Is Mark A positioning the Brewers for a sale?

[monty57]

3 hours ago, brewcrewdue80 said:

As to the topic. I wouldnt blame Mark A.&co towards setting up to sell the team. Evers gets that funding to keep the team here 20years supposedly to fix and maintain the Stadium. Gotta be a high side time for selling and ridding what headache that will be the future Stadium upkeep/new Stadium request.

Chourio's success getting here and showing the hype is real is where I'd honestly think you'll see a decision on selling. You want the buyers coming in to a good situation being fans filling the seats. Maybe Mark missed with Yelich.

I think you hit on the most important point. Does Attanasio still enjoy being an owner, or does he see it as a "headache." 

Values of teams continue to rise. This may not always be the case, but if I were an owner I would expect the value in the future would be significantly greater than the present value. Therefore, the reason to sell is not that they will get the best price by selling now.

Barring health issues or financial duress, the reason to sell is simply that the owner no longer wants to own the team and would rather spend their time doing something else. Owning a team is more of a status symbol than anything else, as compared to what they did that allowed them to buy the team in the first place, it's not a big income generator.

No one knows what Attanasio is feeling, but outwardly he sure isn't showing anything but enthusiasm for owning the Brewers. Maybe the complaining of players and fans, and the uphill battle of owning a small-market MLB team are getting to him, but he's not publicly showing it.

I would guess that the answer to the thread topic is "no," and I sure hope that's the case. Be careful what you wish for, the next owner may not be nearly as good.

[Fear The Chorizo]

6 hours ago, BlightyBrew said:

Has anyone heard from our owner?  Any comment on the Burnes and payroll?  Is he in Arizona?  Or is he in LA? Norwich?

I think he is probably sitting around challenging himself to have a bite of the apple.

Which owner of the Brewers in particular are you wanting to hear from?  There are at least 17 of them, btw.  Attanasio owns a higher percentage of the Brewers than any of the others and is considered the principle owner, but I don't think he even owns 50% of the franchise.  His net worth would have never let him buy the Brewers outright in the first place, unlike many of the billionaire owners who've recently purchased franchises for their shiny new play toy.

Like it or not, the Brewers can't and won't ever operate like the Mets and Padres recently have - their organization simply isn't structured in a way for them to carry a top 5 payroll in MLB.  But feel free to continue griping and acting like Mark A. controls everything and has billions of dollars to throw everywhere in order to sign a bunch of veterans to record-setting contracts.

[BlightyBrew]

2 hours ago, Fear The Chorizo said:

Which owner of the Brewers in particular are you wanting to hear from?  There are at least 17 of them, btw.  Attanasio owns a higher percentage of the Brewers than any of the others and is considered the principle owner, but I don't think he even owns 50% of the franchise.  His net worth would have never let him buy the Brewers outright in the first place, unlike many of the billionaire owners who've recently purchased franchises for their shiny new play toy.

Like it or not, the Brewers can't and won't ever operate like the Mets and Padres recently have - their organization simply isn't structured in a way for them to carry a top 5 payroll in MLB.  But feel free to continue griping and acting like Mark A. controls everything and has billions of dollars to throw everywhere in order to sign a bunch of veterans to record-setting contracts.

According to the Brewers Website Mark is the Chairman and Principal Owner.  That's who I think we should hear from.  Not asking the team to be the Mets or Padres or even have a top 5 payroll.  League average would be nice.  They can't spend like the Mets but they can spend more than they can.

 

[monty57]

51 minutes ago, BlightyBrew said:

According to the Brewers Website Mark is the Chairman and Principal Owner.  That's who I think we should hear from.  Not asking the team to be the Mets or Padres or even have a top 5 payroll.  League average would be nice.  They can't spend like the Mets but they can spend more than they can.

 

Milwaukee is the smallest market in baseball, and is generally in the middle of the pack (around league average) for payroll. 

I've illustrated in my previous posts that I think they could probably add a bit this year, but are being cautious due to last year's ticket sales numbers dropping, and the pending bankruptcy of their TV provider. Both of these are valid reasons for caution, but if they play out positively (ticket sales come back, TV deal pays out) they should have room for mid-season payroll additions.

With that, they are 19th in projected payroll going into 2023, if you believe Sportrac's $104.8M number or 20th if you believe Cot's $114.7M number. It appears 2012 is the only time they pushed payroll over league average... they missed the playoffs, traded away Grienke and entered a period of mediocrity in 2012 which ended in the only "rebuild/retool" in Attanasio's tenure, so I'm glad they realized that pushing up payroll relative to the rest of the league doesn't necessarily lead to good outcomes.

I hope Milwaukee keeps a baseball team forever, but if Attanasio had the opportunity to swap his MLB team location for his AAA team location, he'd probably be able to field a much higher payroll. I doubt many major sports franchise owners could say that.

[MrTPlush]

1 hour ago, BlightyBrew said:

According to the Brewers Website Mark is the Chairman and Principal Owner.  That's who I think we should hear from.  Not asking the team to be the Mets or Padres or even have a top 5 payroll.  League average would be nice.  They can't spend like the Mets but they can spend more than they can.

 

The problem is, he is only one of many. He may be the main guy, but I don't think the others are going to get on board with a zero profit payroll like you are clamoring for. 

[monty57]

1 hour ago, MrTPlush said:

The problem is, he is only one of many. He may be the main guy, but I don't think the others are going to get on board with a zero profit payroll like you are clamoring for. 

There are CPAs on this board who could go into a lot more detail than I, but the Brewers are set up as a limited partnership. Each of the owners get a K-1 each year and the profits or losses of the Brewers pass through to the owners' personal taxes. 

This is why I doubt that the Brewers make a ton of income every year. The owners would pay taxes on this income, and they may not receive any cash if they decide to keep the money in the business. Conversely, if they take a loss, they may have to dig into their own pockets to put money into the business. For some that may not be a problem, but for others it would.

I think that the Brewers project their revenues and set the payroll so there are a few million dollars in projected profits. That gives them a little "downside protection" if things don't go as well as planned, some room to add to payroll if things go well, and it isn't a huge tax hit if things go as planned. 

The "real money" in ownership is in the long-term capital gain. Year-to-year they don't want a huge tax hit, and they don't want to have to dig into their own pockets to pay the bills.

[hawing]

I'm late to this topic, but it's been on my mind for much of this offseason. 

It feels like there's been less overall communication and outreach from the Brewers - definitely since the 2022 trade deadline, but even before that it hadn't felt the same to me as in recent (let's say pre-covid) years.  Does that indicate a waning interest in baseball on Mark A's part?  Maybe.  Or maybe he decided to lay low after the '22 trade deadline went and was received the way it was.  That he branched out into football club ownership contributes to my suspicion that he's not as engaged as he once was. 

On the other hand, he has expressed an interest in keeping the Attanasio share of the Brewers in the Attanasio family.  If you look at the Brewers' current Front Office Directory (https://www.mlb.com/brewers/team/front-office), under Marketing, Mike Attanasio now appears as the Vice President - Fan Engagement, which is a title I have not seen in past media guides (online or print).   That appointment would line up generally with the notion of keeping the share in the family.

On yet another hand - before I was aware of Mike A's new title, I noticed this tweet from him:

Most of the responses he received are from NCFC folks, and he interacted with some of them (replies such as Thanks for the tip!).  I noticed few if any Brewers responses, so I sent one (naturally including @brewer_fanatic as a quality follow), and Mike didn't respond to that at all. 

I guess overall I don't have much new to add to this topic, but I'm noticing less overall fan engagement from the Brewers recently (despite their apparently having a new VP of fan engagement).  I don't know what it means, but it makes me uneasy.  I do feel like average fans (if not also some diehards) currently have decent cause to ask "if the Brewers aren't coming across as enthusiastic about their product lately, why should I be enthusiastic about supporting them?"

 

[Fear The Chorizo]

11 hours ago, BlightyBrew said:

According to the Brewers Website Mark is the Chairman and Principal Owner.  That's who I think we should hear from.  Not asking the team to be the Mets or Padres or even have a top 5 payroll.  League average would be nice.  They can't spend like the Mets but they can spend more than they can.

 

The Brewers currently have the 19th highest projected Opening Day payroll in a league with 30 MLB teams.  To reach the current league average payroll amount the Brewers would need to add roughly 45 million in player salary (there's a big gap between the Brewers at #19 and the  next tier of teams just ahead of them).  If you take the Mets' 2023 idiocy payroll of $336 million away, that league average actually sits alot closer to where the Brewers are currently at despite being in the smallest market in all of baseball and coming off a season of diminished ticket sales and the current turmoil of their broadcast rights contract with a company about to go bankrupt.

'They can't spend like the Mets but they can spend more than they can'....what does that mean?  

[Jopal78]

17 hours ago, monty57 said:

There are CPAs on this board who could go into a lot more detail than I, but the Brewers are set up as a limited partnership. Each of the owners get a K-1 each year and the profits or losses of the Brewers pass through to the owners' personal taxes. 

This is why I doubt that the Brewers make a ton of income every year. The owners would pay taxes on this income, and they may not receive any cash if they decide to keep the money in the business. Conversely, if they take a loss, they may have to dig into their own pockets to put money into the business. For some that may not be a problem, but for others it would.

I think that the Brewers project their revenues and set the payroll so there are a few million dollars in projected profits. That gives them a little "downside protection" if things don't go as well as planned, some room to add to payroll if things go well, and it isn't a huge tax hit if things go as planned. 

The "real money" in ownership is in the long-term capital gain. Year-to-year they don't want a huge tax hit, and they don't want to have to dig into their own pockets to pay the bills.

Bingo. I don’t think Giannis took an ownership interest in the Brewers to supplement his existing income. Just like nobody would expect him to pour his basketball money into the Brewers to resign Corbin Burnes. 
 

Yet, somehow the perception exists the Principal Owner is cheap, and lining his pockets at the expense of the product on the field.
 

 

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

10 hours ago, Fear The Chorizo said:

The Brewers currently have the 19th highest projected Opening Day payroll in a league with 30 MLB teams.  To reach the current league average payroll amount the Brewers would need to add roughly 45 million in player salary (there's a big gap between the Brewers at #19 and the  next tier of teams just ahead of them).  If you take the Mets' 2023 idiocy payroll of $336 million away, that league average actually sits alot closer to where the Brewers are currently at despite being in the smallest market in all of baseball and coming off a season of diminished ticket sales and the current turmoil of their broadcast rights contract with a company about to go bankrupt.

'They can't spend like the Mets but they can spend more than they can'....what does that mean?  

I think the Brewers could spend a little more than they do because I believe almost every MLB team could spend more than they do. In a league that has $80-90m being given to every team just in national TV revenue, most baseball payrolls seem on the low side.

With that said, almost no teams spend up to their capacity. I can't fault the Brewers for not doing what 27 other teams aren't doing, either (Mets and Padres being the only obvious exceptions).

I understand why fans get frustrated with baseball's economics but when you look at the situation objectively, Attanasio is actually one of the better owners in the sport.

[Jake McKibbin]

Is it just me or does he genuinely seem like he's pretty proud of owning the Brewers? His wife is at almost every game, and he really seems to want to enjoy the experience. We'll see if they've learned lessons from last season and listen to the fans, but hopefully they do, certainly some of the announced changes a re a step forward, particularly the family bundle

[Fear The Chorizo]

42 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

I think the Brewers could spend a little more than they do because I believe almost every MLB team could spend more than they do. In a league that has $80-90m being given to every team just in national TV revenue, most baseball payrolls seem on the low side.

With that said, almost no teams spend up to their capacity. I can't fault the Brewers for not doing what 27 other teams aren't doing, either (Mets and Padres being the only obvious exceptions).

I understand why fans get frustrated with baseball's economics but when you look at the situation objectively, Attanasio is actually one of the better owners in the sport.

So what in your opinion are MLB teams' capacities for MLB payroll alone?  The national TV $ is a nice revenue boost, but compared to what NFL teams get in shared broadcast revenue it's a drop in the bucket.  So, teams in smaller markets with mediocre to poor local broadcast contracts just don't have enough revenue to drive huge MLB payroll increases longterm - particularly when they are also having to support improvements to spring training facilities, minor league development/scouting initiatives, signing bonus/prospect contracts, international baseball academies, etc.  There are many more layers to a well-run MLB organization's operating expenses that tap into the team's annual revenue stream than NFL or NBA organizations.

Could the Brewers throw another $30M at their MLB payroll with no regard for mid term business profit/loss?  Probably, but most likely at the expense of taking away funds from other parts of their organization that may actually yield much better onfield returns longterm at a much lower overall cost.  One example would be the Brewers' relatively recent push to improve their international scouting and signing apparatus - dedicating a larger pot of $ than the Brewers historically have made available for international signings most likely helped them identify and sign Chourio a couple winters ago for a couple million dollars.  They've also spent a good amount of money revamping their training facilities and restructuring their scouting departments in effort to bolster the quality of players consistently produced by their minor league system - looking at the current state of the farm system, I'd say those efforts have already proven fruitful.

And like it or not, the Brewers and many other MLB clubs are still grappling with the 2020 COVID season financially - the NFL actually saw their salary cap amounts drop for a couple seasons, and they operate with non-guaranteed contracts.  With the guaranteed nature of MLB contracts, they didn't really have the luxury of just cutting a bunch of players and restructuring deals to make the short-term financials work.    

[Brock Beauchamp]

3 minutes ago, Fear The Chorizo said:

And like it or not, the Brewers and many other MLB clubs are still grappling with the 2020 COVID season financially - the NFL actually saw their salary cap amounts drop for a couple seasons, and they operate with non-guaranteed contracts.  With the guaranteed nature of MLB contracts, they didn't really have the luxury of just cutting a bunch of players and restructuring deals to make the short-term financials work.    

Good point about the COVID season (and part of 2021, for that matter). I'm sure some teams - particularly teams like the Brewers who rely heavily on ticket sales - took considerable losses for awhile.

[sveumrules]

Yeah, I don’t think anyone disagrees that the Brewers could spend more on payroll, but the questions essentially boil down to a) how much more and b) what would potentially be both the short & long term benefits & drawbacks of doing so.

Looking at Cots, their highest OD payroll rank was 13th at a then franchise record $98M in 2012. They won 83 games. The year before they won 96 games with an $83M OD payroll ranking 17th.

If they wanted to run the 13th highest OD payroll this year they’d have to top the White Sox at $178M. The Cardinals are 15th at $174M. Given those teams have considerably larger income streams than the Brewers it seems unrealistic to expect them to spend an extra $60M on payroll. 

And that’s just to get to the middle.

Maybe they could get up around the Mariners at $136M (18th), that’s only like a $20M jump. Who could they have signed?

Beat the Josh Bell deal? Sign a couple of the one year reliever specials and hope to strike gold? Those are marginal upgrades at best, hardly commensurate with the degree of consternation over the payroll.

[Brock Beauchamp]

1 hour ago, sveumrules said:

Maybe they could get up around the Mariners at $136M (18th), that’s only like a $20M jump. Who could they have signed?

Beat the Josh Bell deal? Sign a couple of the one year reliever specials and hope to strike gold? Those are marginal upgrades at best, hardly commensurate with the degree of consternation over the payroll.

In the case of the Brewers in particular, the biggest gains from additional payroll is the team being able to retain at least some of their best players, which makes it a whole lot easier to maintain prolonged success.

[Fear The Chorizo]

2 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

In the case of the Brewers in particular, the biggest gains from additional payroll is the team being able to retain at least some of their best players, which makes it a whole lot easier to maintain prolonged success.

they extended their best player (and arguably best player in the NL at the time) to essentially finish his career as a Brewer - and that big contract is already viewed as an albatross to the organization.  The Brewers aren't in a position to have to trade away talent before it reaches its prime MLB production years because they simply can't afford arbitration raises or even as a young player accepts an early extension that buys out a few free agent years - they've been proactive with getting value in return for trading the likes of Hader 1+ seasons before he left via free agency and will likely do so with Burnes sometime over the next calendar year.  I'd argue that's a better approach than paying those players huge sums of money longterm to watch them play for the Brewers well beyond their primes.

The easiest way for a MLB team to maintain prolonged success is to consistently churn out quality major league players from their farm system or by using their farm system to acquire those players via trade. In fact, most large market teams open their windows of sustained contention by having a productive farm system to establish a budget-friendly core of talent to build around.  That approach actually doesn't require maintaining a bloated payroll, either.  That's exactly how the Brewers have been managed as an organization since Stearns became GM, and arguably the worst organizational decision made involved giving a great player a huge contract extension to remain a Brewer longterm.