The Brewers are concerned about their 2026 payroll, according to reporting from Will Sammon, Ken Rosenthal and Katie Woo of The Athletic. The reporters then wonder if this will lead the Brewers to more seriously consider trading right-hander Freddy Peralta.
Milwaukee extended a $22.025MM qualifying offer to Brandon Woodruff at the end of the season. Even though he had big health questions marks, MLBTR predicted he could land a three-year, $66MM deal in free agency, even with the QO attached. However, Woodruff decided to accept.
That’s a bit of a double-edged sword for the Brewers. On the one hand, it strengthens their 2026 rotation. Woodruff missed all of 2024 and most of 2025 but was fantastic when on the bump this year. He made 12 starts, pitching 64 2/3 innings with a 3.20 earned run average, 32.3% strikeout rate and 5.4% walk rate. He finished the season on the injured list with a lat strain but is expected to be healthy for the start of 2026.
The downside is that Woodruff is now taking up a huge chunk of the budget and puts the Brewers in an unusual spot. Woodruff becomes just the second Brewer in franchise history to be making at least $20MM annually. The other is Christian Yelich, who is making $26MM annually through 2028, in addition to a $6.5MM buyout on a 2029 mutual option.
Milwaukee generally runs a payroll a bit north of the century mark. RosterResource estimated that they finished last year at $123MM. With Woodruff’s new deal on the books, they are projected for $136MM next year.
The roster is already in pretty good shape, considering this is a team that led the majors with 97 wins in 2025. With Woodruff’s return, they haven’t lost any major contributors to free agency. Still, all teams want flexibility to make offseason moves and it’s possible the Brewers are too rigid at the moment. Trading Woodruff isn’t an option as players who accept a QO can’t be dealt without their consent until June 15th.
Even before Woodruff accepted the QO, Peralta was a speculative trade candidate. That’s because the Brewers have a history of trading their best players before they become free agents. Recent examples include Josh Hader, Corbin Burnes and Devin Williams. Peralta is slated for free agency after 2026. However, the Brewers don’t always go down that road. They held Willy Adames until he became a free agent, for instance. Peralta is only owed $8MM next year, so it’s not like trading him could lead to massive cost savings.
But that $8MM figure would at least get the Brewers closer to last year’s payroll. On top of that, Peralta has enough value to bring back usable players to upgrade other parts of the roster. Arguably, Peralta is not as good as Burnes was when the latter was dealt. However, Burnes was going to make almost twice as much in his final year before free agency. He and the Brewers agreed to a salary just north of $15.6MM before he was traded to the Orioles. The financial difference could lead to Peralta having roughly the same trade value now as Burnes did at that time.
Flipping Burnes to Baltimore allowed the Brewers to receive Joey Ortiz, DL Hall and a Competitive Balance Round A draft pick. Ortiz and Hall were borderline top 100 prospects at the time and both had already reached the majors. It’s therefore possible to imagine the Brewers looking to flip Peralta to save a bit of money while also simultaneously allowing them to address other parts of the roster without having to spend on free agents.
In that scenario, the Brewers could theoretically still have a good rotation, even without Peralta. If healthy, it would be fronted by Woodruff. It’s possible that Jacob Misiorowski takes a step forward and becomes a front-of-rotation guy. Quinn Priester, Chad Patrick, Logan Henderson, Robert Gasser, Tobias Myers and others would be in the mix as well.
For what it’s worth, Brewers owner Mark Attanasio and president of baseball operations Matt Arnold both downplayed the idea that Woodruff’s signing would lead to a Peralta trade. Per Sammon and Rosenthal last week, both Attanasio and Arnold said the two things were “independent decisions” and expressed excitement about the rotation with Woodruff in it. Of course, if the Brewers were thinking about trading Peralta, it wouldn’t help their leverage to publicly admit it.
If Peralta is out there, it’s possible that the Brewers could benefit from the market conditions. It was generally expected that Joe Ryan and Pablo López would be available this winter but Twins president of baseball operations Derek Falvey downplayed the idea earlier this month. The Marlins were also expected to make Sandy Alcantara and Edward Cabrera available but the Fish reportedly need to add payroll rather than subtract. Sonny Gray has already been traded to the Red Sox and one prominent free agent has already come off the board with the Blue Jays agreeing to a deal with Dylan Cease. There are still some good arms out there but Peralta is far cheaper than the best free agents, which could make him attractive to big spenders and lower-payroll clubs alike.
Photo courtesy of Michael McLoone, Imagn Images
Attanasio’s net worth is about $2 billion, but that’s just an off topic nugget of info, unrelated to anything here. carry on! 😉
That net worth should still be enough to have the brewers in the 150 million payroll range
Net worth is irrelevant, alot of that net worth is his ownership of the Brewers, its not like hes got 2 billion in the bank. Thats not even factoring in he isnt the sole owner.
That said, im not sure I buy this report, a minority owner was on local radio a couple days before Woody accepted the QO, and said payroll would be going up. Opening day payroll was 108 last year, and they are around that now.
The concern could be the amount of remaining play they have to work with. $22MM of it just got removed. If they planned payroll to go up by $20MM, its already spent. Depth they planned on adding won’t be happening.
What position do the Brewers need?
Third!
You weren’t happy about Durbin’s rookie season?
How much of that net worth is liquid? This is a good reason why mlb needs a salary floor. This is a contending team that’s been drawing good numbers for a few years yet 1 20 million dollar contract to a potential ace is crippling the club? Meanwhile the Red Sox are giving 40 million to a 37 year old mid rotation starter. This league needs to have more structure in place when it comes to salary so teams can’t cry woah is me when it comes to what’s turned into an average salary for mid high tier players
Agree big daddy. MLB may not be in trouble but things aren’t smooth sailing either. The team that led the majors in wins should not be struggling with a payroll that’s less than 50% of the first tax layer.
So you are saying that money spent doesn’t equate to winning?
Nope it’s not possible every single poster on here always says spending equals winning it’s not possible the brewers didn’t have the biggest payroll not possible at all.
It’s the oddest thing to see people excusing billionaires with stuff like “how much of it is liquid?”
Even if the Brewers were Attanasios ONLY asset (they’re NOT) he would still be able to fund the payroll just based on the projected growth of that individual asset, which says nothing about the actual $335M they profit per annum.
If you’re unwilling to fund a competitive payroll then you shouldn’t be the owner of a professional baseball team.
As if rampant greed wasn’t ruining enough of this world.
The Brewers don’t profit $335M a year.
You’re right, RedsVencher, they profit even more thanks to their postseason appearances recently
Owners like these guys are why im willing to trade the 2027 season for a better system
Even if my favorite team is a playoff team and I lose a potential World Series experience it’s just the right thing for the evolution of the game
Did he open his books for you Mets? Where was that 335 million pulled from. I’m not excusing the owner for not spending, im saying the system is broken and needs more structure so teams can cry poor from 1 mid tier contract. Especially when this is a sport where people say no such thing as a bad 1 year deal
Yes you’re right I changed the per year amount to revenue total but didn’t take out that “per annum”
They make $24M/yr + post season
forbes.com/teams/milwaukee-brewers/
It’s $335M total profits since 2005, $24M/yr + playoffs
Make sure you spit right in any mlb players face when you see him too. What a disrespectful comment
Ha ha. It’s not odd at all. It’s called accepting reality. They don’t like throwing in their own cash in year to year. Cool. I wouldn’t do it either.
It’s funny. The reports are mlb teams lost a total of 1.8b last year and people still bang on about them not spending enough. It’s like a fairytale existence.
@MetsSchmets!
So let me get this straight: team operations should NOT be run according to revenue, but whatever loose change can be found in an owner’s pocket or between the cushions on his couch.
I’m no fan of billionaire owners, but unless all revenues are pooled and minimum spending levels instituted, I’m not interested in fans of big markets telling small markets what they should be doing with their money. Whatever profit they skim off the top is a pittance compared to what big markets take.
The idea that big markets are “virtuous” with their spending levels and small markets are misers with theirs is one of the biggest deceptions ever perpetuated by the revenue rich on baseball fandom.
They’re lucky if they profit $30m
That’s their gross revenue most likely although we don’t have their books. That’s not a net revenue number.
Another dipshiit! $335MM a year!
The entire franchise made $24M (while winning mind you) and you can’t understand why owners are leery of handing out big contracts?
Should they not make it so an average person can watch their team in a World Series game?If a team makes the World Series,usually someone has to mortgage their future for a once in a lifetime chance.Unless they make it quite a few in a row like the Yankees did with Jeter,Posada and those teams.
That’s $335 M in revenue for 2024 on which they had a $24 M operating income. That’s not profit.
No, it’s not the “right evolution.” Stupid work stoppages which don’t advance (1) full revenue sharing among all members of a “league” or (2) create a middle class of players which is more reflective of their contributions to winning instead of more than 50% of players making the minimum, neither of which require losing games, is not evolution, it’s devolution. And that’s what you get with a strike, fewer people interested in listening to the big markets, big stars, and big player agents argue among themselves while the rest of the sport just sits on the sidelines fuming.
Salary cap is so lowest common denominator which is why basketball, hockey and football went that direction. No system is perfect obviously but for all those salary cap honks waving both hands in the air, it brings its own set of problems-chief among them bleepy owners that didn’t/don’t want to spend and rewards/encourages them to remain as such. For all of the problems in MLB (and there are more than a few), if an ownership group actually wants to be competitive vs raking in revenue sharing bucks, it’s easy enough. At least with MLB, you can fairly easily figure out EXACTLY where teams stand during certain ownership groups and whether they are standing pat, doubling down (in either direction) or going for the whole enchilada. Salary cap lovefests end up in a group hug with excuses as to why the teams fell short-yet again.
Sell. Sell. Sell. If you can’t hang, sell. Oh a fairytale existence of making ridiculous millions not happening-supposedly? Sell. Sell. Sell if it’s such an inconvenience and so so unprofitable yet we see MLB franchises going up for sale less than one would expect given your comment. We all wonder exactly why. Could it be they’re not exactly as bad of an investment as you hint at?
And fans of big market teams should be interested in fans of small market teams telling them what is to be done with their money? Fact is that the big market team ownerships have zero places to hide given the millions of opinions. However…a Twins, Pirates, Marlins or Athletics team…these crappy owners (amongst a few others) have not so unwittingly tapped into a sweet spot to maximize profits and minimize unrest. If all those collective fans said “bleep it” for an entire year and didn’t attend games or purchase memorabilia, perhaps things would change for those afflicted teams. You’re no fan of billionaire owners but you’re definitely not a fan of the employees either. Big markets have much more competition for the entertainment dollar vs a small market team. Easier to notice when a small market team isn’t spending/actually trying but with a big market, it becomes apparent soon enough.
You have zero clue what MLB economics actually are
@foppert That $1.8B loss was calculated with teams only using stadium revenue. It is also a near certainty most teams temporarily paused any claims on depreciation of capital expenditures which arent required to be done equally year over year.
These teams are not showing their books and have been known to manipulate the #s they make public. This is just MLB and its owners posturing and trying to create leverage as CBS expiration nears.
Chili’s should sell cheeseburgers for $2 because they shouldn’t try to make 8-10% a year on their investment. All those buildings combined are probably worth a billion dollars. Greedy companies
I am Jays fan and I still want a better system
“Operating income is the profit a company makes from its core business operations after deducting the costs of running the business, but before accounting for interest and taxes. It is also called operating profit, it’s also called earnings before interest and taxes.”
@Wildcat Chili’s and similar franchise dont have their buildings built with tax payer $. The 2 are not even comparable. Pro sports teams are the ultimate wealth building tool for billionaires. They pillage local tax coffers, leverage these franchises values to further enrich themselves, and use them as almost a tax haven with the way they manipulate the financials.
Nobody is entitled to go to a World Series game. Give your head a shake. Anything popular is going to be expensive. I say this as someone who choose not to go to a World Series game because I didn’t want to spend the money, if I had a ticket I woulda sold it to someone dumb enough to miss a mortgage payment to attend a game in a crap seat while I watch from the best seat in the house in front of a tv with proper camera angles and free food and beer around friends and family and get to hear announcers.
Such nonsense. The same “competition” for the entertainment dollar exists in small markets as it does in big markets, with the exception that those dollars are far scarcer in smaller markets. Only an apologist for the big markets would even try to make such an absurd comment. Puh-leeze don’t try and insist that the big markets are struggling to make the same profits the small markets are. Just stop while you’re behind.
Attanasio is majority owner but multiple others are part of the ownership. (Rodgers/Antetekounpo) say hes 55% owner and 25 others are there other 45pct. Mark A shouldn’t be footing 100% of the bill. What’s the net worth and pct owned by all the others? Heck Mark A could be majority owner but say with just 40pct total of the 100pct? Now I want to dig in to some of that idea.
Ha-ha-ha…you actually think that minority owners buy into a franchise to participate in “footing the bill”?
No one is footing ANY bills, including the majority owner. Minority owners purchase a share of the franchise to participate in equity gains and, if the owners decide to share in any year-to-year profits they decide to take. “Footing the bill” not something they bought into. No wealthy person is going to dig into his or her pockets and pay for ballplayers. That’s the dumbest investment a person can make.
The net worth of owners is irrelevant. The only thing relevant are the revenues a team generates vs. operational costs. There are enormous fixed costs associated with running an MLB franchise (properly, anyway) and all teams, big or small, are saddled with those costs. What differs are the revenues each team generates, and whatever is left over can be spent on MLB payroll. That’s the discretionary area. And that’s why the Brewers or any other small market cannot be faulted for their lack of spending. You don’t ask the Yankees or Red Sox or Dodger owners to spend out of their pocket, why should the owners of the Brewers or Reds or Cleveland be asked to do so?
@bigdaddyt: “How much of that net worth is liquid?”
It’s really too bad he’s prevented from selling any of his myriad investments in order to finance his sports team. If he can’t afford to run a baseball team, then they he shouldn’t own a baseball team.
That’s like saying its really too bad the people of Milwaukee dont spend more money in order to support their sports team. If they cant afford to spend enough on merchandise, and subscribing to sports networks to allow the team enough money to run a higher payroll, then the city shouldnt get a sports team.
Dumb right?
RCT: I have the feeling we are going to see a LOT more about owners “losing money,” especially with the impending negotiations next season. Hal Steinbrenner just said that he doesn’t turn a profit with the Yankees, and if that’s the case, you know darn well these owners would be opening their books, at least internally (to the Union, not necessarily the general public). I also respect their right not to do that, but then they have to know a majority of fans/players/agents will not believe they are losing money.
All things told, I think they are doing what most business owners do, and account for a majority of their “profits” because it’s simply more advantageous to do that. But, when the numbers people look at their bookkeeping, they can see through the smoke and mirrors pretty easily.
Overall, I think it’s more performative, in an effort to seek a hard cap.
@rct
Yes because smart billionaire business men are lining up to purchase a franchise, at current market value, in Milwaukee that will require a larger in flux of cash than the previous owner was willing to spend in order to be more competitive and turn a robust profit. If the team was in a mega media market then maybe one would do so for the pub flex but Milwaukee ain’t it.
Dumb right?
====================
It’s like saying all ticket holders should pay $50 per ticket to support the team. The $50 * 2M fans will give the team an $100M to spend. If you can’t afford an extra $50 a ticket, you don’t deserve to be a fan.
No self respecting billionaire is opening their books for anyone. Why should they ? That would be me as well. “Take my word for it or fark off. Your choice.”
Here’s a thought. Maybe they are primarily honest folks and teams just don’t make money year to year.
Foppert: I am not suggesting you’re wrong, and I agree. They shouldn’t have to show their books if they don’t want to (and they don’t, of course). But, I also don’t believe they’re going to convince anyone (most importantly the Union/players/agents) that they are losing money.
Also, to support this theory, I’ve seen multiple past players, ie, Kevin Pillar, the guys on Foul Territory, Trevor May, etc, as well as past front office personnel that have called owners out for saying they are losing money.
I get they have their own motivation, but they are closer to the source than I am, obviously. I just don’t think it’s a convincing argument without evidence.
To your point, the owners don’t have to show anything, and they don’t have to care about the fans either. But, if their goal is to convince the MLBPA, and it should be, this isn’t going to work. That should be a concern because it will result in real and substantial losses for every owner in both the short and long terms.
Clip. Yeah. I’ve been listening to Pillar and the boys. Pillar goes good. I don’t think they know. Us v Them culture is so strong in baseball. Not convinced they do much research on the topic. Emotion based and locked in after a career of “there bad” indoctrination. I watched Foul Territory when the Pirates accounts investigator was on. They were like “ok, done the work, no profit there. Interesting” Next topic comes up and it’s straight back to “greedy owners”. Did my head in ! Great show though.
I think the union get the books. Could be wrong. No way fans should see them. It would be a sh&t show of epic proportions. Ha ha. Fan executives stepping up everywhere !
The easiest thing to do is believe their word. No reason not to in what I’m guessing is the overwhelming majority of cases. I really respect owners. It would be hard work !
Steinbrenner is simply repositioning as he’s ecstatic he can escape the shadow of the Evil Empire and pin that tag on the Dodgers now. He will milk it and cry poor as much as possible.
@dip
Offering Soto $700+ milling is “crying poor”?
“The easiest thing to do is believe their word.”
You do that. Meanwhile, I’ll be skeptical of the people who ask for hundreds of millions of dollars from the public to help fund the ballparks they privately profit from.
I will. Thanks.
Cities can say no. Asking is no problem at all.
That was last offseason. Hal senses an opportunity to carve out some extra denials and excuses this offseason and is leaning into it versus keeping his team the favorite in the division instead of TOR or BOS. Heaven forbid BAL gets their bleep together and their half-decade cycle of supposedly having the best farm system in MLB actually/finally pays off in a meaningful fashion. Not holding my breath, nor should BAL fans if they know what’s best for them. Chances that TOR replicates/betters 2025? Probs 35-40%. BoSox look like the 5-7 year, long-term AL Eastie beastie.
@dip TOR had an amazing 2025, I like BOS much more in 2026. I think 35-40% is way too generous. If NYY can keep SPs healthy they are pretty dangerous as well.
BAL position players talent looks great as it has for awhile. Pitching wins championships most often tho. SPs have been a much rarer commodity than position players, so regardless of will to spend or if they get will to trade it simply might not be available.
City of Oakland has the smartest city officials among the 30 in mlb cities.
If I was a mayor of a city where a team wanted money to build a stadium I would say sure let’s see the books and then we can discuss how much the city is going to own of the team.
bigdaddyt
Meanwhile the Red Sox are giving 40 million to a 37 year old mid rotation starter.
=======================
$21M. With the amount of publicity involved with that trade, you shouldn’t miss the salary by 50%.
bigt,
The Red Sox are paying Gray $21M.
Gray is much more than a mid-rotation starter. ERA is just another stat conceived in the 19th century that tells you relatively little about a pitcher’s ability.
ERA tells you relatively little? Okay there bud.
Guy has a 5.68 ERA with 100 innings pitched and another has a 2.38 ERA with the same innings pitched. Totally agree it tells you little about a pitcher’s ability-next season.
Doesn’t need to be liquid. Rich people borrow against their net worth all of the time and get favorable loan terms when doing so.
The disparity is in the size of the broadcast contracts. With the Brewers having one of the smallest markets, their broadcast contracts amount to a fraction of LA or NY. They are 1/8th the size by population. Yet they spend much more than 1/8th of the payroll of those large markets.
Gray will get $40M in 2026 ($35M salary = $5M buyout of 2027 option), but the Cardinals will be paying $20 million of that!
marinersfan,
Gray’s contract was renegotiated so he gets a $31M salary in 2026 with a $10M buyout on the 2027 option. Basically, he got an extra $1M to accept the trade.
Remember the Brewers are the smallest market in MLB. Payroll was 23rd last season. Get those 7 teams below them to start spending versus the complaints I see toward Mark A. Who-s near bottom of net worth for majority baseball owners.
Milwaukee is not the smallest market in MLB. And they are certainly not the smallest market in MLB to also have the three major sport leagues in their town, because all they have is the Bucks to compete with for the local sports dollar. That matters.
Yes. Yes they are. Google will tell you.
As usual, we have a society fixated on the idea that Google is the final arbiter on everything. And if they can’t name an authority, it’s always because “Google said so!” As if Google is some sort of real person or entity representing an unassailable source. Good lord are we in trouble with this kind of research and scholarship.
So who’s the smallest market in MLB?
@Chris Koch
If one takes into consideration major sport competitors, area wealth, both personal and corporate, population, broadcast market, TV contract, and the breadth of the market (for example, the Brewers are Wisconsin’s team, i.e. they draw from the entire state, and St. Louis is a huge regional draw, while other teams are bound geographically by the close proximity of other teams) then Cleveland is probably the smallest MLB market, It’s certainly a poor area both in personal and corporate wealth, is geographically bound by the close proximity of the Pirates to the east, Tigers to the west, and Reds to the south, possesses one of the worst , if not THE worst, TV deals in the entire MLB, and is by far the smallest market possessing the three major sports. If MLB were created today, Cleveland would not even get a team.
I am not asserting that CLE is the smallest market in MLB, but if one factors in everything, rather than just counting population by SMSA or whatever single factor is chosen, one is not capturing everything that goes into determining which market is bigger or smaller. Is Milwaukee a “small” market? Sure. Is it to be admired as an organization? Definitely. But let’s not just casually assign them the label of the smallest without acknowledging that there are others with relevant factors that make them just as small if not smaller from a financial perspective and market potential. Otherwise we’re ignoring the entire picture.
@Jeremy320 all teams can defer payments to their players, kid.
@Steinbrenner you don’t understand how deferred payments work.
Let’s take Ohtani’s contract as an example. It’s $70M per year with $2M each year and $68M deferred for 10 years
That doesn’t mean the Dodgers are only paying $2M this year and 10 years from now they promise to pay $68M.
The Dodgers are actually paying $2M to Ohtani and also paying about $44M on a vesting account that will be worth the $68M owed to him 10 years from now.
The Dodgers are still paying the annual value of the contract of about $46M each year.
The purpose of deferred payments is to avoid paying state taxes
@Stein @SoCal
Not quite how it works. Most MLB players are paid their salaries during the contract term. Deferred deals work differently.
Ohtani’s $700 million contract defers $680 million until 2034-2043. MLB requires teams to place deferred money in escrow accounts to guarantee future payments. Teams can then invest these funds—if their returns exceed the interest rate owed to the player, they keep the profit.
The Dodgers’ ownership, Guggenheim Partners, is one of the world’s premier investment firms managing hundreds of billions in assets. They’re uniquely positioned to generate substantial returns on Ohtani’s deferred money over two decades.
The Dodgers aren’t just signing a generational player—they’re turning his contract into an investment vehicle where their Wall Street expertise generates additional profit beyond his on-field value. It’s a clear example of how financially sophisticated ownership extracts advantages smaller-market teams cannot match.
Smaller market teams are excluded from having financially sophisticated ownership? That explains what more than a few teams have been pulling over on the fans for decades.
@dip
You do know that regular contracts are paid as the money is due vs deferred money in which had to be paid 100% into an escrow account right? So you tell me who had more ability to offer Ohtani his $600 (or whatever) contact that had to be completely paid upfront? The lead partner of the Guggenheim team that owns the Dodgers who’s personally worth $9 billion and has a massive revenue he’s working with or the Pays owner who’s personal wealth is about $1.1 billion and a team revenue a 1/3 the Dodgers? Until the Pirates are purchased by a private equity firm like Blackrock they will never be able to compete for FA using huge deferred money offers. Only way he could would be to mortgage the teams future via a loan or liquidate a large portion of his liquidate wealth which would be a ridiculously stupid thing to do because he could lose it all.
Not sure what you’re googling but this is what I found by Google?
forbes.com/profile/mark-attanasio/
How much are you worth? Do you run a business. If you do let me know how much you pay employee I’ll be the judge on whether or not it’s enough. Make sure you tip 40% more than you usually do the next time you order something because your worth more than the server.
Teams spend out of team revenue, not their owners’. You or I could own the Brewers and their financials would look identical to what they are now.
Are people really so dumb they don’t get this?
Exactly teams spend out of team revenue only. They don’t want to spend any revenue sharing money they would rather just pocket that.
Teams are *supposed* to be required to spend revenue sharing money to improve the on-field product.
First of all, that’s not true; the money is added to other revenues to create annual budgets. Second, if a portion of that overall revenue is “pocketed,” or (more precisely) taken as profit, as long as that percentage of revenues is in line or lower than what big markets take out of their operations, what’s the difference? Or are you saying there should be a double standard? Big markets owners should be able to profit from a greater percentage of their revenues than small markets do? Oh yeah, I’m certain savvy billionaire owners would agree to that disparity.
The truth is, smaller markets spend more or less the same percentage of their revenues on baseball operations as big markets do, there’s just less left over after fixed costs to spend on major league payroll. In straight dollar terms, what the big markets “pocket” dwarfs the small markets. It’s just big market propaganda that small market owners are getting away with a bag while big markets what…suffer? From embarrassment maybe when they are out-maneuvered and out-performed by teams like Cleveland, Milwaukee, Tampa, and Cincinnati.
Avory,
From the CBA: “each club shall use its revenue sharing receipts…in an effort to improve its performance on the field.”
Words on a piece of paper.
No one knows which revenue dollars are used to “improve performance on the field” and which are used to spend on front office or developmental or scouting personnel which may result in better on the field performance or on the 7% or whatever that ALL owners skim from the top.
That language was inserted into the CBA by the big player agents and big market teams for purely propaganda purposes. The sad thing is that folks like you buy it.
Attanasio’s net worth is less than a billion dollars and in the bottom 5 of owners. He also owns only 38% of the team as its principal owner.
Thanks to Stearns/Arnold and their incredible infrastructure rebuild they now have the best young talent, organizationally, in all of baseball. The largest playoff-worthy, 4+ years controlled core of prime-aged talent with the deepest farm system in the game. This team is only going to get better moving-forward.
If they need to shed a little payroll to preserve their financial-flexibility so they can add at the trade-deadline, then that’s what they will do.
Remember baseball world — this team is lead by 2-time executive of the year, Matt Arnold & 2-time MOY Pat Murphy — so they will be just fine.
They’ll be fine playing in the weak division that is the NL Central.
You’re value doesn’t reflect how much cash or the liquidity of your worth. If he’s already living a high- end lively then maintenance is important. A business ran the right way should turn a profit and not be reliant on using personal funds? Who runs a business that needs then to spend money they’ve already earned to sustain? Owners do it when they are passionate about winning and also have more than enough revenue coming in from their “day jobs” to cover their personal lives. The disparity is the mom and pop ran Pirates who’s worth just over $1 billion vs the Dodgers owner who’s personal wealth worth over $9 billion with several other partners who are billionaires including Magic Johnson who’s perhaps the least wealthiest at $2 billion. Hal Steinbrenner is “only” worth about $3 billion although the team is valued around $8 billion.
The Brewers continue to operate like a grocery store. Thin margins yet big income streams.
Utter nonsense from clueless baseball fans.
I’m not disagreeing that the Brewers should be able to spend more, but an individuals net worth has nothing to do with whether a single business venture is profitable enough to spend. These guys are billionaires for a reason. They didn’t care whether you disagree.
As a Brewers fan I find it somewhat funny that the Brewers figured that Woodruff would never accept the QO. now that he has their whining about their team payroll for next year.
Tigers.
Both.
Rare misstep by the FO. 99% of the time the QO goes the way the team thinks it will. In this case Woodruff froze them with a devastating sweeper that has the owner talking to himself.
Rare misstep by the FO.
====================
Unless his arm is shot, they can trade that contract tomorrow.
In fact, I would hope the RS look at him. If his arm checks out, he is easily worth $22M.
That’s just it, they CAN’T trade that contract tomorrow, the rules prohibit it.
He can be traded if he consents. After June 15th he can be traded without consent.
no they cant, any player that accepts the qualifying offer can not be traded until; june 15th
Didn’t they get extra money from making the playoffs, winning the division, etc. They need to keep Peralta, suck it up, and if necessary, trade him later.
I wonder if all of the players accepting this year will affect how many teams offer it next year.
I also wonder how the impending lockout will factor into QO decisions.
I can understand it. As a lower payroll team they need every edge they can get to extend their great success of the last 7-8 years so they really want that pick. They just hoped he would decline and they get the pick
I don’t understand why people think teams offer a player a QO expecting them to decline.
To get the draft pick, another team must sign the player before the next draft. We saw Keuchel and Kimbrel have the QO attached and they didn’t sign until after the draft.
If he declined the QO, he probably gets a deal similar to Pivettas. But by accepting it, he gets a good salary and if he stays relatively healthy he’s in for a decent payday next off-season with no draft pick compensation attached. I think it’s a no brainer to accept. Imagine if Pivetta accepted the QO. He probably wouldn’t have had as great a season pitching half his games at Fenway, but he’s be in for a much bigger payday.
Historically the majority of QOs have been rejected. Of course you don’t offer to a totally unworthy candidate but usually QOs are declined and teams get the pick. If the player takes it is ok too of course as it is only one year.
They aren’t whining about payroll, Rosenthal is saying they are, but Rosenthal is a sensationalist phony.
Have to trade Woodruff, his contract is tradeable, he is a potential #2 on a 1yr deal.
Brewers have to resign Freddy Peralta. Peralta is the Brewers heart and soul.
If they trade Peralta it would be one of the shrewdest trades in MLB history. Brewers fans would be sick about it. Trading Woodruff is also difficult, also a fan favorite, but with their pitching depth, it’s a good trade for the ball club to save the cash and add a prospect.
Peralta
Priester
Misiorowski
Patrick
Henderson
is a good rotation. Have to resign Freddy.
They can’t trade woodruff until after June 15, as stated in the article. At least not without his consent, which I guess could be a possibility.
Why yes, after accepting a contract offer with Milwaukee, where I have played for years, I will consent to being traded because I really want to uproot my family, not only now, but again in a year when I return to free agency. All for no additional compensation. Sign me up!
If the Giants have as much money as everyone says they do, they could pick up both Peralta AND Woodruff and decimate their farm system for 3 years. Giants (and Padres) don’t have that much chutzpah tho nor that many prospects. Red Sox do tho and probably should.
They where going to trade Peralta with or without Woodruff, I do believe when they say it’s two separate things
For that amount of money, i am a hard pass.
Thats what she said
This is the main issue with MLB. If clubs and ownerships are unwilling to spend money yet set astronomical prices for parking, food and drink especially alcohol, tickets in the $75-$100 plus range for single games but unwilling to sign and keep their best players then they shouldn’t be MLB clubs.
MLB must enforce a salary floor around the $125m mark or more. And if teams like MLW, PIT, CHW, MIA, OAK/SAC, CLE, MIN, ANA, TBR, etc don’t want to pay up then they should be folded OR MLB should start implementing what European domestic soccer leagues have as a top “premier” league and other lower tiers and introduce relegation and promotion! Would make things somewhat fair, accurate and exciting.
Ana? Like the angels?
Yea, I just can’t call them the LA Angels. Anaheim is a great area and that’s where they are next to the Ducks.
California Angels
Change your luck Mr. Moreno.
Not sure what happened to them. They had such strong teams with great players from the late 1990s to about 3/4 years ago. But now not even relevant. Another terrible owner in Arte Moreno I guess.
not sure if you’re talking about the same Anaheim Angels!
They were NOT good until 3-4 years ago — in fact 2025 was their 10th consecutive losing season! They haven’t been good since 2015.
No matter how hard Arte tries, he cannot convince us that the Angels are a Los Angeles team.
Totally agree. If we’re talking revenue disparities let’s talk about the fact that the clubs spending the lowest percentages on payroll are disproportionately small market teams.
Still, there was no justification for offering Woodruff the QO. He spent a year and a half rehabbing, then lasted 12 starts before getting injured again. In no world was he getting a multi year deal.
I had predicted that Woodruff would get and take a multi-year deal from the Mets. I think the Brewers did well to offer the QO. I also think they will keep Peralta for at least the first half of the season and only trade him if they are not in first place in the division.
Lowest percentages of WHAT on payroll? If you’re talking percentage of total revenue (especially broadcast revenue, not just ticket/parking/concession sales), small market teams are spending at a higher rate than you think.
Why? These teams are independently owned and have the right to run as a business any way they chose too.
True but they will always have a franchise no matter how poorly it performs.
I find it funny, how people forget how bad the Angels were under the ownership of Disney. Disney had controlling ownership from 97-03. In those 7 seasons, the Angels had a losing record in 6 of them. Disney cried poor and claimed to be losing money each year. So they really never spent, not even on pitching. Other than Mo Vaughn, Disney never spent on FA players. Spare me, oh at least they hired a good scouting department. That scouting department, was in place. Before they bought the team. Most of the key players that helped the Angels win the 02 WS, were already drafted before Disney had anything to do with the team. I will always call them the California Angels. Besides if Disney had their way, the Angels would not even exist anymore. The Marlins would be the team playing at Angels stadium.
No one is crying that Rangers should be called the Dallas Rangers or that Rockies should be called Denver Rockies. Same for Snakes.
Disney won a WS in 2002. Of the 6 starting position players that were not traded for or signed in FA, only Salmon and Molina were drafted or signed prior to Disney taking over. Of the 5 SP, 2 were not originally Angels and Lackey was a Disney draftee. Not sure if they were traded for or signed as FA. Disney sold because they could not get a new stadium and entertainment center at the site of the Big A, the same reason Moreno threatened to sell 22 years later.
thats not the the point the angels should be called the califonia angels or anaheim angels.how would it look if the philidelphia phillies anounced they are now called the camden jersey phillies.why?because its a few miles away.or the nationals rebranding there name to the maryland nationals.now if you want to get into football ive got complaints there too.im not a dodgers fan at all and the angels should be proud to take the name anaheim or california.
apparently angel fan for life needs a fact-checker!
The Angels were not under .500 in six of seven seasons of Disney ownership — they were over .500 in 4 of the 7 seasons and won their only World Series in 2002.
I’d call that pretty darn successful, especially when you consider the last 10 season;.
If you’re really an Angels fan for life, you should know more about your team!
The Angels are in the LA media market. How many teams with NY in the name are actually in NYC?
@Jeremy320 “Dodgers locking up Japan” my goodness you are dense.
A salary floor without a ceiling is pointless.
The big spenders will still win the bidding wars for the premier guys. Those guys still want to go to contenders, and not be the token large contract to sit on a low-probability team. All that happens is then you’ve got clubs forced to overpay guys who aren’t otherwise worth it just to hit the spending target.
A spending floor doesnt keep Skenes in PIT for example.
The only thing that would keep Skenes in Pittsburgh is having a salary floor with 100% revenue sharing of ALL baseball related revenue including local TV and radio. Every penney goes into a pool and is split equally by the 30 teams.
When the top 2 teams are around $800 million and the bottom two are around $250 million there is no way for teams at the bottom to keep players like Skenes.
@mrpessimist
So your solution is to fold 1/3 of the league? Bet that will really help the national broadcast contract. I’m sure the players union won’t have any problem with it. Sales of licenced merchandise in those cities won’t be affected.
Uh, no.
Yes another billionaire barely able to exist. Please start a go fund me page the poor guy.
Have they considered trying to offload Yelich’s contract, or is he practically untradeable at this point in his career?
100 RBI and 29 HR? Somebody in need of a DH could use him.
He’s also still really valuable in the Brewers lineup as their most powerful slugger. I doubt they traded him because while yes he’s dropped off from his MVP numbers he’s still a really good player when healthy. Keeping him DHing most days has helped him stay healthy.
It’s his bank account. What makes you think you have the right to tell him how to
Manage his own money. Do people have the right to dictate to you how you spend your money?
The fact that MLB is a government sanctioned monopoly is the reason why US taxpayers deserve a seat at the stakeholder table when it comes to how billionaires manipulate the sport.
How would that work?
1-Do we vote on each trade proposal?
2-Do we vote for the president, who then creates trades?
3-Or does Congress run the league?
I think the way that it works if the owners abuse their monopoly, voters go to Congress and the White House and urge them to threaten legislation unless reforms are made or lockouts are ended.
Now, I personally think baseball is not broken and only minor changes are needed.
Such as if you are over a three hundred million soft cap, you forfeit your first round pick the next year.
I also think foreign players outside of the Americas of a certain age or less should be part of the regular draft. The excuse for the Caribbean and Latin America is to encourage player development resources, which does not seem to apply as much to Asia.
But I would be open to the government taking action to prevent a lockout in as neutral a manner as possible. The monopoly is a gift from taxpayers to owners that can be taken away.
The monopoly is a gift from taxpayers to owners that can be taken away.
===========================
It’s a game. Not only will you never, ever get a consensus, no one will care. Fixing games, and concussions are something most people will get behind. Revenue sharing, salary caps, deferrals, aren’t even a ripple in the water.
Speaking only for me, which is what I do here, I would support the government stopping the owners from imposing a lockout and shutdown.
I think it is in the public interest to play games and that MLB is a monopoly and thus different from many industries where I would say keep the government out of the way.
I have no idea whether the majority of taxpayers would agree with me or not. On this site, there are a lot of posters who want MLB to be like a rotisserie league where at the start of every year, everyone has the same amount of money. It is also true, of course, that the owners of the big city Dodgers and Mets paid more for their clubs and that rule change would depreciate the value of those big city franchises.
This, I prefer only modest changes to what I see as as pretty good existing system. Like losing your 1st round draft pick if you spend over $300 million in 2027 payroll, adjusted for inflation.
Joe, all other major sports with teams in the US have 100% revenue sharing plus salary caps and floors. The difference is they do not have federal support for their monopoly.
I thought the way it worked is Congress threatens an investigation, and a team gets relocated.to DC.
As the contract expires at the end of 26, what rules does the govt invoke for 27 in this force to play plan of yours? Keeping the current contract would remove any incentive for the owners to negotiate. The players would never go for that.
Then the people need not elect representatives that agree to give taxpayer dollars. By proxy, the people had their say when the representatives they elected consented. This isn’t socialism. Its democracy and capitalism. I’m sure you would be fine with the Brewers moving to another city.
The monopoly enables sports owners to put one city against another.
They weren’t going to move anywhere. A move would cost Mark way more than to chip in for the AmFam costs.
I’m betting you don’t vote.
Huh
At this point you need to be actively rooting for the cancellation of the 2027 season. the long term health of the game hinges on it.
we are not sustainable at this current arrangement.
Milwaukee had the best record in baseball last year.
What a terrible outcome.
@ADF
Its not even December. We don’t even know what the outcome is.
If you don’t know the outcome of the 2025 baseball season, I suggest looking it up before posting again.
I know the outcome of the past, but the topic here is about the Brewers payroll for next season. Maybe you should read the article before posting.
Since you’re saying we don’t know the future, I can predict with some accuracy you will be stymeed at least once today.
I’m not rooting for a lockout.
I’m rooting for baseball.
I actually agree with that. Without a cap and a floor, this games future is doomed.
Floor seems reasonable. Cap, good luck.
What’s wrong with baseball?
Yeah, um, no.
Bit by the old QO! lol.
Lol at Mercenary.Freddie.Freeman, not the qualifying offer
Who knew?!
It’s Ken Rosenthal and the Athletic so the truth is likely the opposite of whatever he is saying.
Dont make him mad he come nipping at your heels with his whiny voice
Milwaukee is the smallest MLB market so no surprise they want to keep payroll low. The central issue that MLB has to address is revenue. The revenue difference between the richest and poorest MLB teams is the largest of any North American professional sports league, and that is with some level of revenue sharing. The richest teams not only can spend double or more on payroll than the poorest teams, they can also spend more on player development, facilities, etc. And the richest teams also have the richest owners who care less about actual profit. It is a testament to the Brewers organization that they have remained competitive despite obvious financial constraints. I don’t know how that gets fixed. Caps and floors and increased revenue sharing are fraught with their own problems as well.
Unless of course you are of the ilk that all owners are rich and the owners of the lower revenue teams should spend their personal fortune on the team. That isn’t the reality and never will be the reality.
Does it need to be fixed?
Is it safe?
Yes, it’s very safe
No, it’s not safe at all.
What is broken about the system as it is?
Jeremy320
pretend you were not just eating a crayon and join the conversation.
======================
Is this one of those TikTok challenges that you kids engage in?
“Unless of course you are of the ilk that all owners are rich and the owners of the lower revenue teams should spend their personal fortune on the team. That isn’t the reality and never will be the reality.”
Because it is the reality and will always be the reality no matter how much you try to look smart or act condescending, Christopher Ilitch.
“Unless of course you are of the ilk that all owners are rich and the owners of the lower revenue teams should spend their personal fortune on the team. That isn’t the reality and never will be the reality.”
There is an exception to this rule: owners who are dying. Each small market team should be trying to attract this brand of billionaire so they can spend stupid money (aftermath usually doesn’t go well).
(Yes, I’m being facetious)
According to Baseball Reference, each team receives $209 million annually in revenue sharing. baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Revenue_sharing
@Texas Trev
Although that seems like a lot, keep in mind there are substantial operating costs which are fairly static team-to-team. So it may cost the Brewers 150mil, before player salaries, to run the team while the Dodger’s 170mil cost is barely higher (the numbers are for providing examples only).
The Brewers spending/income seems very much inline with other small market teams, unlike the Pirates and Marlins who seem to be raking in the profits.
Peralta to the Mets for Mauricio and Santucci
You misspelled Tong and Clifford.
McNiel , Senga and Sproat
For Peralta and Yelich
Clears $9M from the books.
Sell the team
Who would buy a small market team under the current system?
Plenty of people. Cite to the Rays sale that the ink is still drying on.
Yet the Twins and Angels couldn’t find a buyer. Not that I call the Angels small market.
Mark Cuban was quite vocal on how much a losing proposition it is in its current form.
There is also the expectation of a new stadium in the Rays situation.
I really couldnt care less what Mark Cubans opinions are.
The problem with the Angels and Twins sales were the sellers expectations and the finances of the ball clubs.
The Twins were saddled with several hundred millions of debt they wanted a buyer to assume in addition to paying 100% market value of what franchise was worth excluding that debt.
They had no problem selling minority stakes to buyers who weren’t taking on that debt.
The Angels, again, had an unrealistic asking price given the contractual obligation it was saddled with.
If I list a 2002 Honda accord for sale for $90,000 and I dont get a taker, its not because theres something inherently wrong with the design of the vehicle. Its because im not asking a realistic market price in the transaction.
So you’re saying the market valuation of the franchises is inflated?
While the Twins did have the debt problem, neither the Angels nor the Nationals were asking well above the MV.
I know. I checked it out on Zillow. These teams also had a clean Carfax!
You’re forgetting the contractual obligations and the deferred money situations attached to the Angels and the Nationals.
As time is passing and now the buyout on Rendon that’s one piece clearing off the Angel’s, but, at the time buyers were being asked to assume around $100m to that mooch among other liabilities for LAA, and think back to when the Nationals were piling all that deferred money on the deals they signed, or, before MASN debacle was cleaned up.
Any savvy businessmen, as groups throwing around billions almost certainly are, look at those things as they devalue the current worth of an asset.
If you didnt like the car example, perhaps a better example would be buying a house at a foreclosure auction that comes with with other liens attached.
You dont pay the otherwise full market value for it because you do still have to clear up those liabilities. Forbes valuations (or similar) don’t account for debt on the books or player contract liabilities. And while the deferred money does require funding *at the time* that’s expected to grow to cover the costs, in practice anyone with a 401k has seen wild swings over the years here. If the account failed to grow enough, the team needs to add to make up the difference
The Angels are in the LA market. They’re considered a big market team.
And the Orioles.
Can a house be seized for auction if there are liens? Wouldn’t those liens have to be cleared before sale? ( asking because I don’t know)
Yes, it can and commonly is.
Any senior lien based on any priority granted by the laws (taxes, public utilities, HOA levies for example) usually take priority and survive a mortgage foreclosure.
And a second mortgage, or home equity loan that’s subservient to a purchase money mortgage, can be foreclosed and force sale of the house, *but* it conveys with that senior mortgage still in place, still encumbering the property.
So, usually a buyer will factor paying off those liens into their bid, offering less, because typically the debtor who lost ownership/possession has no incentive to keep paying those loans and often the senior lien soon follows with another foreclosure sale if not cleared. And that says bothing of the normal due on sale clause in most loan products that trigger a full payoff required or commencement of foreclosing on the loan. (There are exceptions, such as where business context or high net worth parties are concerned of a deficiency judgment as they remain liable for the senior debt, even if they no longer own the asset, due to the promissory notes, judgments, etc. Some cases like that its in the interest of the debtor not to default the senior lien, and, many times the sale itself was due to some oversight in which case they do whats called redemption – paying back the successful bidder of the auction based on the terms of local statutes)
Even creditors are known to sometimes order incremental bids of their debt amount to try and win the property themselves for less than the debt owed due to those issues, and secure the deficiency
I respect that this owner is honest about what he says to the media about payroll (unlike nutting or fisher) but it shouldn’t excuse the fact that he won’t spend
The brewers won 97 games and made it to the NLCS, and have a loyal fan base that revenue should be enough to afford to keep woodruff and peralta
Yeah, I am with you. I am old and owners once looked at owning a team was satisfying. I don’t expect today’s brass to be the same, but it shouldn’t be all about money. Without fans their would be no game.
Just don’t expect any additions to the team.
What a joke. Every one of these budget teams gets at least $200 mil from revenue sharing, sponsorship sharing, media sharing, etc.
There is no reason any team cannot afford at least $150 mil on player salaries.
The Crew have a chance to have 2 top line starters fronting the rotation this year and go as well as last year; why go cheap and spoil that chance?
You realize player salaries are just a part of owning a major league team, right?
Oh yeah, your large market one has a big local TV deal.
Although I have always been vehemently against caps (Reds can attest as we have had annual discussions on the topic…lol), I think there can be somewhat of a cap-style system implemented that doesn’t disable large franchises; but two things need to be addressed imho:
1) What do they do with the successful RSNs owned by franchises? To split it would be a non-starter imho; and
2) with the disparity in taxes between, say, NY/CA and Florida, some adjustments need to be made to account for that so that the proposed “ceiling” isn’t prohibitive for large, high-cost cities to sign players. In other words, the payroll ceilings would be equal, but only relative to the taxes in that city.
I {think} that would be a compromise for both sides… but it could also be a very stupid idea – lol.
Clipper, theres really only three options – flatten the revenue with bigger redistributions, limit the size and types of contracts able to be handed out, or a hard cap on absolute dollars spent meaning some franchises let owners pull massive profits out because they’re limited as to reinvestment.
Its always been a problem in MLB – its how the Yankees racked up all those rings in the 20th century. The only difference is, now people are seeking to “fix” it.
Its become a more noticeable problem as the true free agency has developed with fewer and fewer inhibitions on player movement and contracts. The old comp a/b system did a lot more to compensate teams for losing players than the one time QO system does.
And at the same time as the disparity in earnings and revenue streams accelerated between the largest and smallest markets, what it costs to sign a top tier player has also vastly outgrown mere inflation due to have in money to burn at the highest grossing clubs.
We’re about 5 years from starting to see massive piles of dead money in the league as well from those mega extensions with those years tacked on as a cherry everyone knew weren’t likely to be productive start to arrive
Its always been a problem in MLB – its how the Yankees racked up all those rings in the 20th century. The only difference is, now people are seeking to “fix” it.
===================
Nothing has ever changed. Some teams have more money and some teams have less money.
Its not that He doesn’t have the money, rather that he doesn’t want to spend it to invest on the city of Milwaukee. Meanwhile hes trying to prop up a second tier English football team.
Sell it to someone who loves Wisconsin and isn’t an unrepentant piece of crap like the Uhleins or John Menard
Just looked those dudes up after your post yikes they’re scary. Guess ill go somewhere else for cheap candy
So buying the team was not enough of an investment in the city for you?!
Save big money at Menard’s!
K Mart is the saving place!
Any Brewer fans out there with insights into why Woodruff accepted the arbitration offer? As a Red Sox fan, he and Bieber were my top targets with Gray being the top trade target (so more of a consolation prize).
Do you think he may approve a trade or is he really set at staying in Milwaukee?
What would the Brewers want for him? Would a player like Kutter Crawford (cheap-ish 3/4 starter with 3 years of control) interest them?
I think a lot of players decided to maximize their one year earnings because they know there is a lockout coming.
MLBTR predicted 3/66m, he took 1/22m. I don’t see how that equates to maximizing his 1 year earning for the same AAV.
One is a guaranteed number. The other is a hope, that may or may not materialize, amd requires relocating along with all the expenses and uncertainty that comes with it.
Who knows what the tac structure would be like or the cost of living associated with the team that *might* offer 3/66.
Seems like minimal risk he wouldn’t be able to secure at least 22m. It seems well withing reason that a 2yr/40-45m with an opt-out likely would have been on the table.
Last off-season Charlie Morton, Alex Cobb, Max Scherzer and Justin Verlander all got 1/15m and none of those guys at the current point in their careers could sniff Woodruff’s upside given the average age of that lot was right around 40 years old.
It probably has a lot to do with Woodruff wanting to stay a Brewer and this was likely the only way that was happening. So kudos to him!
Watch what he gets next contract and it will all make sense. Sure he could get hurt or not be that good. Still got 22m and a 1 year deal or a opt out to try again.
He loves Milwaukee, the team and fans love him, and for those reasons he said accepting the offer was an “easy decision.” It seems they knew he was going to accept it. mlb.com/news/brandon-woodruff-discusses-accepting-…
I would add Christian Yelich, who is pulling in twenty-six million dollars a year through 2028, plus a six-and-a-half-million dollar buyout waiting on that 2029 mutual option. With that kind of financial weight on the roster, the Brewers should add him and will look more seriously at moving right-hander Freddy Peralta as well to a big market team!!!
Honestly, the Brewers should package the whole thing. Send Yelich and Peralta together to a big-market team that can actually afford the tab, and in return ask for a clean Top-100 prospect and a couple of lotto-ticket youngsters. Call it Milwaukee’s version of “Buy one superstar, get one pitcher half-off after Thanksgiving giving sale!!!”
Angels would like Yelich to patrol CF
Yelich has a no-trade clause. Highly unikely he would approve a trade to the Angels, or perhaps to anywhere.
Love it! The owners are playing their role of being poor billionaires just before the lockout. Sounds like the Yankees are really struggling, financially, as well. I wouldn’t be surprised if they end up with the Tampa Bay Rays model, going forward, just to save some money for those billionaires. Baseball’s just not profitable anymore…
I’m sure the owners of Sears, Jo Annes, Bed Bath & Beyond, etc were all playing poor, too. The individual net worth is completely separate from Team/company net worth. Forbes actually reports that the Brewers have a much lower net worth than the Yankees or Dodgers. Surprise!
Rosenthal was singing the same song last off-season and the Brewers didnt cut payroll. What does “concerned” mean in this context? Is he saying Brewers ownership has mandated Arnold cut payroll to X number?
They win their division, top record in the NL… and they’re concerned about their payroll. Ugh… if only all owners were like the Dodgers.
If only all owners had a local TV deal that more than paid their player salaries like the Dodgers.
If only all the markets were like Los Angeles.
If only fewer baseball writers where clickbait rumor mongerers like Ken Rosenthal.
Depending on what news outlet(s) you follow, everyone is leaving California. Are you telling me that’s not true?!?!
If only baseball salary expense was $13,000,000,000.
If only Fisher and Nutting were not modern day Randolph and Mortimer Dukes taking advantage of the government monopoly.
Dodgers owners still make money on the payroll they have. Brewers have been right around their making or losing money risk. If the Attendance dropped in a season similar to the Cardinals drop, they most definitely lose money on the season.
Start the discussion of trading Yelich by offering to eat 5M a year for 3 years and an additional 5M of the buyout. Require a lesser regarded power bat in return along with a 1B and Pitcher that are close to the majors and a lower level player or two.
Let me see if I get this right:
You’ve got a 34 year old player who has been between 1-3 war for each of the last 5 seasons. He’s owed a guaranteed 84.5m (assuming you take the 6.5m buyout when he is age 37.)
In return you want an established mlb power bat, 2 mlb-ready prospects including a pitcher, and 1 or 2 more minor leaguers as well?
And all you get in return is the albatross contract on an aging player who doesnt give elite value, and $20m in relief spaced at $5m/per?
Any exec you call hangs up.
The Brewers would only be clearing as much salary as they could with a Yelich trade. No assets are coming back.
Yelich controls if he wants to be traded. Brewers have no say.
That’s what happens when you make a $20mill qualifying offer to a player you just paid a $10mill buyout out…
This isn’t surprising. The owners seem to refuse to want to renovate Miller Park. I’ve heard it’s pretty outdated
I visited that park in 2015 with the other 30, and let me tell you, it was one of the prettiest ballparks I have ever seen. It was so gorgeous I almost forgot the price of stadium cracker jacks… almost.
Alot of people don’t know this, but it’s actually
Cracker Jack. Jack is not actually plural .
They should make a song or something to educate folks.
Buy me some peanuts and Cracker Jack,
I don’t care if I never get back.
But how many people only eat one Cracker Jack?
Just like you buy a bag of rice, not a “bag of rices”. You get a side order of rice, even though you don’t eat just one piece of rice.
Ouch! Touche!
How do you know how much rices I eat?
Miller is beautiful. Also, YOU CAN PARK THERE!!
The Brewers were in the playoffs they received more money than the year before and they still have money concerns? Time to sell.
Another example of the whole RSN fiasco strapping small markets further.
brewers remind me of the rays
routinely small payroll
never sign big name FAs
but make clever trades/draft choices
usually in the hunt for playoffs
but never won the ws
Ken had a Jones for the Brewers and their payroll all last season, to be sure.
Shut the heck up, This one belongs to the Reds.
I don’t know the particulars of the Yelich contract but for his own tax planning purposes maybe he should approach the team and restructure his deal. This happens far less in MLB than NBA/NFL, MLBPA is NOT a fan to the point they make it complicated. The contract math can’t have him taking a paycut so any restructure needs to have the same net present contract value.
It shouldn’t be forgotten the Brewers were one of the franchises impacted by the RSN bankruptcy and no team impacted has been made whole in their agreements with MLB. The typical long term guaranteed nature of RSN’s is how front offices sign players to long term big $ deals like Yelich’s. If they choose to trade Peralta I hope it’s purely baseball reasons.
26Million for the next 4 yrs and $20M Mutual Option, $6.5M Buyout
Actually, i believe yelich is only under contract 3 more seasons before the 20m mutual option with 6.5m buyout in 2029
According to MLB in a piece in the WSJ, only 4 teams have lost money overall since from the RSN debacle started in 2023 and the most by any one team was the Rangers at $40 million. To me its curious that the teams that have lost money since 2023 were the ones that did not have MLB produce and distribute their broadcasts. MLB reimbursed 80% of the losses in the first year, but after that the teams were on their own.
The Diamondbacks and Padres lost money in 2023, MLB gave them 80% of what they lost, and both teams have increased their TV money since DSG filed Chapter 11. I read in the Sports Business Journal that the Padres increased their market size by 1.1 million. That is one heck of a lot of TVs. The idiots at DSG apparently didn’t know that the Padres owned the Hawaii market and parts of Riverside county so they only broadcast their games in San Diego and Imperial counties. MLB negotiated deals with Spectrum Hawaii and Cox Riverside and boom, more money. Imagine that. I have no idea why the Diamondbacks are making more money now. Maybe something like what happened with the Padres or MLB just negotiated a better deal with the cable and streaming providers in Arizona.
All of this is going to be a moot point soon as Disney will own MLB.tv and most of the other broadcasting rights and all teams will be getting even more money.
“According to MLB”.
If they would own ALL broadcasting rights and then split the pie, it would be better for all concerned.
Well no, it would be better for the teams below the average, not those above.
And those above will take significant hits to their franchise values as a result while those below will increase. Are those below going to cover that value depreciation out of their newfound wealth?
Hmmm… haven’t heard that offer made.
The Cowboys, Lakers, Celtics, etc. seem to have massive franchise values still with the revenues spilt in their leagues.
The lament of the large market fan, who doesn’t want their team to lose their extreme advantage and don’t care what’s good for the game. Everyone wants to get theirs and the hell with everyone else. A great reflection on American society as a whole these days.
Well no, it would be better for the teams below the average, not those above.
=========================
I was going to say the same thing. It’s pretty rare that any spending proposal helps everyone.
Plus how will those big market teams compete if they don’t have a financial advantage? Its not like they have the best front office people, or the best managers.
And yet, they gave the QO to Woodruff. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
According to Rosenthal are there any teams that are not concerned about payroll? He used to be a respected writer. Now everything is clickbait.
If there were any, it change the moment Cease signed for 7/$210MM. They all worried now!
they get 70MM a year in revenue sharing and spending 60MM of their own money os a concern?
And 70 million is on the low end. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was quite a bit higher than that
But you have no idea, right?
The Mets can solved that problem. Trade F Peralta and C Yelich. Mets take all Yelich salary($26m for the next 4 yrs) plus Peralta $8M. Brewers receive 3 top 10 Mets prospect: Jett Williams(SS/OF/2B), Jonah Tong(P), and Ryan Clifford(1B/OF). Meta replace Nimo with Yelich, get a free agent pitcher next year, Brewers get the 1B of the future, a great fit in 2b, and a future ace in Tong.
Makes sense for everyone.
I like it talent wise but not sure if two top 100s are needed for a one year rental and a contract that will likely age badly. Mets would probably get a lot of great production this year though.
Where in the athletic did they say they’re trying to cut payroll? If they were that worried woody would’ve been allowed to leave
As per giving this lineup a little more oooooomph on the cheap
Miguel Sano is still only 32 years old and he is absolutely raking down in winter ball
The Tigers need to jump on Peralta. Add in Yelich too if Milwaukee needs to cut payroll. Lots of good youngsters in Detroit to choose from for a return package.
Not a Brewers fan but with 20% of their payroll centered in one player, maybe they should trade Yelich, if he can be traded? Does he still have value? Trading him would reduce their payroll to around 100M give or take. Which should be within the parameters they desire. Peralta is a fantastic pitcher, but, keeping him and using him to contend and hopefully make the playoffs while still being able to trade him at the summer deadline makes more sense to me. Yelich is due 84M over the next 3 years including his buyout so that would be a huge cost savings they could make. Woodruff at 22M cant be traded until mid June so if the Brewers are scuffling, then the Brewers trade deadline could be very interesting. They could be in a situation where trading Yelich, Woodruff and Peralta would be their best bet and knowing the Brewers front office, they would bring back very good talent there as well as saving a ton of money. That being said, this same team won the most games in MLB last year so the chances of them not being very good are small. Thoughts?
The Brewers owner is Notoriously cheap. Bottom line. Had woodruff NOT accepted the QO this wouldn’t even be a topic
There are infinite business opportunities to own strictly for PROFIT sake…
Just 30 MLB teams to own strictly for WINNING sake…
Brewers do not need to run a $300 million payroll, but as long as they are competitive they should not hesitate to push into $150 to $175 million range… Sure profits will be lower, but if you are unwilling to do so, sell the team for TWO BILLION to someone willing to spend.
Owners like this are bad for baseball.
So you’re from a large market. Mid and small markets think your owners are what’s bad for the sport. Fair’s fair.
Yeah, cause someone will surely shell out two billion for a small market team under the current system.
Uh…nope.
I would. Be worth 10 trillion in like 6 years.
Of course that could be the cost of a loaf of bread by then.
I’m sure the other NL Central teams are pleased about this, especially the Cubs.
I.e. the Brewers want to maximize profit.
Bauers would have been the one to non-tender a contract
I really think their is a chance for the dodgers to trade for Yelich to play left field
As a Dodgers fans…no thank you. That ship sailed a few years ago.
They make 150mil in beer sales alone. Open up the coin purse mark
Woodruff didn’t put them in a tough spot, they’re the ones that decided to extend the QO any and all issues stemming from that are self inflicted.
Why’d they extend a $22M contract if they werent prepared for Woodruff to accept it?
If payroll is a concern, and if Woodruff’s arm is healthy, trade him to the RS.
When aren’t they concerned about payroll?
Mark A just wants to pocket revenue sharing. Doesn’t want to part with his passive income so instead someone will have to get traded.
They will be just fine. Why not put it out there that they are barely scraping by? Then when payroll goes up a sliver the fans are thankful. If you lower expectations folks will be pleasantly surprised by anything positive.
Surely the right moves for the Crew for this offseason are NO MOVES. Aside from needing a backup catcher, they are bringing back the same team that led all of baseball in wins.
They picked up ‘some millions’ for going deepish into the playoffs. They honestly are fine right where they are. A boring offseason to come, and they are also well set for the lockout.
Cubs fan here who doesn’t disagree at all. They will tweak around the edges, and only trade guys who are upon their expiration date (see Devin Williams for latest example). If I’m a Brewers fan, I just sit back and say “eh, they have proved that they know what they are doing”.
Trading Woodruff would solve their financial woes.
Interesting. If you follow the included link and actually read the story, you’ll find a much less dire situation being discussed. It’s one item of several in a summary article, refers to sources who are not identified in any way, and does little but walk through the various ways the Brewers can keep both Woodruff and Peralta. So, I’d call this clickbait, and it’s becoming more and more common on this site.
Aren’t they always concerned about payroll?
If you don’t want to pay the player, can’t really afford him, maybe you shouldn’t make the QO? This was a bet by the Brewers, and they apparently don’t like the result.
No they’re just happy with their team and are signaling that they won’t be spending this off-season.
People using the ‘public funds’ arguments don’t know economics 101.
Perfect example is when the Patriots stayed they asked for public infrastructure help as the Patriots stadium is way outside the city on a two way in and two way out highway at the time.
The state built up the roads around it. The Patriots built the new stadium with their funds as well as added a mall to the area. This increased the tax base with property taxes and jobs. Now that the area became economically viable other companies came in and put in stores, malls, built housing, etc… and further increased the tax base.
It is like night and day in Foxboro from what it was before.
Every time the team purchases equipment or stock, a ticket or concession is sold a tax is paid on that good or service, People come to the stadium to work and gets payroll taxes on they and the team, people come to the area for game day or an event and spend money on goods and services and get taxes, etc… the town and state make money.
Goose
People using the ‘public funds’ arguments don’t know economics 101.
========================
Two things for discussion purposes. How much sales tax do the NYY bring in each year? I’m guessing that just those enormous parking taxes will pay for whatever the government kicked in. And whatever the remaining balance is, if there even is one, if it cost the government $100M, over 30 years, how much is that per taxpayer, per year?
Second, NJ is quoting like $3B in extra overall revenue from FIFA alone. How much of the government investment is paid for by that one single event?
I’d be looking at Yelich more than Peralta at this point. The Brewers could eat down some of the 3/84.5 and still save a ton of money. His 3-WAR bat can still help contenders
I hope I live long enough to one day read a headline that says, “Brewers reportedly concerned about winning the World Series”.
The Brewers are concerned about payroll is about the same as saying water is wet or the sun will rise in the east…
If you think that’s a myth I have a bridge over Lake Michigan to sell you.
Always smart to cut payroll just after one of your best seasons in recent memory. Classic marlins strategy, VERY sophisticated stuff here people
You just don’t understand business. 8)
A couple of questions out of semi-ignorance.
1, Has any Major League team ever sold for less money than for what it was bought? I once read that CBS lost money on the Yankees but not sure that it was true.
2. For those who know contract law–While private sector lockouts are rare, if they happen would a high-level executive who has a contract have to be paid for the time that the lockout took place? And if a Major League player signs a 2-year contract this year, and there is a lockout, isn’t MLB breaking the contract if there is a season-long lockout? Or do the MLB contracts say they are valid only if baseball takes place?
Annual MA cries of poverty