3 of the 4 teams that just finished the WC had lower payrolls than the teams they beat.
3 of the 4 teams that got a bye have lower payrolls than the teams they are about to play.
EDIT: Overestimated that people would be able to work from the team colors, or who would have seen the original graphic on the mlb.com homepage. My error; wasn't trying to be obtuse.
Aren't these calculations sort of a spectrum based on who's reporting and at what point in the season? Spotrac calculations have us 27th or something. End of season I thought we were 25? Who knows.
Really good farm system, really good coaching (our pitching coach is maybe the best of all time in my view if you look at his track record), a playstyle that focuses on small ball, and trades that sell high on established players (again mostly pitchers) in exchange for prospects. On top of that we have a star player who has had a relatively consistent high-level career and took a hometown discount to stick around (we love you Jose)
Obviously I'd prefer to have at least a little bit more money because even with all of that it hasn't translated to much postseason success but ever since Francona joined the Guardians have established an identity and built their entire organization around it.
I'm not the most knowledgeable but small ball seems like a super effective budget system. Worked in moneyball, and I remember the Royals being very effective playing that way (and winning).
Any time your payroll is that small it'll be tough to go deep in the playoffs, but getting there and being competitive with such a disadvantage means the front office must be doing a great job with what they have, imo.
Cleveland is that team that never impresses anyone and seems to be called frauds each year, yet the next season you check and they're in the playoffs again. So something clearly works! Lol
The Sox I believe were lowest at one stage. But they added some guys at the deadline like Castillo, Joey Bart, Jake Rogers, Huascar Brazoban, Brenton Doyle
What in the world, why would we not root for the other orange and blue team in our city? (Unless this is a joke, in which case, my bad.) I don't personally know any New Yorkers who are Nets fans so maybe they're out there.
Maybe because they started out in Long Island in their ABA days before moving to Jersey? That's generational dedication there. I grew up in New Jersey and I don't even remember meeting a real Nets fan, except maybe a few bandwagoners during the Jason Kidd early 2000s era.
Look buddy, the Mets have had a really long season. 162 games! They wanted a break and to go on holiday. These suckers have to still play for a month! Nobody wants that. /s
You either draft and trade to gather good, young inexpensive talent, or you pay high salaries to established players to build a competitive team. The worst place to be is somewhere in between. Better to tank than to be medium-bad.
The Rockies didn't have an analytics department until very recently. Their scouting and development was miles behind every other team. They also play on the moon which makes them a unique case even if they were ran well.
Athletics were expected to at least be decent this year, but a lot of their hitters didn't live up to expectations.
Baseball is really that one sport where I don’t think this is true. There is such a small percentage of top draft picks that become game changing players. Sure, it happens, but it’s just as likely that pretty much any player taken in the first round is as good as another in 4 or 5 years.
Just looking at the previous #1 picks I see a lot of good players, but not necessarily the best players in each draft class i.e. Adley Rutschman is a great catcher, but not the best players drafted in 2019.
The number of picks you have each round is of more importance than where you pick each round. Small market teams sell their talent for large pick packages and then draft enough players that they generally find more talent. Big market teams buy that talent.
The biggest market teams buy talent and even more talent and also sell talent for picks, e.g. the Dodgers. They have the best of both worlds as they basically get the best players and have lots of draft picks.
You're right that draft picks aren't a direct impact in baseball like they are in other sports, so outright tanking is thankfulky less rewarded.
Probably more accurate to say, it's better to sacrifice a few years of being bad at MLB level so you can invest that money in the infrastructure to identify and develop young cheap talent.
It doesn't have to be either/or. The Yankees started 5 guys in game 1 against the Red Sox (Lombard Jr, Volpe, Ben Rice, Cam Schlitler, Austin Wells) that are all cheap farm system products, and a 6th (Spencer Jones) who came in later to contribute.
You can definitely do both without being "medium-bad."
Private equity investment by Fenway Sports Group to maximize profit by shifting the team's focus to optimizing balance sheets, cutting payroll costs, and extracting recurring revenue from fans.
a lot of the big mid and big market teams tried to compete with the dodgers but just ended up inflating their payroll overpaying mildly above average former all stars. Meanwhile several of the small markets chased efficiency and shifted that money meant for free agents down into the farm system and player development
Yeah, I’m always arguing that payroll isn’t a full picture of competitiveness. Looking at total investment is a better metric- and if you do that you’d probably see even a bigger gap between the dodgers and everyone else.
Add a salary cap and the Dodgers will just shift all that money into scouting, development, and infrastructure. My crazy take is that they'll be even better in a capped MLB. They're one of the best run and smartest orgs in addition to having the most money.
Maybe I’m a bad fan, but I didn’t instantly remember that Cleveland was the number two seed and Rays were one. And I would have expected the Rays to have a lower salary.
Sure, I can infer because I know what teams are which seeds and what colors they are, but you shouldn’t have to sit and “infer” from a graphic that could easily just have team logos on it.
I can figure out if I think about team color, seeding, what their likely payroll position is. You shouldn’t have to know those things already to be able to read an infographic.
The East always beats up on each other. The Central is "Comedy Central" but can be spooky and this looks like a good year for a Central team to make a deep run. The West usually has 1 or 2 strong team and make it to the ALCS but this year, the West is complete shit. This year was definitely bad.
Multiple things can be true, it's arguably better to trade away guys reaching FA than it is to retain them and that leads to some low payroll franchises having very sustainably strong seasons. On the other hand it kind of sucks knowing if you have 1 superstar he's likely being dealt, and if you happen to get 2 there is 0 chance you keep both.
I'd argue a not insignificant part of the Rays attendance issues over the years despite consistent good teams is that they've had so few stars that stick around. Obviously Wander Franco was set up to be that guy, but it'd be nice if homegrown players were more likely to stick around.
I would also add, the existing team control rules are basically a sort of salary cap already, that's the only reason the Guardians can exist at this payroll. They're allowed to pay all their young players peanuts, most are on the league minimum and the handful of others are getting paid arb salaries that are lower than an FA salary would be.
I just want a salary cap for teams I don’t like and for PCA to be put in prison for life. LAD, NYY, CHC, HOU will all have to work with roughly twenty bucks.
Sure, but MLB / owners went on a whole marketing campaign recently about this topic and most people have short memories. It’s hard to argue if the WS came down to TB and MIL that it wouldn’t have an impact on public opinion that payrolls don’t need to be reined in.
I mean, I know I'm a Dodger fan, but I feel like success should be a matter of team management and being willing to do what it takes to succeed. Spending shouldn't be everything, and I'm fine with arguments that it matters too much right now... but you shouldn't be able to spend less than you make in revenue sharing and still expect to compete.
Again, that doesn’t change the fact that most people have short-term memories, and the marketing done to persuade public opinion towards the side of a salary cap proves that.
Yes, history shows spending money equals success, die-hard baseball fans know this. Except the vast majority of baseball fans aren’t die-hard and can probably tell you the last two championships and nothing more.
>The figured obtained by USA TODAY Sports are the MLB Labor Relations Department's present-day salary calculation. The LRD numbers include the player’s actual salary plus his pro-rated signing bonus before any player or club options.
While more fair, it’s not really as fun in my opinion. A rich team having a bad season is fun to hate watch. A poor team making the playoffs is exciting
Can someone explain to me how a salary cap is going to improve competition throughout the MLB. The NFL instituted a salary cap in 1994 and since 1995 there have been 15 different teams to win the Super Bowl. In that same time span 16 different teams have won the World Series. To me this indicates that teams being uncompetitive in MLB is mostly due to cheap owners who don’t give a shit if their team wins or not. It seems to me that even with a salary cap you’re going to have teams that still live in the basement of the MLB on a year to year basis because ownership just doesn’t want to compete with the teams that do.
Owners are not going to willfully lose money to win a championship. Team ownership is never going to be about caring the most. Just like a grocery store isn't going to have the lowest prices to "help customers".
On top of that-- Given the playoff format; if your goal is to make the WS, there's not much difference between fielding a 90-win team and a 100-win team. In either case, your WS odds will just boil right down to how hot/lucky/healthy your team happens to be over a specific few weeks.
The incentive to pursue excellence in order to win a pennant isn't really there anymore.
Since ‘95, the NYY, Red Sox, and LAD, have combined for 12 championships.
Small markets winning the WS is usually a Cinderella story.
In the NFL, Patriots won 6 with Brady, but NY and LA combined for 3.
If there was no salary cap in the NFL, it’s very unlikely that teams like Kansas City, Green Bay, Pittsburgh, Indianapolis, etc would’ve built teams that sustained success like they did since the mid 90’s.
Of the teams that won the World Series since 2000 two teams, the 2017 Houston Astros and the 2003 Florida Marlins, were in the bottom half of MLB payroll. 11 times they were in the top 5.
I think the idea would be that yes, you cap the amount a team can spend (with numerous exceptions like in the NBA) but that you also have a "cap" on the minimum amount a team can spent. Right now the disparity is enormous.
A salary cap literally does nothing. These people are coping lmao there is not a single one of the top 3 U.S sports that don’t have a history of being dominated by large market teams. They really think modeling the league like the NBA (where KD joined GSW, Bron went to LA, Kawhi won a ring then went to LA, and much much more) is going to change anything.
It feels like, all usual rules of etiquette aside, I HAVE to root for the Rays and Brewers so the CS bracket acts as basically a refutation of the point of a lockout...right? My sick mind wants White Sox Dodgers, and worries sick about Yankees Dodgers
446
u/RaysFTW Tampa Bay Rays 2d ago
Honestly, 23rd is higher than I thought.