No longer a small Payroll team
by bajablue on Dec 6, 2007 12:20 PM PST
18 comments
Okay, so compared to the Yanks...with a $200 million payroll we still qualify for assisted living, but our payroll is $80 mil. Several teams that made the playoffs last year (see Rockies, etc.) had smaller payroll.
Are we spending wisely? I am afflicted with the fall-in-love condition with our players that last more than a few years. Chavy, Crosby, Scutaro (gone), Ellis, etc. But I think it's time to cut the cord with some of the dudes we run out there each day.
The problem is that we cannot get anything for most of these guys - Kotsay - injury prone, Chavy - injury prone, Crosby - injury prone and suspect upside...so what do we do?
0 recs |
18 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Kotsay, Crosby, Harden...
might need to be in assisted living, but that has nothing to do with payroll...
by Poppy on Dec 6, 2007 12:08 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Just a little adjustment ...
Payroll was really (Grover's insistences not withstanding) a bit under $74 million and closer to $71 that the A's actually paid (after moving Loaiza, Kendall and Bradley) ...
One way or the other, it's close to but a bit below the median ...
by devo on Dec 6, 2007 12:19 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
My insistence?
The A's budgeted $79 million last year, $5 million came from Pittsburgh. I've used the $74 million figure and gotten yelled at and I've used the $79 million figure and gotten yelled at.
So you can kiss my ass.
It would be the nicest thing anyone has done for me on this topic.
by grover on Dec 6, 2007 7:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I never understood the yelling
at you by people.
So, the figures aren't exactly precise. Unless someone here has sources with the team, no one's numbers here are going to be exactly precise.
by rfloh on Dec 8, 2007 1:30 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
WHO'S YELLING??????
by Nico on Dec 8, 2007 10:09 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm just giving grover shit ...
it's a thing we do ... he knows I've got nothing but love ...
by devo on Dec 8, 2007 12:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think the comparison is kinda misleading...
...in the sense that I believe the Rockies were a fluke.
But, in a general sense, yes, payroll can not be managed wisely, and that's something the A's need to take a look at. I think they started to last year by dumping some of the dead weight that they knew were taking them nowhere immediately.
by UncleLeo on Dec 6, 2007 2:17 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
This is the NL, afterall. The Marlins could still
come out of that league.
by theblackpearl on Dec 6, 2007 3:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It's one of the most misunderstood things...
in baseball right now.
People talk about parity, and how the Diamondbacks or Rockies could make the playoffs, but those teams are playing an entirely different game practically.
There is no parity in the AL; there's plenty of parity in the NL. The NL parity is more a function of no financial heavyweight and lot of unimaginative GMs than anything else.
My point is, referencing the A's payroll and saying "hey, teams made the playoffs with less" - sure, but they were playing a different game.
The only financial heavyweight in the NL West (Dodgers) is one of the worst-run franchises in baseball. Thus, their division is winnable on a $60M payroll. The same is not true of life anywhere in the AL, where the wild card is purchased for $120M or more and each division is better than any of the NL divisions.
by notsellingjeans on Dec 6, 2007 3:05 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Cleveland ...
the exception that proves the rule, so to speak (which always struck me as one of the dumbest sayings around ...)
by devo on Dec 6, 2007 3:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think "prove" in that phrase
means "test" (as in "proofing" yeast before adding it to flour), so the idiom actually does make some sense.
by Nick on Dec 6, 2007 5:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The proof is in the pudding -
or was, until I ate the pudding.
Hey wait - did you just call me an idiom?
by Nico on Dec 6, 2007 7:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Cleveland had a $61 million payroll
in 2007, while Detroit's was $95 million, according to USA Today
Detroit was widely picked to finish ahead of Cleveland, and they might well have were it not for some significant injuries.
by OaklandSi on Dec 6, 2007 7:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
of the six
divs in mlb, we have the great odds every year of making it game 163 in our cozy little 4 teamer / even with bos/nyy kinda killing the wild card.
by oakath on Dec 6, 2007 6:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I believe one thing people
are missing here is that teams like the Indians and Rockies sucked for quite a few years before their current success.
It's easier to get good players if you're drafting high every freaking year.
by rfloh on Dec 8, 2007 1:33 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
re Cle, not true ...
obviously, it is true about the Rockies.
The Indians have only had one season since 1992 that they weren't at least within shouting distance of .500.
And while they have generally drafted higher than the A's, it hasn't been by that much.
Highest Draft Pick:
2007 13
2006 39
2005 14
2004 6
2003 11
2002 22
2001 17
2000 26
1999 74
1998 20
1997 28
1996 28
1995 23
by devo on Dec 8, 2007 1:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
One point
Average payroll in MLB in 2007 was about $83.25M.
Average payroll for ALs teams in 2007 was about $92.8M.
Average payroll for NL teams in 2007 was about 73.7M.
by rfloh on Dec 8, 2007 1:41 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
