Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789
Results 121 to 128 of 128
  1. #121
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    12,219
    I know we talked about it earlier, but I'm not a big fan of the Moose deal. I haven't heard the full financials, but reports are saying it's either $9 or $10 mill and has a mutual option next year, so my guess is it's a $9 mill deal with a $1 mill buyout.

    Feels like for $9 mill we could have upgraded elsewhere. I don't love moving shaw back to 2nd. This probably spells the end for thames, which means shaw may actually get a fair amount of starts at 1st against tough righties. So I doubt shaw is a full time 2B, but he probably plays a decent amount of innings there now.

    Im interested in seeing what type of deal marwin Gonzalez gets now. He's right handed and bore versatile, so it feels like he would have made more sense if he could have been had for a similar deal.

  2. #122
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,933
    Moose deal is 7 million for 2019 with a 3 million buyout of the mutual option. Hopefully Moose can play 2nd and just be amazing and turn down the option himself. I've thought all along Moose makes more sense at 2nd because he is shorter, I remember watching a short clip after they acquired him and thought he looked smoother than Shaw (for like the 1 minute I saw). I am really interested to see what Marwin Gonzalez gets as well, hopefully we offered him a similar deal and he is just holding out for a multi-year deal. I get we really only wanted a 1 year deal with Huira around.

  3. #123
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    12,219
    I think he gets the payout either way to be honest. So I don't think it matters who turns it down but I could be wrong.

  4. #124
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,933
    Darn, I just assumed that if the player turns it down they don't get paid, but I have seen it written that he got 10 million guaranteed.

  5. #125
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Mukwonago, WI
    Posts
    1,725
    Quote Originally Posted by crewfan13 View Post
    I think he gets the payout either way to be honest. So I don't think it matters who turns it down but I could be wrong.
    You're correct. Its a way of signing a 1-year deal and shifting some of the money to next season. Designed to give us more financial flexibility.

    Is it baseball season yet? At this rate its going to be below zero on opening day....

  6. #126
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,933
    Any chance we end up trading a starter for some depth somewhere else a couple prospects, I think Davies or Anderson would be a prime trade candidate. I think Chacin, Nelson, and Woodruff are almost assured spots (Nelson still might need to be stretched out a bit) Burnes and Peralta haven't been great and Davies and Anderson have stunk. I'm sure there are at least a couple teams that would give us a decent prospect or 2 for one of those guys.

  7. #127
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    12,219
    Problem is there isn't much behind them. It's highly unlikely we get through the schedule with only 5 starters. We don't have much in AAA beyond the guys we have battling for spots now. If we deal one of them, we could be in trouble if injuries set in.

    Also, it sounded unlikely that Nelson would break camp with the team. His last performance may have changed that a little, but just from a team building perspective, I wouldnt be shocked if we don't bring Nelson with to the bigs just to keep the roster flexible, similar to how we kept Aguilar, thames and the other dude at first just to keep some flexibility.

  8. #128
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    12,219
    Quote Originally Posted by crewfan13 View Post
    Setting expectations low is probably a good plan. But I do think there's money to be spent here. And we should see a fairly substantial gain in TV revenue. The Brewers current deal according to fangraphs pays about $25 mill per year. It was signed in 2009 which was an awful time to sign a TV deal. Using just similarly sized markets like Minnesota and Cleveland, they both make between $37-$40 mill. Those deals are also going to be 5 years old by the time we negotiate ours. So I don't think it's unreasonable to think we could meet or maybe exceed those deals. That alone could add $20 mill to the payroll.

    And if we want to look at it a different way. The bucks negotiated a deal worth $26 mill per year. Looking at TV numbers, the bucks draw an average of 20,000 households per game on fox sports WI. The Brewers on the other hand drew 48,000 per game this year. That was up 35%, so even if they negotiate off of 2017 numbers, we're talking between 35,000 and 36,000 viewers. The bucks contract valuation badically says each household is worth $1,300. Even if the brewers negotiate off of the 35,000 household number, that leaves the Brewers new contract at around $45 mill per year. Obviously they are different sports with different amounts of games. But it's a 2nd way to show how bad our current deal is.

    Also, according to some folks on the main, teams typically spend between 40-45% of revenue on player payroll. At the 43% number, our payroll would be about $110 million from 2017 revenue numbers. If we saw a bump in 2018, that number could increase.

    So my long and short of it is if we place our base payroll prior to a TV deal increase at $110-$115, you could theoretically increase payroll to $125-$130 somewhat consistently (as long as you're competitive) as soon as the year after next. That leaves us with a gap year this year. But my thought would be that the money we banked from previously fielding the cheapest team in baseball for 2 seasons shoudl allow us to cover the additional spending next year.
    Just saw an interesting tidbit in Espn's article about a potential Royals sale. The Royals TV deal with fox sports in expiring as well, and they are estimating somewhere around a $50 mill per year deal for the Royals, who are currently at about the same local TV deal as the brewers.

    So I think $50 mill and maybe even a bit more might actually be close to what the brewers can get. That would make that $125-$135 mill per year payroll relatively sustainable.

Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •