Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Sports Forum

Sports Forum

  1. 11 May '08 21:57 / 1 edit
    I am sure most of you are aware of the discrepency in MLB regarding payrolls. What we have today are the "haves" and "have nots" in terms of revenue and money spent on players. I recently did some analysis of the situation and here is what I came up with.

    I found the payrolls for the year 2005 per team as well as the winning percentage per team during the same year. The highest payroll of course was the Yankees with a payroll a little over $182 million. The closest to them were the Red Sox at $116 million. Then the lowest of the low were the Tampa Bay Devil Rays sitting at a whopping $29 million!! This gives you some gauge as to the lack of meaningful competition in MLB.

    Now for the winning percentages for the year 2005. Out of 6 teams who spent $90 million and over the winning percentages were all over 500 except the Cubs.......but then again, these are the Cubs we are talking about. Then from the $90 million mark and down we have 14 teams under 500 and 9 teams over 500.

    From this we can see that in order to buy a winning season all one has to do is spend over $90 million....that is of course unless you are the Cubs. Here are the elite teams and their payrolls above the $90 million mark.

    1. Yankees $182
    2. Boston $116
    3. Mets $100 million
    4. LA Angels $101 million
    5. Phillies $93 million
    6. Cubs $91 million :'(
  2. 11 May '08 22:06
    Shouldnt the Knicks be somewhere up there?
  3. 12 May '08 02:36
    I think it laughable that fans of teams that refuse to invest in their team whine that they aren't good.
  4. 12 May '08 02:43
    Originally posted by leepound
    I think it laughable that fans of teams that refuse to invest in their team whine that they aren't good.
    Laughable? Well I guess you could say my team is laughable. My team is the Reds and today they could not even send players up to the plate in the right batting order and were called out as a result.

    Now getting back to the accusation that fans don't invest in their respective teams, how are they to compete, even with the full support of the fans around that area with the likes of the Yankees? And by the way, the Reds recently built a brand spanking new state of the art stadium all thanks to their local tax payers.
  5. 12 May '08 02:50
    First of all there are alot of teams in much worse situations than the Reds. (1) the Reds have a lot of talented yound pitchers. (2) The NL Central is the best division to be in because none of those teams are big market teams and you could possibly be a team that makes the palyoffs regularly (3) The reds had no plan. They spent a ton of money on Griffey and really did not get anyone else. They were more stupid than cheap. (4) Tax payers should never finance a stadium. If million/ billionare owners want a new stadium then they should pay for it and make profits but citizens shouldn't pay
  6. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    12 May '08 06:13 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    I am sure most of you are aware of the discrepency in MLB regarding payrolls. What we have today are the "haves" and "have nots" in terms of revenue and money spent on players. I recently did some analysis of the situation and here is what I came up with.

    I found the payrolls for the year 2005 per team as well as the winning percentage per team during th ...[text shortened]... $100 million
    4. LA Angels $101 million
    5. Phillies $93 million
    6. Cubs $91 million :'(
    Gee, where are the 2005 Champion Chicago White Sox on that list? Didn't they rate as an "elite team"?
  7. 12 May '08 11:41 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Gee, where are the 2005 Champion Chicago White Sox on that list? Didn't they rate as an "elite team"?
    I am not talking about who wins periodic world championships, rather, I am talking about teams that buy a winning season consistantly. There is a difference.
  8. 12 May '08 11:47 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by leepound
    The NL Central is the best division to be in because none of those teams are big market teams and you could possibly be a team that makes the palyoffs regularly
    Well lets see, here are the teams in the NC and their respecitve payrolls.

    Cubs $91 million
    Cardinals $75 million
    Houston $74 million
    Reds $43 million
    Pirates $32 million
    Brewers $27 million

    Now tell me, if you were a Brewers fan, is being in the same division with the Cubs, Cardinals, and Houston fair? After all, these teams have over three times the payroll than you do.
  9. 12 May '08 11:51
    Originally posted by leepound
    First of all there are alot of teams in much worse situations than the Reds. (1) the Reds have a lot of talented yound pitchers. (2) The NL Central is the best division to be in because none of those teams are big market teams and you could possibly be a team that makes the palyoffs regularly (3) The reds had no plan. They spent a ton of money on Griff ...[text shortened]... ners want a new stadium then they should pay for it and make profits but citizens shouldn't pay
    I don't discount the fact that some teams are smarter than others. For example, I think that the Cardinals do a phenomenal job with the payroll that they have. In fact, I would go so far to say that they are the best run team in MLB. If the Yankees were run like the Cardinals, the Yankees would be world champions every single year.

    All I am asking really is, should MLB make some changes? At the top of my mind they could go two ways with this. They could either realign divisions based upon teams with similair payrolls or they could put a salary cap across the board to make things a little more equitable.
  10. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    12 May '08 11:52
    Originally posted by whodey
    I am not talking about who wins world championships, rather, I am talking about teams that buy a winning season. There is a difference.
    You are using selective, cherry picked stats to "prove" an invalid point. Of course, the White Sox had to have a winning season or they wouldn't have been eligible to win a World Championship, would they? And the fact you went back to 2005 is illuminating; I presume the 2006 and 2007 facts didn't support your argument as well.
  11. 12 May '08 11:57
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    You are using selective, cherry picked stats to "prove" an invalid point. Of course, the White Sox had to have a winning season or they wouldn't have been eligible to win a World Championship, would they? And the fact you went back to 2005 is illuminating; I presume the 2006 and 2007 facts didn't support your argument as well.
    The reason I used the 2005 season was that I could not find more recent payrolls on the web. It was suprisingly hard to find the 2005 payrolls. Perhaps you could find a more recent payroll, I would love to see it and do more research. I just assumed that not much had changed since 2005 in terms of how large market and small market teams spend their money.
  12. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    12 May '08 11:58
    Originally posted by whodey
    Well lets see, here are the teams in the NC and their respecitve payrolls.

    Cubs $91 million
    Cardinals $75 million
    Houston $74 million
    Reds $43 million
    Pirates $32 million
    Brewers $27 million

    Now tell me, if you were a Brewers fan, is being in the same division with the Cubs, Cardinals, and Houston fair? After all, these teams have over three times the payroll than you do.
    Do you actually follow baseball at all? The Brewers were among the pre-season favorites in the NL Central. In 2007, they led the division for most of the year and wound up with a winning record at 83-79, only two games behind the Cubs. The Cardinals and Astros wound up with losing records. So much for the divisional payrolls leading to "unfair" results.
  13. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    12 May '08 12:12 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by whodey
    The reason I used the 2005 season was that I could not find more recent payrolls on the web. It was suprisingly hard to find the 2005 payrolls. Perhaps you could find a more recent payroll, I would love to see it and do more research. I just assumed that not much had changed since 2005 in terms of how large market and small market teams spend their money.
    Here's the 2007 list: http://rubechat.kfan.com/forums/thread/1667648.aspx

    For the overwhelming effect of payroll on the standings, check out the NL West. The two highest payrolls, the Dodgers and Giants who spent $108 m and $90 mil respectively, finished 4th and 5th; the Rockies and Diamondbacks spent about half of what the Dodgers did and tied for first place in the division (the Rockies wound up going to the World Series). http://shrpsports.com/mlb/stand/2007finaldiv.htm

    In fact the team with the highest payroll finished first in only two of the divisions. And only 4 of the top eight payroll teams even made it to the playoffs - 3 of the bottom 8 in payroll made the playoffs.
  14. 12 May '08 12:24 / 4 edits
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Do you actually follow baseball at all? The Brewers were among the pre-season favorites in the NL Central. In 2007, they led the division for most of the year and wound up with a winning record at 83-79, only two games behind the Cubs. The Cardinals and Astros wound up with losing records. So much for the divisional payrolls leading to "unfair" results.
    To be honest I was originally focused at the magical $90 million mark. Lets take a look at the records of these elite teams, shall we?

    2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
    Yankees 623 586 599 580
    Boston 623 586 599 593
    Angels 586 549 580 568
    Mets 438 512 599 580
    Phillies 531 543 525 531
    Cubs 549 488 407 525

    So here we see that the winning percentages for the elite teams since 2004 have produced only 3 years of loosing baseball and if it were not for the happless Cubs it would only be one year with the Mets. So out of 20 oppurtunities we have 3 loosing seasons. Pretty convincing arguement if you ask me. However, what of the NC?


    2004 2005 2006 2007
    Cubs 549 488 407 525
    Cards 648 617 516 481
    Astros 568 549 506 451
    Reds 469 451 494 444
    Pirates 447 414 414 420
    Brewers 416 500 463 512

    So looking at the cream of the crop, which are the Cubs, Cards, and Astros, we see 8 winning seasons out of 4 loosing seasons. Now looking at the have nots we see 10 loosing seasons and 2 winning seasons. I have no problem saying that both the Cardinals and Brewers outpreformed the rest of the pack nor do I have a problem saying that the Reds and Cubs have underperformed. I am merely looking at the statistical facts here in regards to competitiveness. Give these other teams a more realistic chance of winning a division. Is it impossible for them to win their division as it stands now? No. Is it highly unlikely? Well according to these statistics it is if not near impossible.
  15. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    12 May '08 12:28
    Originally posted by whodey
    To be honest I was originally focused at the magical $90 million mark. Lets take a look at the records of these elite teams, shall we?

    2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
    Yankees 623 586 599 580
    Boston 623 586 599 593
    Angels 586 549 580 568
    Mets 438 512 599 580
    Phillies 531 543 525 ...[text shortened]... t of the pack. I am merely looking at the statistical facts here in regards to competitiveness.
    Again, you are cherry picking. Last year alone, 4 teams with payrolls higher than $90 million had losing seasons: The White Sox, Orioles, Cardinals and Giants. And I suggest you read the title you gave the thread: your claim was that a certain amount of money could "buy" a team into the playoffs, not merely to a winning record. You are goalpost shifting when the actual facts show your original premise is false.