Interesting take on MLB "salary/payroll cap"/Yankees

[caulfield12]

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/...igned_teixeira/

 

Interesting article. Does anyone know where there's a chart that shows the percentage of payroll versus revenues for all MLB teams in 2006/07/08?

I'm always thanking my lucky stars that Carl Pohlad runs the Twins more like Loria and less like Reinsdorf or we'd be in even more trouble. Sometimes it works (taking Mauer instead of Prior), other times, not so much (the long list of bargain-basesment free agents that have flopped).

 

 

 

 

[Dick Allen]

Everyone who hates the Yankees for spending all this money, saying its bad for the game, would think the owner of their favorite team was the greatest if he shelled out this type of cash for players.

 

The Yankees had $85 million coming off the books and are moving into a new stadium. What did everyone think was going to happen? The only thing that shocks me is they don't appear like they will add Manny as well.

Edited December 30, 2008 by Dick Allen

[TheChrisSamsa]

http://umpbump.com/press/2008/12/26/salary...are-a-bad-idea/ another interesting take.

[caulfield12]

Shouldn’t the Nationals fans (all four of you) be angry that their team had a 2007 payroll of $37MM when the organization made $43.7MM? To me, that’s far more offensive than what the Steinbrenners are doing.

 

My note, Lerner's $3.5 billion makes him the second richest individual owner in the game.

 

The Nationals, Marlins, Mets, and the White Sox all made over $30MM a piece. So all that will end up happening in a luxury tax scenario is a redistribution of wealth among the owners - from ones willing to spend to the ones that don’t. This doesn’t sound like it’s in the best interests of baseball.

 

 

[southsider2k5]

One minute thing I would like to point out in regards to the percentages of revenue being spent on payroll... Baseball has by far the longest schedule of all professional sports. This means more travel, more stadium personel, more office staff, etc. Baseball teams pay more people and they pay them more often than any other professional sport and it is by a factor of 2 times when compared to hockey and basketball, and by a factor of 10 when it comes to football. It makes sense to me that baseball would have the lowest percentage of revenues going to players, while football had the highest. Football also has the smallest schedule, which means they also need the smallest support staff.

[caulfield12]

Are you sure about that? When you say "support staff," do you mean specialized coaches (like position coaches) and trainers?

 

I would think the average NFL coaching staff soaks up a much bigger percentage of overall payroll than a baseball one...although maybe the average baseball manager's salary is 1.25-1.5X as much? Then again, there are quite a few very highly paid NFL head coaches, and their coaching staffs are also tremendously costly, because their contracts give them a lot of freedom to bring in their own people and pay them top dollar.

 

As far as concessions, parking, and the day-to-day overhead, like police/security, ushers, etc., obviously much much higher for MLB teams....who don't generate much revenue for many of their weekday and non-summer games.

[southsider2k5]

Are you sure about that? When you say "support staff," do you mean specialized coaches (like position coaches) and trainers?

 

I would think the average NFL coaching staff soaks up a much bigger percentage of overall payroll than a baseball one...although maybe the average baseball manager's salary is 1.25-1.5X as much? Then again, there are quite a few very highly paid NFL head coaches, and their coaching staffs are also tremendously costly, because their contracts give them a lot of freedom to bring in their own people and pay them top dollar.

 

As far as concessions, parking, and the day-to-day overhead, like police/security, ushers, etc., obviously much much higher for MLB teams....who don't generate much revenue for many of their weekday and non-summer games.

 

The entire ball of wax. I am talking about all of the people it takes to put on a baseball game versus a football game, hockey game, etc. Then you also get into the minor league system which is unmatched in professional sports. Even hockey's minor's are much more loosely aligned, with basketball and football basically non-existant.

[lostfan]

Everyone who hates the Yankees for spending all this money, saying its bad for the game, would think the owner of their favorite team was the greatest if he shelled out this type of cash for players.

 

The Yankees had $85 million coming off the books and are moving into a new stadium. What did everyone think was going to happen? The only thing that shocks me is they don't appear like they will add Manny as well.

It's not the Yankees I have a problem with, they're just doing it because they can. It's MLB's salary system as a whole, it's so top-heavy that it's just ridiculous, and the revenue sharing system sucks. There's no cap, and there's no floor, no real rhyme or reason to anything, it's just a collection of 30 individual teams all doing their own thing. Or at least it appears that way in contrast to the NFL or the NBA.

[southsider2k5]

It's not the Yankees I have a problem with, they're just doing it because they can. It's MLB's salary system as a whole, it's so top-heavy that it's just ridiculous, and the revenue sharing system sucks. There's no cap, and there's no floor, no real rhyme or reason to anything, it's just a collection of 30 individual teams all doing their own thing. Or at least it appears that way in contrast to the NFL or the NBA.

 

The lack of a floor with the luxury tax is the biggest problem I have with our existing system. If you are taking in money from the system, you should be obligated to spend it if you are turning a profit.

[lostfan]

The lack of a floor with the luxury tax is the biggest problem I have with our existing system. If you are taking in money from the system, you should be obligated to spend it if you are turning a profit.

I wouldn't say a team should be obligated to spend its profits on operational costs since it's a business and all, but I don't think it's unreasonable to say a team has to spend a certain amount, just to maintain the integrity of the system. If you're receiving money from revenue sharing, I think it's fair to say that money should be spent (and it very well may be for most teams, I don't have access to their books or anything obviously).

[southsider2k5]

I wouldn't say a team should be obligated to spend its profits on operational costs since it's a business and all, but I don't think it's unreasonable to say a team has to spend a certain amount, just to maintain the integrity of the system. If you're receiving money from revenue sharing, I think it's fair to say that money should be spent (and it very well may be for most teams, I don't have access to their books or anything obviously).

 

For a team that is receiving money from the luxury tax revenues, there can be rules made up on how the money is spent, after all the team is making a choice to participate in the program. If you don't want to be forced to spend that money, don't participate in the program. Teams should not get to receive these funds and sit on them, as long as their teams are making a profit. If the team was in the hole and needed the money to survive, it would be different.

[lostfan]

For a team that is receiving money from the luxury tax revenues, there can be rules made up on how the money is spent, after all the team is making a choice to participate in the program. If you don't want to be forced to spend that money, don't participate in the program. Teams should not get to receive these funds and sit on them, as long as their teams are making a profit. If the team was in the hole and needed the money to survive, it would be different.

Well if they were in a small market or didn't earn a lot of revenue for whatever reason, and had to spend all the revenue sharing cash, they probably wouldn't be making much of a profit, which is what I was getting at. I'd say the rules should dictate the team should (at least attempt to) spend the sum of whatever their normal budget would dictate, plus the revenue cash, so they are still allowed to turn a profit like the other teams. How that happens is subjective though.

[caulfield12]

The irony here is that Pohlad and Lerner are two of the richest owners (worth between $3-4 billion) and they run their franchises like middle level managers afraid of losing their Sam's Club middle management golden parachute. David Glass, penurious as any, looks like a free spender compared to those two (although I'll give Lerner credit for okaying a go at Tex, something we might never see out of Pohlad...if it happens, it will be with the new stadium opening for 2010).

[southsider2k5]

Well if they were in a small market or didn't earn a lot of revenue for whatever reason, and had to spend all the revenue sharing cash, they probably wouldn't be making much of a profit, which is what I was getting at. I'd say the rules should dictate the team should (at least attempt to) spend the sum of whatever their normal budget would dictate, plus the revenue cash, so they are still allowed to turn a profit like the other teams. How that happens is subjective though.

 

Low payroll teams like Florida, Tampa, and Kansas City have been on the most profitable lists for years, while collecting a lot of luxury tax money (granted things have recently changed in Tampa, and KC upped their payroll in the last year). They should not have been allowed to stuff that money into their pockets.

[southsider2k5]

The irony here is that Pohlad and Lerner are two of the richest owners (worth between $3-4 billion) and they run their franchises like middle level managers afraid of losing their Sam's Club middle management golden parachute. David Glass, penurious as any, looks like a free spender compared to those two (although I'll give Lerner credit for okaying a go at Tex, something we might never see out of Pohlad...if it happens, it will be with the new stadium opening for 2010).

 

The wealth an owner has doesn't concern me nearly as much as the owners who are refusing to put their profits back into their teams.

[Dick Allen]

The lack of a floor with the luxury tax is the biggest problem I have with our existing system. If you are taking in money from the system, you should be obligated to spend it if you are turning a profit.

The MLBPA will never agree to a floor. They believe if a floor is established, a ceiling would be next.

[caulfield12]

You have to give the Royals some credit in this area...the guy who wrote the article basically wrote them off as hopeless, and I don't think you can go that far. Probably the author doesn't know the many difference/s between Alard Baird and Dayton Moore...Gil Meche and Jose Guillen (agree or disagree with those moves all you like) are just a couple of signs this club is going into a more competitive direction, not to mention the alleged pursuit/s of Furcal (moving Aviles to 2B permanently) and their name being mentioned much more prominently than the White Sox this offseason. I'd say they are even more free-spending than the Twins even, at this point.

[maggliopipe]

What gets me in articles like this is they focus on the fact that the Yankees haven't won a championship since 2000 and suggest that despite their super high payroll, the playing field is even because we've had a laundry list of other teams win it all since them. What their payroll buys them is hope from the first day of spring training and basically (with the exception of this past season) an automatic ticket to the postseason.. Pirates fans sure as hell know they have no chance of winning it all on Feb 9th. Ditto Royals fans and all the fans of other thrifty organizations. To suggest that their payroll gives them no advantage by pointing out they haven't won since 2000 is ridiculous.

[lostfan]

Low payroll teams like Florida, Tampa, and Kansas City have been on the most profitable lists for years, while collecting a lot of luxury tax money (granted things have recently changed in Tampa, and KC upped their payroll in the last year). They should not have been allowed to stuff that money into their pockets.

We're not disagreeing. I want them to spend their money/have a salary floor, too.

[caulfield12]

What gets me in articles like this is they focus on the fact that the Yankees haven't won a championship since 2000 and suggest that despite their super high payroll, the playing field is even because we've had a laundry list of other teams win it all since them. What their payroll buys them is hope from the first day of spring training and basically (with the exception of this past season) an automatic ticket to the postseason.. Pirates fans sure as hell know they have no chance of winning it all on Feb 9th. Ditto Royals fans and all the fans of other thrifty organizations. To suggest that their payroll gives them no advantage by pointing out they haven't won since 2000 is ridiculous.

 

 

Well, I guess the point is that the Yankees were much better off as a team when they had complementary/role players and weren't comprised solely of superstars. Heck, you can say the same thing for the 2005 White Sox versus the 2006-2008 versions.

 

Spending money guarantees a "chance" to compete but not success, certainly in terms of winning the World Series. Most experts aren't even ready to pick the Yankees over the Rays or Red Sox yet.

 

More and more teams are studying the path which teams like the Twins, A's, Marlins and Rays have taken in terms of developing their own players. The fact is that even the Red Sox have only signed Drew and Dice-K to pretty huge FA deals. They spend generously on their own players, but more and more, they're looking to develop internally, and the results bear that out (despite trading Hanley Ramirez), with 2 championships to none for the Yankees since 2001.

 

Or look at the Cowboys with 13 Pro Bowlers and a huge payroll missing the playoffs. It's all about chemistry, baby (that's for Al Davis). Terrell Owens even made a point to compare the Eagles' locker room and their own, and noted the huge difference in the two organizations, their coaches and their approaches to maximizing their players' potential.

Edited December 30, 2008 by caulfield12

[lostfan]

Well, I guess the point is that the Yankees were much better off as a team when they had complementary/role players and weren't comprised solely of superstars. Heck, you can say the same thing for the 2005 White Sox versus the 2006-2008 versions.

 

Spending money guarantees a "chance" to compete but not success, certainly in terms of winning the World Series. Most experts aren't even ready to pick the Yankees over the Rays or Red Sox yet.

 

More and more teams are studying the path which teams like the Twins, A's, Marlins and Rays have taken in terms of developing their own players. The fact is that even the Red Sox have only signed Drew and Dice-K to pretty huge FA deals. They spend generously on their own players, but more and more, they're looking to develop internally, and the results bear that out (despite trading Hanley Ramirez), with 2 championships to none for the Yankees since 2001.

 

Or like at the Cowboys with 13 Pro Bowlers and a huge payroll missing the playoffs.

Why do you mention the Hanley Ramirez trade like it was a mistake that they wish they could undo? I mean, granted, he's Hanley f***ing Ramirez and probably the best position player in baseball (a strong case is made for someone like Pujols or A-Rod though). But they got (and still have) Josh Beckett out of the deal who basically directly led to a World Series, and Mike Lowell who wasn't exactly chopped liver for them.

[caulfield12]

http://blogs.chron.com/sportsjustice/archi...y_cap_tell.html

 

Another article on the topic du jour...maybe the best one, but with a Houston focus specifically.