I don't think that's really how it works. I don't think they're putting that in a piggy bank and saying "ok, well we didn't spend it this year, so we'll be able to spend MORE money next year. If they didn't spend it, they didn't spend it. Whatever they don't spend in 2016 is just profit. Yep. Really simplistic example, but say they had $100 million in revenue and $66 million in expenses, that would be $34 million in net cash operating income, and assuming a tax rate of about 30%, that income generates $10 million in taxes, meaning net cash income is $24 million. If they spent $16 million less and still had $100 million in revenue, they would have $50 million in net cash operating income. Still assuming tax rate of 30%, that means $15 million in taxes, which drops net cash income to $35 million. So again, really simplistic example that doesn't take in account any number of factors, but not spending the $16 million lead to a savings of just $11 million. Which is still $11 million, but the point being that there are real $$ tax consequences for reducing expenses at a constant level of revenue. One of the only ways it makes business sense to drop expenses below what you can sustain is if you have a lot of previous taxable losses that you can still use to cancel out current income. Which the Brewers' organization may or may not have at this point.