How much money do the Brewers have left to spend?

[pacopete4]

I smell the fear of being called out and having little to no actual factual information to display to make a case.

[True Blue Brew Crew]

In an effort to make this conversation a little less black and white (Mark A is lying, Tom H is wrong), there is a way both sides could be accurate.

 

As the Brewers have been apt to do many times in recent years, maybe a 1 year deal with a mutual option that comes with a sizeable buyout is being attempted with Kimbrel. They could be trying to limit the amount they have to go over $9 million by working out a larger than normal buyout that Kimbrel gets if either side declines a 2020 option. Something like $12 million with a $4 million buyout gets Kimbrel a guaranteed $16 million for one year. And you could have Kimbrel on the other side holding out to get $17.5 million to beat Wade Davis's AAV if he's going to take a 1 year deal.

 

In a scenario like this you can see how the two sides could be close, yet not quite there. And you can even see how the info Tom Haudricourt could be accurate.

 

Drawing bold conclusions on incomplete pictures and snippets of information as is all too common here. And it's a stain that I don't believe the leaders of this forum want anything to do with.

[PeaveyFury]

Drawing bold conclusions on incomplete pictures and snippets of information as is all too common here. And it's a stain that I don't believe the leaders of this forum want anything to do with.

 

Correct... we're not fans of posts that blur expressing an opinion vs. a statement of facts without some sort of backing information. And when the source/information is unverifyable, we typically view that with immense skepticism, whether the source is 'googling' or a hypothetical 'source' associated with inside information.

[Brew crew 92]

I smell the fear of being called out and having little to no actual factual information to display to make a case.

 

Your certainly entitled to your opinion, but no fear on this end.

 

Some day when or if your bored, just google.

 

I’m a dinosaur, old and if I can do it you younger tech savvy whippersnappers certainly can.

 

Truth be told > no clue how to provide a link.

 

So as Clint said in that all time classic “were just gonna have to earn it”

[Brew crew 92]

In an effort to make this conversation a little less black and white (Mark A is lying, Tom H is wrong), there is a way both sides could be accurate.

 

As the Brewers have been apt to do many times in recent years, maybe a 1 year deal with a mutual option that comes with a sizeable buyout is being attempted with Kimbrel. They could be trying to limit the amount they have to go over $9 million by working out a larger than normal buyout that Kimbrel gets if either side declines a 2020 option. Something like $12 million with a $4 million buyout gets Kimbrel a guaranteed $16 million for one year. And you could have Kimbrel on the other side holding out to get $17.5 million to beat Wade Davis's AAV if he's going to take a 1 year deal.

 

In a scenario like this you can see how the two sides could be close, yet not quite there. And you can even see how the info Tom Haudricourt could be accurate.

 

Drawing bold conclusions on incomplete pictures and snippets of information as is all too common here. And it's a stain that I don't believe the leaders of this forum want anything to do with.

 

Ok, so technically he’s not lying, I used the term playing, but I get it, I suppose it could be this way. But bold statements are easier to make rather than constantly saying imho. But some people’s easier is others lazy. I’ll try harder.

[Brew crew 92]

Updated 2018 Team info from Forbes:

 

Cubbies:

Revenue > 452

Payroll > 195. (211)

Gross profit > 87

Debt > 14%

 

Cardinals:

Revenue > 356

Payroll > 176. (164)

Gross profit > 65

Debt> 11%

 

Brewers:

Revenue > 288

Payroll > 113 (126)

Gross Profit > 66

Debt > 6%

 

Reds:

Revenue > 257

Payroll > 119 (126)

Gross profit > 37

Debt > 10%

 

Pirates:

Revenue > 254

Payroll > 109. (77)

Gross Profit > 39

Debt > 8%

 

Brewers Franchise valuation up 25 mil. To 1.2 billion. Brewers revenue does NOT include playoff revenue.

 

Brewers have one of the lowest debt % if not the lowest in all of baseball. Current payroll in parentheses.

 

What stands out to me is the crew having only 13 mil.more in payroll than last year, that’s probably just what they made in playoff revenue alone, separate from their gross Profit. Point being, imo, they can take on quite a bit of salary at the trade deadline, which I hope they do to vastly improve their outlook for the rest of this year.

[homer]

I think you're looking at last year's payroll before additions of Soria, Schoop, Moustakas etc.

 

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but that's how I read it on SportTrac.

[Brew crew 92]

I think you're looking at last year's payroll before additions of Soria, Schoop, Moustakas etc.

 

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but that's how I read it on SportTrac.

 

Sport trac shows payroll at 109 and includes moose Soria Schoop Granderson

[Brew crew 92]

I’m digging up this thread because it’s the proper one to say what I’m about to say. With Woodruff’s injury, imo, it puts us in a tough situation, if, as I believe, our team is good enough to add at the deadline to compete for a title. Some of what I’m going to say was covered in my post in the Ray thread, but I’m going to expound upon said thread, so here it goes:

 

I’ve heard by numerous posters that my solution to our lower mid-market revenue, and being able to truly compete with the higher payroll teams is for lack of a better word stupid:

 

Bump up the payroll to 180 in a 1 or 2 year window of true World Series contention, and slash the payroll for 1-2 years to make up the difference.

 

This is an idea I’m assuming is one that is already in Attanasio’s head since he’s already made the statement of banking $ in low payroll years and using that to bump up payroll in serious contention years.

 

My question to the overwhelming majority of posters on this site, some of which have made comments to my solution as being too simple, or it’s not like it hasn’t been thought of before type comments, to you I say why?

 

Why is it not an obvious solution to our chronic low payroll teams ability to compete payroll wise with the big boys?

 

Do we not think Stearns is smart/sharp enough to accomplish this?

 

Instead of poo pooing without any real explanation, which is done quite frequently on this subject, I’d like to hear anyone’s reason as to why it won’t work?

 

So here we go: if the brewers breakeven payroll in 2020 is 165 million without any playoff revenue and Attanasio & investors have to realize a minimum 20 million net profit, that means that to get to 180, the team would have to borrow 35 million in 2020. This year to make the minimum 20 million in net profit if payroll after the deadline goes up to 150, and the breakeven this year is 155, 10 less than next year with the new national Fox deal not kicking in till 2020. So that would mean borrowing 25 million this year. 60 million borrowed in this example to have a payroll of 150 this year and 180 next year.

 

Is there anyone out there that doesn’t think Stearns can adjust/reduce payroll enough to payoff said debt.?

 

The numbers are just educated guesses and estimates, which is obviously all any of us can do, to infer what I’ve inferred.

 

The brewers are in a tremendous position imo, to retool in record time with our having the following players and their peak or near peak selling time being after 2020:

 

Yelich > 4-6 stud prospects

Woodruff > 4-5 stud prospects

Hader > 2-4 stud prospects

 

With those 3 that’s 10-15 stud prospects to add to Hiura Grisham Rasmussen Small Kelly Holt etc. with another 2 Stearns/Johnson drafts. That 1-2 year period of time to re-tool, conservatively we could pay off that 60 million at a minimum.

 

So imo, that’s our only realistic opportunity to compete with teams that will chronically spend 230-260 million on their payroll, EVERY YEAR.

 

Why is this not a good idea?

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

I’m digging up this thread because it’s the proper one to say what I’m about to say. With Woodruff’s injury, imo, it puts us in a tough situation, if, as I believe, our team is good enough to add at the deadline to compete for a title. Some of what I’m going to say was covered in my post in the Ray thread, but I’m going to expound upon said thread, so here it goes:

 

I’ve heard by numerous posters that my solution to our lower mid-market revenue, and being able to truly compete with the higher payroll teams is for lack of a better word stupid:

 

Bump up the payroll to 180 in a 1 or 2 year window of true World Series contention, and slash the payroll for 1-2 years to make up the difference.

 

This is an idea I’m assuming is one that is already in Attanasio’s head since he’s already made the statement of banking $ in low payroll years and using that to bump up payroll in serious contention years.

 

My question to the overwhelming majority of posters on this site, some of which have made comments to my solution as being too simple, or it’s not like it hasn’t been thought of before type comments, to you I say why?

 

Why is it not an obvious solution to our chronic low payroll teams ability to compete payroll wise with the big boys?

 

Do we not think Stearns is smart/sharp enough to accomplish this?

 

Instead of poo pooing without any real explanation, which is done quite frequently on this subject, I’d like to hear anyone’s reason as to why it won’t work?

 

So here we go: if the brewers breakeven payroll in 2020 is 165 million without any playoff revenue and Attanasio & investors have to realize a minimum 20 million net profit, that means that to get to 180, the team would have to borrow 35 million in 2020. This year to make the minimum 20 million in net profit if payroll after the deadline goes up to 150, and the breakeven this year is 155, 10 less than next year with the new national Fox deal not kicking in till 2020. So that would mean borrowing 25 million this year. 60 million borrowed in this example to have a payroll of 150 this year and 180 next year.

 

Is there anyone out there that doesn’t think Stearns can adjust/reduce payroll enough to payoff said debt.?

 

The numbers are just educated guesses and estimates, which is obviously all any of us can do, to infer what I’ve inferred.

 

The brewers are in a tremendous position imo, to retool in record time with our having the following players and their peak or near peak selling time being after 2020:

 

Yelich > 4-6 stud prospects

Woodruff > 4-5 stud prospects

Hader > 2-4 stud prospects

 

With those 3 that’s 10-15 stud prospects to add to Hiura Grisham Rasmussen Small Kelly Holt etc. with another 2 Stearns/Johnson drafts. That 1-2 year period of time to re-tool, conservatively we could pay off that 60 million at a minimum.

 

So imo, that’s our only realistic opportunity to compete with teams that will chronically spend 230-260 million on their payroll, EVERY YEAR.

 

Why is this not a good idea?

 

I think you are missing the point a bit where people disagree with you. Personally, I think its in the numbers you are using. In this post you plainly say your numbers are educated guesses, but in previous posts on this subject, you've been much more firm on your feelings on those numbers. I personally feel that you are vastly overestimating profits, but that is a total guess on my part.

 

But as for the general idea of increasing payroll in contention years, and decreasing it in rebuilding years in an effort to make up the difference ... yeah, that makes sense. It's what they've been doing the last decade.

[MrTPlush]

But as for the general idea of increasing payroll in contention years, and decreasing it in rebuilding years in an effort to make up the difference ... yeah, that makes sense. It's what they've been doing the last decade.

 

Except they don't go over their limit and I think that is where his problem lies. I think most of the savings go into capital projects like food service upgrades, spring training complex, and owning the Mudcats in the present time of sucking. I don't think they save money to use when competing...which is what he wants them to do.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

But as for the general idea of increasing payroll in contention years, and decreasing it in rebuilding years in an effort to make up the difference ... yeah, that makes sense. It's what they've been doing the last decade.

 

Except they don't go over their limit and I think that is where his problem lies. I think most of the savings go into capital projects like food service upgrades, spring training complex, and owning the Mudcats in the present time of sucking. I don't think they save money to use when competing...which is what he wants them to do.

 

The whole idea of them having a spending limit is arbitrary, though, because no one other than the team's ownership and front office really knows what that number is. My guess is that it is a loose limit, and the front office is handed spending parameters, and must get ownership approval for anything that doesn't fall into those parameters.

[Brew crew 92]

But as for the general idea of increasing payroll in contention years, and decreasing it in rebuilding years in an effort to make up the difference ... yeah, that makes sense. It's what they've been doing the last decade.

 

Except they don't go over their limit and I think that is where his problem lies. I think most of the savings go into capital projects like food service upgrades, spring training complex, and owning the Mudcats in the present time of sucking. I don't think they save money to use when competing...which is what he wants them to do.

 

Exactly.

So if they can invest the profits for said capital improvement( which has helped increase the brewers Franchise value at a higher % the last few years than just about any team in baseball) then why can’t anybody besides myself and MrTPlush hold Attanasio accountable to his OWN WORDS.?

[MrTPlush]

But as for the general idea of increasing payroll in contention years, and decreasing it in rebuilding years in an effort to make up the difference ... yeah, that makes sense. It's what they've been doing the last decade.

 

Except they don't go over their limit and I think that is where his problem lies. I think most of the savings go into capital projects like food service upgrades, spring training complex, and owning the Mudcats in the present time of sucking. I don't think they save money to use when competing...which is what he wants them to do.

 

The whole idea of them having a spending limit is arbitrary, though, because no one other than the team's ownership and front office really knows what that number is. My guess is that it is a loose limit, and the front office is handed spending parameters, and must get ownership approval for anything that doesn't fall into those parameters.

 

I totally agree and I have said it before no one is really going to know what their limit (which has to be loose to some degree) or the utter max is before losing money. However, with that being said it would be hard to convince me that they are over that number right now...or particularly close (<$10mil). So the point stands all the saved money from the down years if not going directly into the teams payroll today.

 

We could argue endlessly about what the limit number might be....but with the limited data available it would seem we cannot already be overachieving that. If the payroll were $150mil or more...maybe then there would be a debate.

 

Attanasio did make comments at one point saying when the time came they would spend to make up for the down years. Now that is a pretty broad statement and maybe it was just some nice fluff to feed people...but regardless that statement is not ringing true as of yet in my opinion. Do I have a problem with that? I don't know....not my money and I can't say I expected it to work as though Mr.92 wanted/expected. Just is not how things usually work. At the same time I don't blame Mr.92 for wanting and expecting more to be added to the payroll. I am not optimistic he will truly get that wish.

[Brew crew 92]

But as for the general idea of increasing payroll in contention years, and decreasing it in rebuilding years in an effort to make up the difference ... yeah, that makes sense. It's what they've been doing the last decade.

 

Except they don't go over their limit and I think that is where his problem lies. I think most of the savings go into capital projects like food service upgrades, spring training complex, and owning the Mudcats in the present time of sucking. I don't think they save money to use when competing...which is what he wants them to do.

 

The whole idea of them having a spending limit is arbitrary, though, because no one other than the team's ownership and front office really knows what that number is. My guess is that it is a loose limit, and the front office is handed spending parameters, and must get ownership approval for anything that doesn't fall into those parameters.

 

Imo, your gobbledygooking the fact that, Attanasio even said himself, that they were investing profits into the Carolina, concessions, Maryvale etc.

 

Where’s the accountability?

 

Doesn’t Attanasio NEED TO PUT HIS MONEY WHERE HIS MOUTH IS?

 

I’ve been accused of calling Attanasio PT Barnum, even though I’m not the poster that said that, but you know what, i’m getting to the point of agreement in that description of his salesmanship.

[PeaveyFury]

We've been through this time and time again.

 

He IS doing what he said he would. Payroll is substantially higher and has been for the past two seasons. You're hung up on them not reaching a mythical number that you pull out of nowhere.

 

Also, you DO realize that simply reducing payroll in 'rebuilding' years DOES NOT equal a dollar-for-dollar increase in net profit, right? Attendence, concession, parking, etc. revenue drops significantly when the team isn't doing well. Simply saying that they can slash payroll $20 million and pay off that $20 million of debt is massively flawed, especially when you don't know where the breakeven point even is.

[pacopete4]

Also, while investing in those capital projects he is bringing our franchise along with the others. Those things are needed to sustain success long term.

[sveumrules]

With those 3 that’s 10-15 stud prospects to add to Hiura Grisham Rasmussen Small Kelly Holt etc.

 

Holt the 7th round pick that hasn't played a professional game yet Holt?

 

Your definition of a stud prospect may need to be narrowed a bit.

 

Yelich could land two studs plus other good pieces, while Woodruff/Hader would likely bring back one stud each plus other good pieces.

 

If all three are dealt you're probably getting four studs (50 FV+), then a bunch of 35-45 FV guys (which would be the range that Grisham, Rasmussen, Small, Kelly, Holt etc. fall into).

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Imo, your gobbledygooking the fact that, Attanasio even said himself, that they were investing profits into the Carolina, concessions, Maryvale etc.

 

Where’s the accountability?

 

Doesn’t Attanasio NEED TO PUT HIS MONEY WHERE HIS MOUTH IS?

 

I’ve been accused of calling Attanasio PT Barnum, even though I’m not the poster that said that, but you know what, i’m getting to the point of agreement in that description of his salesmanship.

 

What's your point? Profits can be reinvested in more than just payroll. I think it's a good thing that they spent money on Carolina, concessions and Maryvale, as it helps them add to the value of the team as a whole, including how it looks to potential outside free agents. You don't think guys like Grandal and Moose are impressed with the improvements they made to the Maryvale facility? How is that a bad thing?

 

Attanasio is putting his money where his mouth is. In my opinion, you have created this myth of him being some sort of snake oil salesman, and it seems the more you say it, the more you believe it. I know you desperately want other posters to jump on board with your line of thinking on this, but there's just too many holes in the story for it to be taken seriously.

[Brew crew 92]

We've been through this time and time again.

 

He IS doing what he said he would. Payroll is substantially higher and has been for the past two seasons. You're hung up on them not reaching a mythical number that you pull out of nowhere.

 

Also, you DO realize that simply reducing payroll in 'rebuilding' years DOES NOT equal a dollar-for-dollar increase in net profit, right? Attendence, concession, parking, etc. revenue drops significantly when the team isn't doing well. Simply saying that they can slash payroll $20 million and pay off that $20 million of debt is massively flawed, especially when you don't know where the breakeven point even is.

 

That’s your opinion that he IS doing what he said he would.

 

The fact that they’ve increased payroll by 15-18 million over the previous year means nothing, when revenue has also increased and just the fact of last year’s playoff revenue potentially being close to the payroll increase just in and of itself.

 

Why the anger?

Why the: we’ve been through this time and again.

 

There’s been comments today on the subject. And now you imo, lambasting me because you just happen to disagree with myself and MrTPlush.

 

The team has admitted to making substantial profits in 16 & 17, which 16 was a rebuild year, but the fans of MKE still came out to support the team which is why the large admitted said profit. Revenue’s are not hidden, and their revenues have gone up, so obviously their payroll will too.

 

Ok, so to me it sounds like, since all we can do is guesstimate, we should just sit quietly, not speak up or ask questions, and just let another half century go by without a title, you know, the brewers, oh that team, the small market brewers, you know the team that outperforms their market more than any team in baseball, the one with the consistently high gross profit, the team with the lowest debt % in all of baseball, the team who’s value % wise has gone up more than just about any team in baseball. That team.

[Brew crew 92]

With those 3 that’s 10-15 stud prospects to add to Hiura Grisham Rasmussen Small Kelly Holt etc.

 

Holt the 7th round pick that hasn't played a professional game yet Holt?

 

Your definition of a stud prospect may need to be narrowed a bit.

 

Yelich could land two studs plus other good pieces, while Woodruff/Hader would likely bring back one stud each plus other good pieces.

 

If all three are dealt you're probably getting four studs (50 FV+), then a bunch of 35-45 FV guys (which would be the range that Grisham, Rasmussen, Small, Kelly, Holt etc. fall into).

 

I think your undervaluing Woodruff but ok, add 4-5 studs and 6-9 good pieces to this Stearns led front office and say he could retool quickly to contender status.

[Brew crew 92]

Imo, your gobbledygooking the fact that, Attanasio even said himself, that they were investing profits into the Carolina, concessions, Maryvale etc.

 

Where’s the accountability?

 

Doesn’t Attanasio NEED TO PUT HIS MONEY WHERE HIS MOUTH IS?

 

I’ve been accused of calling Attanasio PT Barnum, even though I’m not the poster that said that, but you know what, i’m getting to the point of agreement in that description of his salesmanship.

 

What's your point? Profits can be reinvested in more than just payroll. I think it's a good thing that they spent money on Carolina, concessions and Maryvale, as it helps them add to the value of the team as a whole, including how it looks to potential outside free agents. You don't think guys like Grandal and Moose are impressed with the improvements they made to the Maryvale facility? How is that a bad thing?

 

Attanasio is putting his money where his mouth is. In my opinion, you have created this myth of him being some sort of snake oil salesman, and it seems the more you say it, the more you believe it. I know you desperately want other posters to jump on board with your line of thinking on this, but there's just too many holes in the story for it to be taken seriously.

 

Not a single poster has specifically refuted any of the points that I’ve made or MrTPlush has made. Just a bunch of generalities in rebuttal of my specific points.

[homer]

But as for the general idea of increasing payroll in contention years, and decreasing it in rebuilding years in an effort to make up the difference ... yeah, that makes sense. It's what they've been doing the last decade.

 

Except they don't go over their limit and I think that is where his problem lies. I think most of the savings go into capital projects like food service upgrades, spring training complex, and owning the Mudcats in the present time of sucking. I don't think they save money to use when competing...which is what he wants them to do.

 

Exactly.

So if they can invest the profits for said capital improvement( which has helped increase the brewers Franchise value at a higher % the last few years than just about any team in baseball) then why can’t anybody besides myself and MrTPlush hold Attanasio accountable to his OWN WORDS.?

 

A lot of the capital investments are done with an eye on helping player development thus helping the big league team.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Imo, your gobbledygooking the fact that, Attanasio even said himself, that they were investing profits into the Carolina, concessions, Maryvale etc.

 

Where’s the accountability?

 

Doesn’t Attanasio NEED TO PUT HIS MONEY WHERE HIS MOUTH IS?

 

I’ve been accused of calling Attanasio PT Barnum, even though I’m not the poster that said that, but you know what, i’m getting to the point of agreement in that description of his salesmanship.

 

What's your point? Profits can be reinvested in more than just payroll. I think it's a good thing that they spent money on Carolina, concessions and Maryvale, as it helps them add to the value of the team as a whole, including how it looks to potential outside free agents. You don't think guys like Grandal and Moose are impressed with the improvements they made to the Maryvale facility? How is that a bad thing?

 

Attanasio is putting his money where his mouth is. In my opinion, you have created this myth of him being some sort of snake oil salesman, and it seems the more you say it, the more you believe it. I know you desperately want other posters to jump on board with your line of thinking on this, but there's just too many holes in the story for it to be taken seriously.

 

Not a single poster has specifically refuted any of the points that I’ve made or MrTPlush has made. Just a bunch of generalities in rebuttal of my specific points.

 

What specific points?

 

You are guessing on the numbers! There is literally nothing to refute, because you have created a total hypothetical argument that you continue to present as fact.

 

Also, I'm not sure Plush wants to be drug into this. He kinda-sorta agreed with you, but you are turning this into an "us vs. the world" thing.

[Brew crew 92]

Yes I agree that a lot of the capital improvement projects help the big league team, but, wouldn’t it also help the big lead team for one year, a serious contention year, to give Stearns an extra $50 million to see if he can win a title with a payroll only 40-50 million less than the Cubbies and dodgers instead of 90-100 million less.?