2018 Brewers Discussion - Yelich Signing on Page 45

[ReasonablySober]

The issue is (and we'll never know this) is how much they can truly do this. I know that the down period of the last few years will help pave the way for a higher normal payroll next year and beyond, but is passing on Swarzak's $14 million a 1:1 ratio of adding $14 million in 2022? Seems like they still have a year-to-year thing where they don't want it to stray too high or too low.

Hasn't Mark A specifically said that the low payroll the past couple years would enable them to spend when they're ready to make a splash? I've always been under that assumption because it was coming from him.

Yes, that's what I said in the beginning.

In a general sense, that is true. They may go back up towards $110 million, maybe even $120 for a handful of years after these few years because of that.

I just don't know if the idea that, "don't sign X and Y player for $Z because we can then spend $Z a few years from now" is true if that makes any sense. It doesn't just 100% carry over.

Why can't it be that? If you have an operating budget set and come in under that number for three consecutive years, why can't that money be added down the line?

[Kerb Hohl]

Hasn't Mark A specifically said that the low payroll the past couple years would enable them to spend when they're ready to make a splash? I've always been under that assumption because it was coming from him.

Yes, that's what I said in the beginning.

In a general sense, that is true. They may go back up towards $110 million, maybe even $120 for a handful of years after these few years because of that.

I just don't know if the idea that, "don't sign X and Y player for $Z because we can then spend $Z a few years from now" is true if that makes any sense. It doesn't just 100% carry over.

Why can't it be that? If you have an operating budget set and come in under that number for three consecutive years, why can't that money be added down the line?

I'm having a hard time conveying this over a message board. I think the sentiment is "OK, we spent on the low end for 3 years so let's roughly spend on the higher end for 3-5." That's true. But I don't think they say, OK, GM guy, if you pass on some players this year, we'll earmark that exact dollar amount for 2019 if you want it. Like I think Mark will be $100-120 million the next few years. They're not going to shed $20 million of payroll of next year's $100 million so that they can go to $140 the following year.

I think Stearns has somewhere in the $100-120 range for the next 5 years and Mark would maybe go over it for a World Series. I don't think Stearns can go way over or way under on a year by year basis, which of course is somewhat harder to do with longer contracts anyway, but you get the point (maybe?)

[Kerb Hohl]

As an example, my company was on an austerity program for several years with the down economy and travel to different offices was shut down. They lifted that recently. So if some VP or sales guy takes 10 work trips/year, usually, he should probably take 8-12 trips this year. He can't ask upper management if he can only take 2 this year so that he can take 20 next year. There's still a yearly operating range so that the company (or team) can have their losses to report to taxes, etc.

I don't think this matters at all because I think Stearns just said he's still going to spend money, but the payroll is almost for sure going to hit the normal range in the next year or 2 ($100-110 million) and I don't think Stearns has the power to say, "OK, guys, I'm going to pass on signing any relievers this year. Please let me go to $140 in a certain year if I so choose."

[El Duderino]

Stearns had a number and wouldn't go over it. Good for him. And I agree about "banking" money. Don't spend cash just to spend it. Bank it and then you can go over your normal cap down the road if necessary.

The issue is (and we'll never know this) is how much they can truly do this. I know that the down period of the last few years will help pave the way for a higher normal payroll next year and beyond, but is passing on Swarzak's $14 million a 1:1 ratio of adding $14 million in 2022? Seems like they still have a year-to-year thing where they don't want it to stray too high or too low.

Hasn't Mark A specifically said that the low payroll the past couple years would enable them to spend when they're ready to make a splash? I've always been under that assumption because it was coming from him.

Attanasio made a fortune already last year with the lowest payroll in baseball combined with national/local TV revenue, revenue sharing money, 10th highest attendance in the league, along with other revenue sources.

He's going to make a ton more cash this coming season also given our payroll will very likely remain on the lower end of the league and people in Milwaukee enjoy attending baseball games, so attendance will be good.

Mix in all of the cheap prospects who will keep coming up over the next few years, Attanasio will keep unloading a Brinks truck full of cash into his personal financial portfolio. This doesn't also include the fact that the Brewers franchise is worth at least double what he paid for it.

FWIW, I'm not implying that Attanasio is a cheap owner unwilling to ever spend to win or that Stearns should over spend this offseason. I just think he often likes to downplay the financial windfall he's made off buying the Brewers and a need to "bank money now" to spend later. He doesn't own say Tampa Bay who can't draw fans even when they are good and play in a dump of a stadium which further limits revenue.

[El Duderino]

Swarzak to the Mets on a two year $14M deal.

Even though that's a decent sized contract for a guy who's had one good year, I'm actually surprised and a little disappointed the Brewers didn't match that given how nuts the RP market has been.

I see relief pitching staying expensive for years to come and it is reasonable for it to be that way.

The game has clearly changed. Starting pitchers throw less innings than in the past and in turn the importance of good bullpens has gone up. Just watch the playoffs for about 7-8 years now. Having a really good bullpen in the playoffs is nearly as important as who a team's starters are and in some cases more so.

This is a trend i see continuing, especially given how expensive top tier starters are. It's often easier to put together a bullpen with 4-5 guys who carry an ERA in the 2 to 3.5 range, quality WHIP, and K/BB ratio vs trying to put together a rotation with three or more starters who can pitch that well. Having a really good pen is almost a requirement today and a bad pen will sink teams on the fringes of playoff contention.

It's true that relievers can be volatile from year to year, but so can starters and relievers are cheaper in many cases.

[coolhandluke121]

I'm sure the savings don't fully carry over. They might not have enough expenses to deduct and change their tax liabilities and stuff like that. I think they can even still depreciate players as assets, unlike any other sport. But I do think a fair amount of it carries over.

My main thing is I just don't want to spend a ton of money if I'm not convinced guys are going to be better than a young guy out to prove himself in his physical prime.

Save it all for Machado.

[coolhandluke121]

I see relief pitching staying expensive for years to come and it is reasonable for it to be that way.

The game has clearly changed. Starting pitchers throw less innings than in the past and in turn the importance of good bullpens has gone up. Just watch the playoffs for about 7-8 years now. Having a really good bullpen in the playoffs is nearly as important as who a team's starters are and in some cases more so.

This is a trend i see continuing, especially given how expensive top tier starters are. It's often easier to put together a bullpen with 4-5 guys who carry an ERA in the 2 to 3.5 range, quality WHIP, and K/BB ratio vs trying to put together a rotation with three or more starters who can pitch that well. Having a really good pen is almost a requirement today and a bad pen will sink teams on the fringes of playoff contention.

It's true that relievers can be volatile from year to year, but so can starters and relievers are cheaper in many cases.

I finally learned the word for what I've been advocating since before TLR bullpen-****ed the Brewers into next week in 2011. Piggy-backing. (Those two sentences together make it sound even more filthy than it was, lol.)

I was toying with the idea even before then, but seeing TLR do it to perfection made me all in. Of course you couldn't do it the same way because that was the playoffs, but you'd just need to use long relievers a little more. I still think it can be done, and the first team to do it is going to have a huge competitive advantage if they have the talent. I could imagine having just 4 starters if you were really committed to just 2 times through the order and a ph in the starter's second pa.

[El Duderino]

I'm sure the savings don't fully carry over. They might not have enough expenses to deduct and change their tax liabilities and stuff like that. I think they can even still depreciate players as assets, unlike any other sport. But I do think a fair amount of it carries over.

My main thing is I just don't want to spend a ton of money if I'm not convinced guys are going to be better than a young guy out to prove himself in his physical prime.

Save it all for Machado.

I wasn't saying that the Brewers should go nuts this offseason and spend a bunch of cash just because we have the lowest payroll in the league and Garza is off the books.

My only issue is with Attanasio a bit. I don't think he's a cheap owner out to just make money as some pro sports owners are, but over the years i've noticed that he has liked to pat himself on the back when the payroll reached the 100 million range as if he might be losing money when he really wasn't and he'll downplay the fortune in profits he makes in seasons like last year. And the team is worth probably 600-700 million, over double what he paid for it.

I like him overall and am glad he's the one who bought the Brewers, it's just a peeve of mine sometimes the way he talks about the finances as if he hasn't made a huge amount of cash and that if say at some point he "stretched the payroll" to 110-120 million, he'd be doing so at great financial hardship to himself, but he'd suck it up and do it out of love for the team.

[coolhandluke121]

I wasn't saying that the Brewers should go nuts this offseason and spend a bunch of cash just because we have the lowest payroll in the league and Garza is off the books.

My only issue is with Attanasio a bit. I don't think he's a cheap owner out to just make money as some pro sports owners are, but over the years i've noticed that he has liked to pat himself on the back when the payroll reached the 100 million range as if he might be losing money when he really wasn't and he'll downplay the fortune in profits he makes in seasons like last year. And the team is worth probably 600-700 million, over double what he paid for it.

I like him overall and am glad he's the one who bought the Brewers, it's just a peeve of mine sometimes the way he talks about the finances as if he hasn't made a huge amount of cash and that if say at some point he "stretched the payroll" to 110-120 million, he'd be doing so at great financial hardship to himself, but he'd suck it up and do it out of love for the team.

That's a good point. For all the city did for the franchise, he damn well better spend when the time is right. That doesn't change the fact that the more expensive guys often end up being worse than the cheaper alternatives. I don't think this is so much being cheap as it is recognizing that young, up-and-coming players are not just better value, but often better regardless of salary. Towards the end of his first decade as owner, it seemed the team pretty consistently had a strong negative correlation between a player's salary and his WAR. That's not good.

[trwi7]

Agree to disagree

I would not renounce my fandom, but Castro is a ~1-2 WAR player. You've suggested several other trades to go all in, so if this was a large part of going all in for 2018-2019, I'd think it's stupid but I'd understand.

Starlin Castro added to last year's team with not a ton else is just wasting everyone's time.

We get Archer/Stroman/Castro - Very happy

Would cost us alot, but we have a **** ton of talent thats 3-4 years away down in A ball.

Archer for Ray/Ortiz/Erceg/Supak

Stroman for Santana/Woodruff/Dubon

Castro for Villar/Harrison

Archer/Stroman/Anderson/Davis/Hader?

Phillips
Castro
Shaw
Braun
Thames
Brinson
Pina
Arcia

Will contend with that

Not even close to enough for Archer. Closer but still probably not enough for Toronto. **** terrible deal for us on the Castro trade.

[coolhandluke121]

Are the Jays finally going to concede that it's time to rebuild?

[MickeyDavis]

With a low payroll in 2016 Attanasio was asked about saving cash for future use:

“But since it’s a zero sum game, at the time we are ready to compete again or compete very seriously again – Craig Counsell hates when I say things like that. He says, ‘We’re going to compete right now,’ which he told me New Year’s Eve, by the way – any dollars that we save now can be used then.”

He was asked the same thing before last season with another low payroll and said the same thing. Money saved on payroll now can/will be used when the time is right.

We'll see what happens.

[M-C-G]

With a low payroll in 2016 Attanasio was asked about saving cash for future use:

“But since it’s a zero sum game, at the time we are ready to compete again or compete very seriously again – Craig Counsell hates when I say things like that. He says, ‘We’re going to compete right now,’ which he told me New Year’s Eve, by the way – any dollars that we save now can be used then.”

He was asked the same thing before last season with another low payroll and said the same thing. Money saved on payroll now can/will be used when the time is right.

We'll see what happens.

I may be in the minority, but I think it drives Mark A. nuts that we don't spend more. I feel pretty confident he was looking at last season and wanted to tell Stearns "if we had just added another Loshe, think about how much better we would have been". So I am not concerned, I think he wants to win so bad that when the time comes he would keep an elevated pay roll as long as we were a playoff team.

[Iheartfootball]

Apologies if this was posted already (didn't see it anywhere). Brewers in the mix for J.J. Hoover.

Read on Twitter

[trwi7]

Apologies if this was posted already (didn't see it anywhere). Brewers in the mix for J.J. Hoover.

Read on Twitter

2012 called. They want their who gives a **** back.

[WeekapaugGroove]

Ha yeah Hoover is a nothing type move. Trwi7 - curious who you hope they add to the staff?

[Kerb Hohl]

Ha yeah Hoover is a nothing type move. Trwi7 - curious who you hope they add to the staff?

The Port Washington 12-14 year old team so that they win 0 games for 5 years.

[bizarro]

Ha yeah Hoover is a nothing type move. Trwi7 - curious who you hope they add to the staff?

The Port Washington 12-14 year old team so that they win 0 games for 5 years.

[bizarro]

I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but in the past few seasons we've targeted:

Torres
Boyer
Marinez
Nolin
Milone
Feliz
Chamberlain
Hughes
(and traded for Drake)


Of course we're linked to a guy like Hoooooooooover. I mean, it sucks, but it's predictable. (Pun intended)

[mlloyd10]

Read on Twitter

Harrison/Ecreg/Diplan/Supak for Duffy/Merrifield