southsider2k5 Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/baseball/310...salaries03.html The Yankees' Opening Day payroll declined slightly for the second consecutive season to $195.2 million from $198.7 million last year and a record $205.9 million in 2005. Boston was next at $143.5 million -- and that doesn't include the $51.1 million posting fee the Red Sox paid the Seibu Lions for pitcher Daisuke Matsuzaka. The Yankees' figure also didn't include the $26 million they sent to the Hanshin Tigers for pitcher Kei Igawa. The New York Mets were third at $117.9 million, followed by the Chicago White Sox ($109.7 million), the Angels ($109.3 million), the Los Angeles Dodgers ($108.7 million) and the Mariners ($106.5 million). TOP 10 PAYROLLS Team Payroll Avg. Yankees $195,229,045 $6,732,036 Red Sox 143,526,214 5,125,936 Mets 117,915,819 3,930,527 White Sox 109,680,167 4,218,468 Angels 109,251,333 3,641,711 Dodgers 108,704,524 3,748,432 Mariners 106,516,833 3,945,068 Cubs 99,937,000 3,701,370 Tigers 95,180,369 3,172,679 Orioles 95,107,807 3,396,707 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maggsmaggs Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 I think that includes the total value of Thome and not what we are actually paying him and same for Vaz, so I think the numbers are slighly misleading. While our players make prolly $110 million total, we only pay around $100 million of it. I think, so correct me if I am wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalapse Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 The actual number is about $10M less with when you factor in cash considerations. That would put the Sox at 9th in baseball. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heads22 Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 The Mariners? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Chappas Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 QUOTE(Kalapse @ Apr 3, 2007 -> 11:13 AM) The actual number is about $10M less with when you factor in cash considerations. That would put the Sox at 9th in baseball. Assuming no other teams have cash considerations either positive or negative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsideirish Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 Excuse me, but why are we looking at 2006 MLB payrolls on April 3, 2007? What's the deal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 QUOTE(southsideirish @ Apr 3, 2007 -> 09:26 AM) Excuse me, but why are we looking at 2006 MLB payrolls on April 3, 2007? What's the deal? Because we now know officially who has made each team's 25 man roster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsideirish Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 (edited) QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Apr 3, 2007 -> 11:48 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Because we now know officially who has made each team's 25 man roster. Sorry, I am still confused. Why does the 2006 payroll matter when we are in the 2007 season? Even if we know our 2007 25 man roster, why do we care about the 2006 payroll? Nevermind, someone changed the title to now state 2007. It originally stated 2006 and no where in the article did it mention the year. How did the Cubs payroll only jump 3 million? They had an offseason spending spree and only jumped 3 million? The player in CF is making at least 3 million more than they CF from last year isn't he? Did Pierre make 11 million last year? Thier pitching staff is making a ton more, isn't it? I just don't get it. Edited April 3, 2007 by southsideirish Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milkman delivers Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 QUOTE(Heads22 @ Apr 3, 2007 -> 12:15 PM) The Mariners? Talk about underachieving. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Apr 3, 2007 -> 11:15 AM) I was a little confused as well. All I can think of right now is that Pierre came off the books, and Wood I thought had like a 10 million dollar/per year deal, and he isn't making anywhere close to that this year. However, thats the only two I can really think of that are actually off the books. Rusch couldn't have been making that much, was he? Link. Chicago Cubs 2006 Team Salaries 1. 34- Kerry Wood: $12,000,000 (Pitcher: 6.30, 0-1, 0, 9) 2. 16 - Aramis Ramirez: $11,000,000 (Infielder: .241, 9, 24, 1) 3. 25- Derrek Lee: $9,416,667 (Infielder: .318, 3, 10, 5; on DL since April 19) 4. 31- Greg Maddux: $9,000,000 (Pitcher: 4.28, 5-4, 0, 41) 5. 38- Carlos Zambrano: $6,500,000 (Pitcher: 3.45, 3-2, 0, 79) 6. 9- Juan Pierre: $5,750,000 (Outfielder: .231, 0, 2, 15) 7. 8- Michael Barrett: $4,333,333 (Catcher: .294, 6, 22, 0) 8. 46- Ryan Dempster: $4,333,333 (Pitcher: 3.97, 0-3, 8, 20) 9. 11- Jacque Jones: $4,033,333 (Outfielder: .277, 7, 20, 0) 10. 22- Mark Prior: $3,650,000 (Pitcher – on DL since beginning of season) 11. 47- Scott Eyre: $3,200,000 (Pitcher: 1.46, 0-0, 0, 28) 12. 62- Bob Hory:w $3,000,000 (Pitcher: 2.28, 2-1, 0, 15) 13. 17- Glendon Rusch: $2,750,000 (Pitcher: 7.09, 1-5, 0, 22) 14. 13- Neifi Perez: $2,500,000 (Infielder: .195, 0, 7, 0) 15. 7- Todd Walker: $2,500,000 (Infielder: .299, 2, 22, 0) 16. 15- Jerry Hairston: $2,300,000 (Infielder: .215, 0, 4, 3 ) 17. 48- Scott Williamson: $2,000,000 (Pitcher: 3.10, 2-2, 0, 25) 18. 24- Henry Blanco: $1,500,000 (Catcher: .051, 0, 2, 0) 19. 17- John Mabry: $1,075,000 (Outfielder: .180, 1, 3, 0) 20. Wade Miller: $1,000,000 (Pitcher – on DL since beginning of season) 21. 50- Will Ohman: $610,000 (Pitcher: 6.16, 1-1, 0, 17) 22. Jerome Williams: $380,000 (Pitcher: 7.30, 0-2, 0, 5; sent to minor leagues) 23. 43- Michael Wuertz: $355,000 (Pitcher: 9.82, 0-0, 0, 4) 24. 19- Matt Murton: $337,000 (Outfielder: .277, 3, 19, 2) 25. 5- Ronny Cedeno: $336,000 (Infielder: .279, 1, 13, 5) 26. 4- Freddie Bynum: $327,500 (Outfielder: .225, 2, 5, 3) 27. 45- Sean Marshall: $327,000 (Pitcher: 5.03, 3-3, 0, 38) 28. Angel Pagan: $327,000 (Outfielder: .263, 0, 1, 0; on DL since April 15) 29. 44- Roberto Novoa: (Pitcher: 4.95, 0-0, 0, 15; no information on salary yet) 30. 1- Tony Womack: (Infielder: .263, 0, 3, 0; no information on salary yet) Total @ that point $96,424,499 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalapse Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 Kerry Wood - $ 12M Greg Maddux - $9M Juan Pierre - $5.75M Glendon Rusch - $2.75 Neifi Perez - $2.5M Todd Walker - $2.5M Jerry Hairston - $2.3M Tony Womack - $2M Scott Williamson - $2M Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RME JICO Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 (edited) Cubs 2007 Payroll Lee - $13 Zambrano - $12.4 Soriano - $9 Ramirez - $8 Lilly - $5 Dempster - $5 Marquis - $4.75 Barrett - $4.66 Izturis - $4.15 Jones - $4 Howry - $4 Prior - $3.57 Eyre - $3.5 Floyd - $3 DeRosa - $2.75 Blanco - $1.8 Wood - $1.75 Miller - $1.5 Ward - $1.05 Ohman - 900K Cotts - 825K $94.605 All others 415K and below All data from Cot's Baseball Contracts page. Edited April 3, 2007 by RME JICO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSteve Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 QUOTE(Kalapse @ Apr 3, 2007 -> 02:26 PM) Kerry Wood - $ 12M Greg Maddux - $9M Juan Pierre - $5.75M Glendon Rusch - $2.75 Neifi Perez - $2.5M Todd Walker - $2.5M Jerry Hairston - $2.3M Tony Womack - $2M Scott Williamson - $2M Freddie Bynum - $.3275M Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottyDo Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 That's only 21 players Sorry, that was in response to RME's quote Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 Kerry Wood: $12,000,000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colorado Sox Fan Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 With this payroll, there are no excuses for this team. They need to win this thing. I had no idea it was that high. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawkFan81 Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 Tell that to the Yankees Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank the Tank 35 Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 The Cubs heavily backloaded the contracts they gave out this offseason. They're pretty screwed in a few years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RME JICO Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 QUOTE(ScottyDo @ Apr 3, 2007 -> 03:46 PM) That's only 21 players Sorry, that was in response to RME's quote Yeah, that is why I listed the "other players" making less than 415K since I didn't check who made the roster. If you just add 4 players making around that number, that would be an additional $1.660 for something around $96.225 paid to players, then you have to add the buyouts and other money to get to the exact figure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottyDo Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 QUOTE(RME JICO @ Apr 3, 2007 -> 06:34 PM) Yeah, that is why I listed the "other players" making less than 415K since I didn't check who made the roster. If you just add 4 players making around that number, that would be an additional $1.660 for something around $96.225 paid to players, then you have to add the buyouts and other money to get to the exact figure. gotcha. those jerks, making us look like the yankees! they've got it in for us! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 QUOTE(ScottyDo @ Apr 3, 2007 -> 02:46 PM) That's only 21 players Sorry, that was in response to RME's quote Obviously Wood, Maddux and Pierre are the "big" subtractions. You add in Soriano, Marquis and Lilly, it pretty much cancels that out, but not a huge difference. The big news with the Cubs is their "down the road" allocations for contracts that are going to be dubious, at best. Another reason for the "net balance" might be taking away Prior from the payroll. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.