Brewers franchise value and ability to spend money

[tmwiese55]

The Brewers aren't saving money to pay Yelich. Sorry, but it isn't happening. Remember when Attanasio always claimed they could overspend when competing and he would have no problem doing so? Welp, here we are, in the midst of the best stretch of baseball in franchise history and he is slashing payroll crying poor.

 

I don't care if he does, his team, and most owners are worse than him. Is what it is.

 

He just did that last year when the opportunities presented themselves. The year before that he handed out the largest FA contract they ever did and traded for a guy on the books for 40-50 mil. Once you splurge you can now never go backwards and need to spend just to spend no matter the years later consequences? What options were out there to spend that money for this year that wouldn't be a big problem in future years? All the good plays got big multi year deals that would a big problem for the Brewers. I think they got killed by this market (in spite of the mass collusion, eye roll) and had to wait for next year and hopefully find some place to spend next year that makes sense.

 

And yes, I do think they're budgeting to make an honest attempt at Yelich that will likely fall through.

 

Good phrasing on your post Seabass.

[BrewBalls]

 

Mark did say that he has never said no to a player acquisition simply due to cost. I imagine that he asks what the impact of signing that player will be in terms of projected additional wins and then makes a decision on cost versus impact, but he said he's never said no simply due to cost.

 

Ummm, well, if that were the case, why don't we have Strasburg and Rendon on the roster then? Why didn't we resign Grandal? Not saying those were smart decisions for a team like us (they were not good decisions) , but if cost is never a factor, then why do we not sign guys like that?

 

All those players would give us more wins, right?

 

I'm just not buying any of it. They lost money, doubtful. Cost is not a factor when making contract decisions, highly doubtful.

Because these types of offers which are obviously either an overpay or come with multiple years of almost guaranteed declining value aren't good business and are shot down before ever reaching the owner.

 

There it is also very likely some if not the majority of these players simply are not interested in playing in Milwaukee when they have more attractive destinations bidding for their services. This was something Doug Melvin had previously stated was a consistent barrier/hurdle he faced in negotiations.

[BrewBalls]

 

Mark did say that he has never said no to a player acquisition simply due to cost. I imagine that he asks what the impact of signing that player will be in terms of projected additional wins and then makes a decision on cost versus impact, but he said he's never said no simply due to cost.

 

Ummm, well, if that were the case, why don't we have Strasburg and Rendon on the roster then? Why didn't we resign Grandal? Not saying those were smart decisions for a team like us (they were not good decisions) , but if cost is never a factor, then why do we not sign guys like that?

 

All those players would give us more wins, right?

 

I'm just not buying any of it. They lost money, doubtful. Cost is not a factor when making contract decisions, highly doubtful.

Because these types of offers which are obviously either an overpay or come with multiple years of almost guaranteed declining value aren't good business and are shot down before ever reaching the owner.

 

There it is also very likely some if not the majority of these players simply are not interested in playing in Milwaukee when they have more attractive destinations bidding for their services. This was something Doug Melvin had previously stated was a consistent barrier/hurdle he faced in negotiations.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I'm always shocked at how negative people are even when the team is doing well and putting a competitive product on the field. You would think we are losing 100 games every year and have no good players and that Mark A has just been a complete jerk the entire time he owned the team and has lied to us at every turn from reading these forums. Absolutely unbelievable.

 

This is a byproduct of success which has been substantial relative to most of the franchise's putrid history. I'm honestly exhausted of the payroll discussions and "win with Yelich now" stuff. I've been consciously avoiding the Brewers lately because it just got so annoying. At least wait for a losing season before doing this.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I'm always shocked at how negative people are even when the team is doing well and putting a competitive product on the field. You would think we are losing 100 games every year and have no good players and that Mark A has just been a complete jerk the entire time he owned the team and has lied to us at every turn from reading these forums. Absolutely unbelievable.

 

This is a byproduct of success which has been substantial relative to most of the franchise's putrid history. I'm honestly exhausted of the payroll discussions and "win with Yelich now" stuff. I've been consciously avoiding the Brewers lately because it just got so annoying. At least wait for a losing season before doing this.

[LouisEly]

 

Mark did say that he has never said no to a player acquisition simply due to cost. I imagine that he asks what the impact of signing that player will be in terms of projected additional wins and then makes a decision on cost versus impact, but he said he's never said no simply due to cost.

 

Ummm, well, if that were the case, why don't we have Strasburg and Rendon on the roster then? Why didn't we resign Grandal? Not saying those were smart decisions for a team like us (they were not good decisions) , but if cost is never a factor, then why do we not sign guys like that?

 

All those players would give us more wins, right?

 

I'm just not buying any of it. They lost money, doubtful. Cost is not a factor when making contract decisions, highly doubtful.

Keep in mind that free agency is a black box, not a public auction. The Brewers have no idea what offers other teams have made, and heaven forbid that agents embellish the offers that they have in order to get teams to up the ante. We don't know what offers the Brewers have or haven't made. I highly doubt that Mark is making decisions on whether or not to sign a player; he's likely making decisions on offering players, and Stearns has to make that calculation.

[LouisEly]

 

Mark did say that he has never said no to a player acquisition simply due to cost. I imagine that he asks what the impact of signing that player will be in terms of projected additional wins and then makes a decision on cost versus impact, but he said he's never said no simply due to cost.

 

Ummm, well, if that were the case, why don't we have Strasburg and Rendon on the roster then? Why didn't we resign Grandal? Not saying those were smart decisions for a team like us (they were not good decisions) , but if cost is never a factor, then why do we not sign guys like that?

 

All those players would give us more wins, right?

 

I'm just not buying any of it. They lost money, doubtful. Cost is not a factor when making contract decisions, highly doubtful.

Keep in mind that free agency is a black box, not a public auction. The Brewers have no idea what offers other teams have made, and heaven forbid that agents embellish the offers that they have in order to get teams to up the ante. We don't know what offers the Brewers have or haven't made. I highly doubt that Mark is making decisions on whether or not to sign a player; he's likely making decisions on offering players, and Stearns has to make that calculation.

[DuWayne Steurer]

The Brewers raised payroll by 30 million dollars to a level that is not sustainable year over year specifically because two players were available on sweetheart one year deals. You can characterize them not spending that money again because no similar values were available as "slashing payroll", I'd characterize it as returning to a sustainable level.

 

 

No matter how many times this gets repeated, there are people who will call what is happening as "slashing payroll" and Attanasio "crying poor" about operating at a loss last year. It kind of is what it is.

[DuWayne Steurer]

The Brewers raised payroll by 30 million dollars to a level that is not sustainable year over year specifically because two players were available on sweetheart one year deals. You can characterize them not spending that money again because no similar values were available as "slashing payroll", I'd characterize it as returning to a sustainable level.

 

 

No matter how many times this gets repeated, there are people who will call what is happening as "slashing payroll" and Attanasio "crying poor" about operating at a loss last year. It kind of is what it is.

[MrTPlush]

It is a low payroll for us...below what I think is sustainable when competing. They were willing to float $100mil payrolls while competing nearly a decade ago. Inflation and all the additional money over the years is exponentially more than they saw back then.

 

One can acknowledge that without thinking they are deliberately slashing payroll to be cheap. I think their moves make it look that way, but when you have lots of holes to fill and don't find the big names worth it that is kind of what you need to turn to. It was kind of a combination of a lot of money coming off the books and the notable free agents just not being near worth the cost it would take to get them.

 

What is ignored from Attanasio's interview is the fact he said it didn't stop them from making moves. Which is fine because making moves to make them is rarely a wise idea. That being said this years payroll is still quite small for a competitive Brewers team...certainly lower than you would expect. I don't think it is a sustainable payroll (it is lower than sustainable)...I think it just ended up low because they didn't have the players to get. It looks bad, fans have reason to be a tad disappointed over it, but hopefully it is a sign of smart management.

[tmwiese55]

Good post Plush. All good and I think your second paragraph there summarizes it well. I think they would be more than willing to have spent a good chunk more this year if the right deal worked out, but it didn't and if you would've signed something to get higher their determination was that it would hurt them later on. So, they went the route they did and left themselves a lot of flex for mid season acquisitions if it comes up and basically a blank slate to work with next offseason to try again. Hopefully in a better buyer's market.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

I think the Brewers wanted and tried to retain Grandal. I get the feeling they were truly disappointed when he signed with the White Sox. They then got to work in an attempt to identify a catcher that could come the closest to replicating Grandal's offensive production. The free agent catching market was pretty barren on offensive performers, though, and the only high-end catcher available on the trade market was arguably Contreras, and there was no way the Cubs were going to deal him to their arch rival. Fortunately the Mariners made their bat-first guy in Narvaez available, and the Brewers were able to swoop in and grab him. While he isn't the defender Grandal is, he'll likely be ok back there. But the benefit is going to be his offensive upside. I think he is a 30 HR, .280 AVG, .850 OPS guy in the making. The fact that he is still in his arbitration years and will be affordable isn't the Brewers' fault, and it isn't a sign of them being cheap. It's just the way the system works. After Grandal left, he was the best alternative available, regardless of salary.

[True Blue Brew Crew]

For a team lacking prospect capital, maybe the Brewers realize that impactful mid season adds will only come via taking on significant contract dollars. This year they will have that ability to absorb much more than last year when they were lacking prospect capital and carried a maxed out budget. The one way to acquire midseason talent without giving up a haul of prospects is to be able to take on salary. That's the kind of deal I'll be anticipating if the Brewers are competitors at the trade deadline.

[KeithStone53151]

For a team lacking prospect capital, maybe the Brewers realize that impactful mid season adds will only come via taking on significant contract dollars. This year they will have that ability to absorb much more than last year when they were lacking prospect capital and carried a maxed out budget. The one way to acquire midseason talent without giving up a haul of prospects is to be able to take on salary. That's the kind of deal I'll be anticipating if the Brewers are competitors at the trade deadline.

 

Good point here. Never underestimate how cheap certain owners can be...I'm not talking Mark A, think Jeter and whoever owns the Pirates......

[JosephC]

I have to admit that the more I look at it, the more I think the payroll cut is a pretty big story heading into the season.

 

I was surprised to see the jump to 122 million in 2019 and figured some belt-tightening would be in store for 2020, but I never guessed the cut would put the team below <100 million. It's looking like this season's opening day payroll will be below the number the Brewers were at in 2014 and 2015. Actually, looking at Cot's running payroll total, adding in an estimate for Holt, and it is looking like the Brewers opening day payroll will be right around the level they ran at in 2012. There were also two 63 million dollar years stuck in there, although I figure most of those funds probably went to Maryville, Carolina and the Dominican Republic.

 

Over the last decade or so, Milwaukee and Cincinnati have been flipping back and forth between the smallest TV markets in baseball. Recent numbers:

https://mediatracks.com/resources/nielsen-dma-rankings-2020/

https://mediatracks.com/resources/nielsen-dma-rankings-2019/

 

Despite that, from 2010-2019 the average payroll for these teams has been:

Reds = 99,446,199

Brewers = 90,937,754

Over an 8.5 million dollar difference on average.

Currently the Reds running payroll total for 2020 on Cot's is 141.4 million dollars, nearly 20 million higher than the Brewers all-time high payroll and likely 40+ million more than what the Brewer's payroll will be this season.

 

I also puke at the thought that "Attanasio owes us nothing." Sure, he wasn't here when Miller Park was built, but he had no problem sticking his hand out and collecting the five-county sales tax that went years longer than it was projected. I'd bet a really large amount of people who say "Attanasio owes us nothing" will completely forget about that when Attanasio comes looking for 1 billion dollars for a new playground, then they will say "it's a collaboration with the public." Also ridiculous seeing all the comments about MLB owners constantly screwing players out of money, but when the guy in our own backyard dumps 20% of his payroll then it's just the smart way to do business.

 

Yes, this is a direct criticism of Attanasio, but also a criticism of MLB in general. It is ridiculous that MLB rolls in and coerces politicians, who turns around and gives the stupid "we're a MLB city" line to the public...and then after getting 100's of millions...the league continues to support a system that doesn't treat Milwaukee like a true "MLB city" but a "second class MLB city." So if anyone reading this takes exception with me bashing Attanasio...maybe we can find common ground on the MLB system that results in two successful seasons being followed up by a 20+% slash in payroll.

 

It's not right.

 

People of Milwaukee/Wisconsin should expect better.

[MrTPlush]

If you look at the projected payrolls for 2020 and compare them to 2019 records the teams below the Brewers are 90+ loss teams...then the Rays, the A's, and the Indians (who are not trending up talent wise) are also mixed in there. I mean it is easy to see why people may be a little upset with that. I don't exactly expect us to be spending like 100 loss rebuilding teams or teams that garner the fan support of a AAA team.

 

Hopefully they find some guys they like in the next few years or maybe extend some young players. I don't envision the 2020 payroll being a trend...I think it will start bumping up in future years as they sign some guys and others hit arbitration.

 

Of course I also hope they make the postseason this year and the payroll shrinkage doesn't become a storyline all year.

[KeithStone53151]

I have to admit that the more I look at it, the more I think the payroll cut is a pretty big story heading into the season.

 

I was surprised to see the jump to 122 million in 2019 and figured some belt-tightening would be in store for 2020, but I never guessed the cut would put the team below <100 million. It's looking like this season's opening day payroll will be below the number the Brewers were at in 2014 and 2015. Actually, looking at Cot's running payroll total, adding in an estimate for Holt, and it is looking like the Brewers opening day payroll will be right around the level they ran at in 2012. There were also two 63 million dollar years stuck in there, although I figure most of those funds probably went to Maryville, Carolina and the Dominican Republic.

 

A couple notes here, Cots isn't including option buyouts on Grandal and Moose. That's $5.25 million combined. They also happened to win/sign extensions with arbitration guys. They couldn't exactly know those were going to work out the way they did. They could very easily have close to another $3 million in payroll. Maybe winning those got us Brock, hard to say. Also, Cots doesn't include incentives. I know Lindblom and Phelps can combine for up to $5 million in incentives this year, I also know at least one other player has a pretty significant incentive...I just can't remember who. And as you've noted, Brock isn't included in the payroll yet. If you add that all up, the Cots number of $95 million is actually at least $100 million with the opt outs, and could be over to $110 million with incentives, Brock, and had we lost arbitration with Hader/Suter.

 

Also, as True Blue noted, there's a strong chance they are saving some payroll for deadline moves. 2 years ago, we made some very significant payroll additions at the deadline. This past offseason, payroll was tighter but we still made some smaller $ moves. Imagine this year, we're in the hunt and the Astros start playing like crap because they don't know what pitch is coming. Adding Verlander or Greinke is more feasible if we are running a $105-110 million payroll versus $125. That's just one example, point being, having payroll to make deadline moves will be a big deal for us...especially with our currently weak farm system.

[tmwiese55]

I'd say everyone should complete the thought process of what guys they should have signed at or presumably slightly above the deals they signed with elsewhere? Remember, these are not 1 year deals and we don't have a DH. It's very unwise to spend just to spend because "we can't go backwards on payroll" or fans will get mad.

[MrTPlush]

I'd say everyone should complete the thought process of what guys they should have signed at or presumably slightly above the deals they signed with elsewhere? Remember, these are not 1 year deals and we don't have a DH. It's very unwise to spend just to spend because "we can't go backwards on payroll" or fans will get mad.

 

I think the strain it would put long term on the payroll was taken into consideration. Signing Cain was easy because it really isn't a strain on the payroll...another larger contract arguably would be. You have to be a little smarter now that the payroll is a bit higher and arbitration in future years will certainly take a big chunk out. I believe Attanasio when he says it didn't stop them from making a move...I just don't think any were worth the money added to the payroll.

 

There are also many question marks in the coming years (inclusion of the DH) where they may want some flexibility depending on that and other collective bargaining topics.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

I'd say everyone should complete the thought process of what guys they should have signed at or presumably slightly above the deals they signed with elsewhere? Remember, these are not 1 year deals and we don't have a DH. It's very unwise to spend just to spend because "we can't go backwards on payroll" or fans will get mad.

 

I personally would have ponied up for Grandal, and signed Castellanos instead of Garcia for the RF spot. But I don't see the moves they did make leading to a drastic decrease in production at those spots, though.

[pacopete4]

The Brewers payroll won't be less than $100M and I wish I would stop seeing that posted.

[brewerfan82]

I don't know how to complain too much about the drop in payroll when it looks like they managed to maintain a similar amount of talent on the roster. I understand it feels like they could have done more because of the room they created, but I think they're more where they are, not because they CAN'T go over $100M, but because the deals they would have liked to make weren't there in this market.

 

I'm sure if they could have gotten Grandal back at something like 2/$40 w/ a 3rd year option, they would have done that. And if any 1 year Grandal/Moustakas-type deals had fallen into their laps they may have jumped on that as well. A couple of those type deals would have shot them right back up into the $120-130M range, but they just weren't there for them this year and there's no reason to add payroll just to add payroll and hamstring themselves moving forward.

 

All in all, I think they did a great job replacing talent on the roster and leaving themselves with payroll relief/flexibility. It's definitely going to be interesting seeing how it all plays out this year!

[Fear The Chorizo]

The Brewers' average payroll will continue to gradually increase pretty much in line with inflation and increasing revenue streams league-wide. The problem too many Brewer fans have is that they don't realize the payroll of large market teams can increase at a faster rate simply because their revenue generating levers are much bigger than what the Brewers have with the current MLB financial structure. That just means that as soon as the Brewers think they can act like a mid market team, more than half the league can easily outbid them. For the Brewers to consistently be contenders, they need to play on the margins of free agency more often than not and be really good at identifying value in the mid-tier pool of veteran free agency or short term deals when the time is right. Stearns has demonstrated a very good ability to do just that thus far, and I trust they will continue to do so - big time acquisitions can be made via trade or at the trade deadline under the right circumstances...but blowing your payroll budget up in December/January basically kills your opportunity to add impact players in July. I'm glad they appear to have some wiggle room to add in areas of their team that the offseason moves may not have been enough once the season rolls into June.

 

The Brewers will never, ever, ever be able to be the organization who can offer a marquee free agent the biggest and longest contract in terms of dollars/years - nor should they be. Just remember that once the Brewers could offer a player like Rendon a $250M dollar contract without turning the rest of their roster into garbage to keep payroll in check and stay consistently competitive, an LA, Chicago, or NY team could probably offer Rendon $350M or more in that financial environment.

 

It's obvious some people don't want to accept this as reality...oh well.

[KeithStone53151]

Over the last decade or so, Milwaukee and Cincinnati have been flipping back and forth between the smallest TV markets in baseball. Recent numbers:

https://mediatracks.com/resources/nielsen-dma-rankings-2020/

https://mediatracks.com/resources/nielsen-dma-rankings-2019/

 

Despite that, from 2010-2019 the average payroll for these teams has been:

Reds = 99,446,199

Brewers = 90,937,754

Over an 8.5 million dollar difference on average.

Currently the Reds running payroll total for 2020 on Cot's is 141.4 million dollars, nearly 20 million higher than the Brewers all-time high payroll and likely 40+ million more than what the Brewer's payroll will be this season.

 

Also specifically regarding the Reds, they had a new tv deal that went into effect for the 2018 season, bumping their tv revenue from $30 million to a what this article below seems to think is $55-60 million. They could be wrong, but it also explains that the Reds have a bigger tv footprint than the Brewers. Also the Brewers are still on a tv deal signed in 2013 for one more year at $24 million per fangraphs. Bottom line, they have very likely brought in more money from tv/media deals than the Brewers over that entire decade. It's also likely that they didn't do all of buy a minor league affiliate, completely remodel their spring training facility, undertake multiple significant, multi-million dollar capital projects to revamp the stadium, among other major expenses.

 

Also, the Reds are notoriously a franchise that makes an effort to win all the time. Very similar to the Brewers, only much less successful. You're comparing two franchises that aren't solely in this business to make money, but have owners that will spend the money and really want to win. Comparing all that, it makes sense that the Reds would carry slightly higher payrolls. It also makes the recent splurging of the Reds on payroll make sense given the new tv deal and the young talent they have. I suspect $140 million payrolls are not sustainable every year for the Reds. This is probably similar to the Brewers splurge up to $125 million last year.

 

https://www.mlb.com/news/royals-close-to-new-tv-deal-with-fox-sports-kc

[tmwiese55]

I think I'd probably have taken Castellanos' deal instead of Garcia too. But, that's only 7 mil extra per season, would fans still not be saying the same things they are right now since it's still 20 mil less than last year. But, there is also a very real debate comparing those deals due to the 4 years vs 2 years and that essentially you're paying double for Castellanos due to a 3 month hot streak like he's never had in his career before.

 

I'd guess Grandal was extremely close call for them. But he's a C and not young so those extra years are a real concern, aaaand we don't have a DH for the later years.

 

Lots of the recent posts are very close to my takes at this point.

 

For the Reds comp. If I added correctly, Brewers won about 50 more games over that span. Each made the playoffs 3 times, Reds won 0 playoff series and have missed 6 straight years now. Brewers won 2 and made two NLCS making it to games 6 and 7. Somewhat surprisingly, the 10-15 years prior to 2010 the Reds were more or less just as bad as the Brewers too, I didn't remember them being that poor.