is just not enough money to give up on him after his poor year this past season. If he has another bad year I could certainly see him getting non-tendered, but I can't even see this being on the table after this year.

[brewcrewdue80]

They were above $100M for a stretch, so you'd think there's plenty of money to play with. I'd also expect an effort to get some guys signed to longer-term deals for cost certainty, as they attempted with Villar. Knebel, Nelson and Anderson seem the more urgent of those, but Arcia, Davies, Santana, Hader, Shaw are also candidates if they want to be aggressive. They don't really need to save money, but Torres, Villar, and Vogt seem like they could be on the salary chopping block nevertheless.

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/cots/national-league-central/milwaukee-brewers/

 

Considering Nelson's injury, I would think he's off the table to be given an extension. Kneble and Arcia are the most likely imo to receive an extension. One to avoid Kneble and arbitration raises. Arcia is a 4WAR or more player in the making. Giving him a long term extension would help establish a new face on a Franchise player. Anderson had a career year, but is turning 30 already with 3? more years of team control. I'd keep him on the year to year raises and trade him as needed when the time approaches. Davies I just don't like his velocity to extend him. There is a long enough team control to see how long he stays effective and not incur that 1-2MPH decrease in velocity which could make him a AAAA pitcher suddenly.

 

Do agree on Hader, Santana, and Shaw having potential extension. The big problem in Santana extension, is the half dozen of OF prospects quickly approaching and all the trade suggestions on him due to his defense. Becomes a pause on extending. I'd let Shaw prove himself 1 more season with the bat, as you also get 1more season on Thames/Aguilar besides the 1b/3b prospects. He is 27 so again the age makes you more on the side of just playing out the team control and get something in return when you would trade him his final offseason of control or that deadline in that season. Hader, let's see if he's a SP or just the RP. Value increases immensely if a starter vs the RP, he'll probably want to bet on that vs talked down as a RP value, where he's behind Kneble on that Closer roll/pay.

 

As to the subject on payroll, Clearly, there's room to add 2 15-23mil/year demand players for 2-3years and not put extension potentials on hold or maxing a pre-payroll on a deadline contract. The easy deal to me is adding Neil Walker. 3years maybe 50million? You'd obviously put Villar on the trade block. Pretty solid 2b that I feel will remain consistent and still have trade value if/when a 2b prospect pushes for the playing time.

[Austin Tatious]

Good stuff, Keith. Very well thought out. Thanks for the input.

[adambr2]

https://reviewingthebrew.com/2017/10/02/milwaukee-brewers-2018-off-season-preview/

 

Here's an article about this kind of thing on page 5. A lot of his comments though, like the one about Nelson only in line for a fraction of what he would have made if he hadn't gotten hurt, make me think he really doesn't understand the arbitration process.

[adambr2]

I just find it kind of hilarious that the entire baseball world has advanced into the 21st century by now with the lone exception of arbitration panels who are still stuck in the 80s. It makes absolutely no logical sense and guys end up non-tendered at times because GMs these days are not stupid and they're not going to pay a player double his open market value just because an arbitration panel likes old school numbers.

 

That's exactly what happened with Chris Carter last year -- if the Brewers thought they could tender him at closer to his real market value at the time, 3M or so, good chance they would have. Unfortunately for Carter, David Stearns is not insane and thus isn't going to pay $8-$10M for a $3M asset just because he hit 41 HRs.

 

Potentially, the same thing could happen to Villar. I'm not saying he's worth significantly less than 3M, but if the Brewers believe that his 2016 steals count will overinflate his arbitration numbers too much for their liking, they might go a different direction.

 

There is zero chance that villar is non-tendered. It baffles me that the idea even found it's way to the table. I Don't think there's any circumstance in which we wouldn't tender him at this stage with the team control remaining, but especially given our payroll flexibility.

 

I doubt very much that Villar is non-tendered, but I wouldn't put the chances at 'zero". They may not want to go with him in 2018 as the 2B, and he's not a great fit as a utility player.

 

More likely, they'd look for a trade partner first, but I wouldn't expect much back.

 

I really don't think payroll flexibility has much to do with it either. Stearns is more concerned with value than price. It's not like we couldn't afford to pay Scooter Genett 2.5M back in March. (not to pull at that thread again).

[monty57]

I'm sure the payroll will be expanded substantially, but I hope that Stearns will still be smart with money. Melvin's goal seemed to be to find a way to spend the money allotted in the budget whether it helped the team or not. I'd rather look at it as an available resource that can be tapped if it makes sense.

 

I agree that there will be some extensions, but they won't really effect the payroll immediately (most of the committed money will be in future years), so there will be some additional vets on the 2018 roster acquired either by free agency or trade. I expect some relievers, maybe a 2B, and a starter acquired who are under control for 2-3 years.

 

I do think that if the right situation arises, we could go for the "home run" on a starting pitcher. I just hope that if we go for the "home run," this would not be a "Greinke-type" deal where we sell the farm for a guy with two years left. A free agent signing, or a trade for a younger guy with 4-5 years left would be more palatable. I think the more likely scenario will be that we sign a solid vet like Lynn to a 2-3 year deal or take on salary in a trade for a decent SP with 2-3 years left.

[bill hAll Star]

I think one key thing to note is that other than extensions to the newest crop (Hader, Phillips, Brinson, maybe Arcia, etc.) which wouldn't kick any different money than we'd have already been paying them until like 2022 or 2023, the current crop of guys hitting arbitration are almost all not guys I expect to sign a second contract for the Brewers. If they do, it's probably as a cheaper player that didn't completely pan out. Maybe Santana.

 

Shaw will be 32, Anderson will be 33, Davies will be 30 but seems like a guy somebody will outbid us for, Santana to me seems like a guy that may plateau soon, Knebel is a complete wild card, Nelson obviously we don't know if he'll ever be the same. Villar is a massive wild card that may not even be around next year.

 

Those guys are all 3-4 years out from free agency, but I'm not sure if any of them factor into our plans after their rookie/arbitration times are up.

 

I think that somewhat plays into the aggressiveness of the front office. They may want to spend up on a few bigger $ guys because we won't need to keep internal FAs for 5+ years in all likelihood.

 

Sure, maybe they bring back Shaw because for whatever reason, 3B is the one spot that still remains empty in 4 years, but I think the plan is just to backfill with a deep farm system in general. Don't make many major trades (unless an absolute ace is available and controllable) and use free agency to improve.