Article: Brewers Payroll Preview: How Much can they Spend?

[John Bonnes]

In the previous four payroll stories, we found that the Brewers will go into the offseason with salaries somewhere between $110 and $125M. How much can we expect them to spend?

 

---

This is part 5 of a series of stories detailing the payroll situation for the Milwaukee Brewers at a back-of-the-napkin level. Previously, we looked at the total salaries of the infielders, outfielders, rotation, and bullpen, and came up with a $125M commitment for next year. Today we look at how much more than that they can expect to spend. 

---

To get a sense of where the Brewers might go with their payroll, it might help to look at where they've been. 

According to Cot's Baseball Contracts, here is what Milwaukee has spent on payroll over the last six years, along with where it ranked in MLB:
 2022 - $131,930,160 (19)
 2021 - $ 99,316,127 (19)
 2020 - $105,842,057 (22) (prorated)
 2019 - $122,530,400 (17)
 2018 - $ 90,964,571 (26)
 2017 - $ 63,061,300 (30)

You'll notice that last year's $132M payroll was the high watermark for the franchise but ranked just 19th in Major League Baseball. Nineteenth is respectable, given that Milwaukee is the 40th largest metropolitan area in the USA. But that doesn't give much hope that the team will surpass that level.

However, there is also no clear trend. We don't see a steady 5-10% increase in payroll. We see a franchise investing in payroll when it senses an opportunity to make some noise, such as coming off of an NLCS appearance in 2018.

This year's team is not coming off an inspiring postseason run, but there are reasons to invest. Our analysis of the team's rotation payroll showed that the core of the team is on track to hit free agency after the 2024 season, so this generation of Brewers players has two years left in their competitive window.

Or maybe just one year. At the trade deadline, we just saw that David Stearns isn't averse to trading away star players a year before they become free agents in the hopes of getting back assets that can extend that competitive window.

If payroll stays steady, the Brewers will have limited room to maneuver to add free agents. Here is what our back-of-the-napkin payroll looked like:

If they Brewers don't raise payroll, they have about $7M to add a big bat at the designated hitter spot or otherwise improve the team. They could decide not to pick up the option for Kolten Wong, but that would only free up $8M (because he has a $2M buyout) and also create another gap to fill.

They could also make some other moves to add a few million dollars, such as non-tendering Adrian Houser or sacrificing a bullpen arm. A few million here, a few million there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money. But those also create some gaps that need to be filled. 

The bottom line: if ownership doesn't boost payroll, or Stearns doesn't move one of the team's more significant salaried players off the roster, their options are limited to improve.

Or maybe you see some options that they should look at closer? You'll get to create your plan and share it with us tomorrow. Stay tuned….

 

View full article

[JosephC]

How much can the Brewers spend?  Probably not nearly enough.

2022 opening day payrolls-

Yankees = 245 million

Phillies = 228 million

Padres = 211 million

Astros = 174 million

So if the goal is to finish about 7th in a 30 team league and claim that to be a big success, the Brewers can likely spend enough for that.  But if you want to run with the big boys, might as well forget about that until MLB and MLBPA fixes the CBA or the owner decides he wants to spend like the Padres spend.

[JosephC]

How much can the Brewers spend?  Probably not nearly enough.

2022 opening day payrolls-

Yankees = 245 million

Phillies = 228 million

Padres = 211 million

Astros = 174 million

So if the goal is to finish about 7th in a 30 team league and claim that to be a big success, the Brewers can likely spend enough for that.  But if you want to run with the big boys, might as well forget about that until MLB and MLBPA fixes the CBA or the owner decides he wants to spend like the Padres spend.

[Grabkoj]

I personally think the Brewers will trade one of Burnes and Woodruff and Renfroe 

Then they’ll extend the Ace that they keep for 4-5 years 

Hunter can be traded because of the OF talent ready for MLB soon in the Minors 

Brewers will get a bat and pitchers for one of the Aces

And Brewers can sign a veteran OF for a year and platoon them with Mitchell or Taylor 

I can also see them not keeping Wong and getting a 3B like Drury or Justin Turner 

While getting an offensive minded catcher like Gary Sanchez, or make a run at Contreras

If they get Contreras, then plug Turang and Hiura at 2B, then Urias and Brosseau at 3B

Contreras can swing between Catcher and DH, then get a Veteran to play DH and OF also (like Adam Duvall)

 

 

 

 

[Grabkoj]

I personally think the Brewers will trade one of Burnes and Woodruff and Renfroe 

Then they’ll extend the Ace that they keep for 4-5 years 

Hunter can be traded because of the OF talent ready for MLB soon in the Minors 

Brewers will get a bat and pitchers for one of the Aces

And Brewers can sign a veteran OF for a year and platoon them with Mitchell or Taylor 

I can also see them not keeping Wong and getting a 3B like Drury or Justin Turner 

While getting an offensive minded catcher like Gary Sanchez, or make a run at Contreras

If they get Contreras, then plug Turang and Hiura at 2B, then Urias and Brosseau at 3B

Contreras can swing between Catcher and DH, then get a Veteran to play DH and OF also (like Adam Duvall)

 

 

 

 

[Brewcrew82]

47 minutes ago, Grabkoj said:

I personally think the Brewers will trade one of Burnes and Woodruff and Renfroe 

Then they’ll extend the Ace that they keep for 4-5 years 

Hunter can be traded because of the OF talent ready for MLB soon in the Minors 

Brewers will get a bat and pitchers for one of the Aces

And Brewers can sign a veteran OF for a year and platoon them with Mitchell or Taylor 

I can also see them not keeping Wong and getting a 3B like Drury or Justin Turner 

While getting an offensive minded catcher like Gary Sanchez, or make a run at Contreras

If they get Contreras, then plug Turang and Hiura at 2B, then Urias and Brosseau at 3B

Contreras can swing between Catcher and DH, then get a Veteran to play DH and OF also (like Adam Duvall)

 

 

 

 

Contreras isn't coming to Milwaukee. Nor would I want him to.  

[Brewcrew82]

47 minutes ago, Grabkoj said:

I personally think the Brewers will trade one of Burnes and Woodruff and Renfroe 

Then they’ll extend the Ace that they keep for 4-5 years 

Hunter can be traded because of the OF talent ready for MLB soon in the Minors 

Brewers will get a bat and pitchers for one of the Aces

And Brewers can sign a veteran OF for a year and platoon them with Mitchell or Taylor 

I can also see them not keeping Wong and getting a 3B like Drury or Justin Turner 

While getting an offensive minded catcher like Gary Sanchez, or make a run at Contreras

If they get Contreras, then plug Turang and Hiura at 2B, then Urias and Brosseau at 3B

Contreras can swing between Catcher and DH, then get a Veteran to play DH and OF also (like Adam Duvall)

 

 

 

 

Contreras isn't coming to Milwaukee. Nor would I want him to.  

[monty57]

4 hours ago, John Bonnes said:

 

This year's team is not coming off an inspiring postseason run, but there are reasons to invest. Our analysis of the team's rotation payroll showed that the core of the team is on track to hit free agency after the 2024 season, so this generation of Brewers players has two years left in their competitive window.

Or maybe just one year. At the trade deadline, we just saw that David Stearns isn't averse to trading away star players a year before they become free agents in the hopes of getting back assets that can extend that competitive window.

 

We've had a lot of conversations on this site over the years about "playing for a window," which essentially means lining everything up and using all of your assets to "win now" in a limited period of time. This creates a cycle of (1) begin the rebuild period (2) start adding assets as the prospects hit the majors (3) go over budget and trade anyone you can for pieces that will help you win in the proposed window (4) blow things up and start the cycle over again.

Stearns has repeatedly stated (and has been echoed by Attanasio) that they are trying to be "continually competitive." This means that they are not looking at winning in a "competitive window," but will do what they think it takes to stay competitive year-in-and-year-out. 

To me, this means that they will not let Woodruff, Burnes, Adames, and anyone else they think is valuable to walk in free agency. They also aren't going to do anything that will be detrimental to the future in order to "win now" (i.e. going way over budget or trading away prospects they think will play a significant role in the coming years). 

They are going to have a hard time remaining "continually competitive" with so many arby guys who will be free agents in the next few years. That will be made harder the longer they hold onto everyone, which is why I think they'll need to trade some of their big names this off-season rather than waiting until next year and having a "fire sale." 

I think they'll trade Burnes and bring back a lot of talent that will fit in with the prospects we have coming up, that will help us maintain success for the foreseeable future. Meanwhile, we'll still have a solid team in 2023 before we'll have to trade away Woodruff, Lauer, and Adames unless one of them will sign for a few years' extension. By that time, hopefully our prospects will have taken steps forward to become the new "core," while we will have another infusion of young talent from the aforementioned trades.

It will be a tough path, and there's a chance it will bomb, but I think that's the road they'll take in order to attempt to maintain their "continual competitiveness." Holding onto everyone for one more year would seem to necessitate at least a short "uncompetitive" rebuild period. Notably, it should be easier to trade two aces over a two-year period than it would be to trade them both in the same year. Both Burnes and Woodruff will be highly sought after, but trading them in two seasons would allow them to take the best offer each year, rather than taking the best and second-best offers in one off-season.

[Brewcrew82]

7 minutes ago, monty57 said:

We've had a lot of conversations on this site over the years about "playing for a window," which essentially means lining everything up and using all of your assets to "win now" in a limited period of time. This creates a cycle of (1) begin the rebuild period (2) start adding assets as the prospects hit the majors (3) go over budget and trade anyone you can for pieces that will help you win in the proposed window (4) blow things up and start the cycle over again.

Stearns has repeatedly stated (and has been echoed by Attanasio) that they are trying to be "continually competitive." This means that they are not looking at winning in a "competitive window," but will do what they think it takes to stay competitive year-in-and-year-out. 

To me, this means that they will not let Woodruff, Burnes, Adames, and anyone else they think is valuable to walk in free agency. They also aren't going to do anything that will be detrimental to the future in order to "win now" (i.e. going way over budget or trading away prospects they think will play a significant role in the coming years). 

They are going to have a hard time remaining "continually competitive" with so many arby guys who will be free agents in the next few years. That will be made harder the longer they hold onto everyone, which is why I think they'll need to trade some of their big names this off-season rather than waiting until next year and having a "fire sale." 

I think they'll trade Burnes and bring back a lot of talent that will fit in with the prospects we have coming up, that will help us maintain success for the foreseeable future. Meanwhile, we'll still have a solid team in 2023 before we'll have to trade away Woodruff, Lauer, and Adames unless one of them will sign for a few years' extension. By that time, hopefully our prospects will have taken steps forward to become the new "core," while we will have another infusion of young talent from the aforementioned trades.

It will be a tough path, and there's a chance it will bomb, but I think that's the road they'll take in order to attempt to maintain their "continual competitiveness." Holding onto everyone for one more year would seem to necessitate at least a short "uncompetitive" rebuild period. Notably, it should be easier to trade two aces over a two-year period than it would be to trade them both in the same year. Both Burnes and Woodruff will be highly sought after, but trading them in two seasons would allow them to take the best offer each year, rather than taking the best and second-best offers in one off-season.

Interesting. My guess is that they sign one of Burnes or Woodruff (probably Woodruff) to an extension this offseason, in the mold of the recent Castillo and Musgrove deals. Besides the fact that it is so hard to develop elite starting pitching in the first place, they might feel the need to do so given the huge hit they took from the fanbase after the Hader trade. They would get absolutely excoriated for trading Hader, Burnes, and Woodruff in successive years. 

[sveumrules]

11 minutes ago, monty57 said:

We've had a lot of conversations on this site over the years about "playing for a window," which essentially means lining everything up and using all of your assets to "win now" in a limited period of time. This creates a cycle of (1) begin the rebuild period (2) start adding assets as the prospects hit the majors (3) go over budget and trade anyone you can for pieces that will help you win in the proposed window (4) blow things up and start the cycle over again.

Stearns has repeatedly stated (and has been echoed by Attanasio) that they are trying to be "continually competitive." This means that they are not looking at winning in a "competitive window," but will do what they think it takes to stay competitive year-in-and-year-out. 

To me, this means that they will not let Woodruff, Burnes, Adames, and anyone else they think is valuable to walk in free agency. They also aren't going to do anything that will be detrimental to the future in order to "win now" (i.e. going way over budget or trading away prospects they think will play a significant role in the coming years). 

They are going to have a hard time remaining "continually competitive" with so many arby guys who will be free agents in the next few years. That will be made harder the longer they hold onto everyone, which is why I think they'll need to trade some of their big names this off-season rather than waiting until next year and having a "fire sale." 

I think they'll trade Burnes and bring back a lot of talent that will fit in with the prospects we have coming up, that will help us maintain success for the foreseeable future. Meanwhile, we'll still have a solid team in 2023 before we'll have to trade away Woodruff, Lauer, and Adames unless one of them will sign for a few years' extension. By that time, hopefully our prospects will have taken steps forward to become the new "core," while we will have another infusion of young talent from the aforementioned trades.

It will be a tough path, and there's a chance it will bomb, but I think that's the road they'll take in order to attempt to maintain their "continual competitiveness." Holding onto everyone for one more year would seem to necessitate at least a short "uncompetitive" rebuild period. Notably, it should be easier to trade two aces over a two-year period than it would be to trade them both in the same year. Both Burnes and Woodruff will be highly sought after, but trading them in two seasons would allow them to take the best offer each year, rather than taking the best and second-best offers in one off-season.

I agree with pretty much everything you said monty, as per usual, but am holding out hope that if they can extend Woodruff, they will hold onto Burnes for one more go in 2023 and then deal him at the deadline or in the offseason before 2024 depending on how things play out from there.

[sveumrules]

11 minutes ago, monty57 said:

We've had a lot of conversations on this site over the years about "playing for a window," which essentially means lining everything up and using all of your assets to "win now" in a limited period of time. This creates a cycle of (1) begin the rebuild period (2) start adding assets as the prospects hit the majors (3) go over budget and trade anyone you can for pieces that will help you win in the proposed window (4) blow things up and start the cycle over again.

Stearns has repeatedly stated (and has been echoed by Attanasio) that they are trying to be "continually competitive." This means that they are not looking at winning in a "competitive window," but will do what they think it takes to stay competitive year-in-and-year-out. 

To me, this means that they will not let Woodruff, Burnes, Adames, and anyone else they think is valuable to walk in free agency. They also aren't going to do anything that will be detrimental to the future in order to "win now" (i.e. going way over budget or trading away prospects they think will play a significant role in the coming years). 

They are going to have a hard time remaining "continually competitive" with so many arby guys who will be free agents in the next few years. That will be made harder the longer they hold onto everyone, which is why I think they'll need to trade some of their big names this off-season rather than waiting until next year and having a "fire sale." 

I think they'll trade Burnes and bring back a lot of talent that will fit in with the prospects we have coming up, that will help us maintain success for the foreseeable future. Meanwhile, we'll still have a solid team in 2023 before we'll have to trade away Woodruff, Lauer, and Adames unless one of them will sign for a few years' extension. By that time, hopefully our prospects will have taken steps forward to become the new "core," while we will have another infusion of young talent from the aforementioned trades.

It will be a tough path, and there's a chance it will bomb, but I think that's the road they'll take in order to attempt to maintain their "continual competitiveness." Holding onto everyone for one more year would seem to necessitate at least a short "uncompetitive" rebuild period. Notably, it should be easier to trade two aces over a two-year period than it would be to trade them both in the same year. Both Burnes and Woodruff will be highly sought after, but trading them in two seasons would allow them to take the best offer each year, rather than taking the best and second-best offers in one off-season.

I agree with pretty much everything you said monty, as per usual, but am holding out hope that if they can extend Woodruff, they will hold onto Burnes for one more go in 2023 and then deal him at the deadline or in the offseason before 2024 depending on how things play out from there.

[Brewcrew82]

10 minutes ago, sveumrules said:

I agree with pretty much everything you said monty, as per usual, but am holding out hope that if they can extend Woodruff, they will hold onto Burnes for one more go in 2023 and then deal him at the deadline or in the offseason before 2024 depending on how things play out from there.

This is still the most likely scenario, imo. Everything that Stearns has said about "bringing back the core" and "competing" indicates this. Without Burnes and/or Woodruff, they'll be lucky to win more than 85 games. With both of them, they have a shot to win 95. Extend one of them (probably Woodruff) this offseason and then trade the other next offseason for a still significant haul. 

[Brewcrew82]

10 minutes ago, sveumrules said:

I agree with pretty much everything you said monty, as per usual, but am holding out hope that if they can extend Woodruff, they will hold onto Burnes for one more go in 2023 and then deal him at the deadline or in the offseason before 2024 depending on how things play out from there.

This is still the most likely scenario, imo. Everything that Stearns has said about "bringing back the core" and "competing" indicates this. Without Burnes and/or Woodruff, they'll be lucky to win more than 85 games. With both of them, they have a shot to win 95. Extend one of them (probably Woodruff) this offseason and then trade the other next offseason for a still significant haul. 

[Redd Vencher]

1 hour ago, Brewcrew82 said:

This is still the most likely scenario, imo. Everything that Stearns has said about "bringing back the core" and "competing" indicates this. Without Burnes and/or Woodruff, they'll be lucky to win more than 85 games. With both of them, they have a shot to win 95. Extend one of them (probably Woodruff) this offseason and then trade the other next offseason for a still significant haul. 

I think it's pretty silly to say the Brewers would be lucky to win 85 games if they traded one of Burnes or Woodruff without seeing the rest of the offseason moves.

[Redd Vencher]

1 hour ago, Brewcrew82 said:

This is still the most likely scenario, imo. Everything that Stearns has said about "bringing back the core" and "competing" indicates this. Without Burnes and/or Woodruff, they'll be lucky to win more than 85 games. With both of them, they have a shot to win 95. Extend one of them (probably Woodruff) this offseason and then trade the other next offseason for a still significant haul. 

I think it's pretty silly to say the Brewers would be lucky to win 85 games if they traded one of Burnes or Woodruff without seeing the rest of the offseason moves.

[wibadgers23]

1 hour ago, Brewcrew82 said:

This is still the most likely scenario, imo. Everything that Stearns has said about "bringing back the core" and "competing" indicates this. Without Burnes and/or Woodruff, they'll be lucky to win more than 85 games. With both of them, they have a shot to win 95. Extend one of them (probably Woodruff) this offseason and then trade the other next offseason for a still significant haul. 

I’m leaning in this direction as well. Extend Woodruff and then trade Burnes next offseason or the 2023 deadline if the team is struggling. This is the direction I think Strarns will go this offseason. We’ll bring mostly everyone back and it will be a relatively quiet offseason. I think they’ll give it one more shot with the “core.”

[wibadgers23]

1 hour ago, Brewcrew82 said:

This is still the most likely scenario, imo. Everything that Stearns has said about "bringing back the core" and "competing" indicates this. Without Burnes and/or Woodruff, they'll be lucky to win more than 85 games. With both of them, they have a shot to win 95. Extend one of them (probably Woodruff) this offseason and then trade the other next offseason for a still significant haul. 

I’m leaning in this direction as well. Extend Woodruff and then trade Burnes next offseason or the 2023 deadline if the team is struggling. This is the direction I think Strarns will go this offseason. We’ll bring mostly everyone back and it will be a relatively quiet offseason. I think they’ll give it one more shot with the “core.”

[monty57]

I would love to see them get a couple more years out of Woodruff, and I have been trying to convince myself recently that it is a possibility, as they should have a period with a lot of pre-arby guys coming up where we could afford another big salary. Good call Sveumrules that if we did the extension this year we could get another year of the three-headed monster at the top of our rotation before trading away Burnes after next year. 

My concern with extending Woodruff is his age, as he will be 31 in his last arby year. He knows that he will likely only have one shot at "real money," and he'll probably demand a longer-term extension that would take him well into his mid-30's. Those type of deals can feel good when they're signed, but feel bad when you're overpaying a guy for mediocrity in the final years of the deal.

Ideally, we could get an extra two years. Realistically, he'd probably be asking for four or five.  I've always had a hard time with the "he's valuable enough in the first couple years to make up for overpaying in the final years" line of logic, as his salary could be a real hurdle if he hits a cliff during the extension.

We're always happy when we get something like the Cain deal off the books, so we have to be careful not to jump right into another one.

[monty57]

I would love to see them get a couple more years out of Woodruff, and I have been trying to convince myself recently that it is a possibility, as they should have a period with a lot of pre-arby guys coming up where we could afford another big salary. Good call Sveumrules that if we did the extension this year we could get another year of the three-headed monster at the top of our rotation before trading away Burnes after next year. 

My concern with extending Woodruff is his age, as he will be 31 in his last arby year. He knows that he will likely only have one shot at "real money," and he'll probably demand a longer-term extension that would take him well into his mid-30's. Those type of deals can feel good when they're signed, but feel bad when you're overpaying a guy for mediocrity in the final years of the deal.

Ideally, we could get an extra two years. Realistically, he'd probably be asking for four or five.  I've always had a hard time with the "he's valuable enough in the first couple years to make up for overpaying in the final years" line of logic, as his salary could be a real hurdle if he hits a cliff during the extension.

We're always happy when we get something like the Cain deal off the books, so we have to be careful not to jump right into another one.

[Lajitas]

The only definite move I see is Wong's option not getting picked up.  Turang appears to be ready and will replace him in the lineup.

Burnes is still affordable, even at $11.4 million, so unless they get an overwhelming offer, they'll keep him, with an eye on contending again.

[Lajitas]

The only definite move I see is Wong's option not getting picked up.  Turang appears to be ready and will replace him in the lineup.

Burnes is still affordable, even at $11.4 million, so unless they get an overwhelming offer, they'll keep him, with an eye on contending again.

[Patrick425]

Seems likely to me that the Brewers will trade one of their starting pitchers in the off season since they have six if you include Ashby (I don't think they gave him that extension so that he can pitch out of the bullpen). The question is if it will be one of their aces or a back of the rotation guy.  

Also, why is Gott listed as "other" in the payroll table in this article?  All the other bullpen arms are listed as either "closer" or "MR".  

[Patrick425]

Seems likely to me that the Brewers will trade one of their starting pitchers in the off season since they have six if you include Ashby (I don't think they gave him that extension so that he can pitch out of the bullpen). The question is if it will be one of their aces or a back of the rotation guy.  

Also, why is Gott listed as "other" in the payroll table in this article?  All the other bullpen arms are listed as either "closer" or "MR".  

[Brewcrew82]

7 hours ago, Redd Vencher said:

I think it's pretty silly to say the Brewers would be lucky to win 85 games if they traded one of Burnes or Woodruff without seeing the rest of the offseason moves.

I mean, anything they get for one of those guys is almost certainly going to be in unproven prospect capital, which would come in addition to the several rookies that they'll have to rely on next season. Unless they immediately go out and trade for/sign SEVERAL proven players (i.e., Jansen, Abreu, etc.), which we should be highly skeptical of due to our limited resources, they would a lot like the 2022 Diamondbacks. What separates us from most teams in the league is the Burnes-Woodruff 1-2 punch at the top of the rotation, which gives us 2 of the best 5 or 10 pitchers in the world. Take that away, and we're very average to below average elsewhere. Given that we only won 86 games this season WITH those guys, saying we would be lucky to win 85 games without one or both of them isn't "silly", it's reality. 

[Brewcrew82]

7 hours ago, Redd Vencher said:

I think it's pretty silly to say the Brewers would be lucky to win 85 games if they traded one of Burnes or Woodruff without seeing the rest of the offseason moves.

I mean, anything they get for one of those guys is almost certainly going to be in unproven prospect capital, which would come in addition to the several rookies that they'll have to rely on next season. Unless they immediately go out and trade for/sign SEVERAL proven players (i.e., Jansen, Abreu, etc.), which we should be highly skeptical of due to our limited resources, they would a lot like the 2022 Diamondbacks. What separates us from most teams in the league is the Burnes-Woodruff 1-2 punch at the top of the rotation, which gives us 2 of the best 5 or 10 pitchers in the world. Take that away, and we're very average to below average elsewhere. Given that we only won 86 games this season WITH those guys, saying we would be lucky to win 85 games without one or both of them isn't "silly", it's reality.