Tom Brennan - MAJOR LEAGUE TEAM SALARIES
Budgets can be such a restrictive thing.
Mets fans know that all too well.
So I decided to take a look at major league salaries by team over the past 10 years, for a few teams.
How did they spend, what did they do?
Where did I look? http://www.stevetheump.com/Payrolls.htm
My overview below is kind of high level - maybe you as the reader would like to take this analysis further. For instance, which teams spent less than the Mets but were more successful over time.
And of course this article is Mets-centric. After all, this is MACKS METS, baby!
METS:
Scrooge's favorite team. And Scott Boras' least favorite big market team. Opening day payrolls between 2012 and 2017 were low-to-middling. 2017 - 12th; 2016 - 19th; 2015 - 21st; 2014 - 22nd; 2013 - 23rd; 2012 - 14th. So, for those 6 years, an average of # 19 - clearly not a big market number.
The prior 4 years? 2011 - 7th; 2010 - 5th; 2009 - 2nd; 2008 - 2nd. An average of 4th!!! But for 2008-10, when the Mets averaged 3rd highest in spending, they spent on average about $70 million less than the Yanks, or about 2/3 of the Yanks' spend, so the difference dollar-wise between 3rd and 1st in spending was huge.
The Mets in the 2008-10 window had Reyes and Wright in their prime and were attempting to try to somewhat keep up with the high-spending Yanks, but without success. After that, we had the Alderson-administered budget squeeze, which continues to this day.
Interestingly, the 19th highest opening day payroll was characterized by several high salaries and lots of low ones - in fact, the Mets' median opening day salary as per Stevetheump.com was just $670,000, just barely above the major league minimum, and this coming just after a post-season revenue flood in 2015. Pretty telling as to a low budget operation.
YANKEES:
The Bombers were #1 in spending every year, except for the past few when the Dodgers surpassed them. The Bombers' spending brings them players like the following, whom Mets fans can only look upon with envy.
Giancarlo Stanton
The Yanks have had far more success than the Mets over the past 10 years, despite the Mets' improbable trip to the World Series in 2015, and of course have crushed the Mets attendance-wise.
DODGERS:
LAD had its own ownership issues several years ago and averaged just 10th in opening day salary levels in 2008 through 2011. After that, with new ownership flush with funds and a great Clayton Kershaw to anchor the team, they have either been 2nd or 1st in opening day salary over the past 6 years, and quite successful.
RED SOX:
With not quite the same deep pockets as the Yankees, the Red Sox salary-wise have been highly consistent: 2nd highest once, 3rd highest 6 times, and 4th highest 3 times....and with smart spending and good prospect development, they have contended annually.
PHILLIES:
Having been one of the top teams until recent years, when Howard, Utley, and Rollins faded along with Roy Halladay, may he rest in peace. The Phils, who tortured the Mets several seasons, in fact were in the top 3 until 2014 in opening day salary, but while in rebuild mode, have cut spending as they look to reload.
CONCLUSION:
Draw your own conclusions: mine is that big market teams spend big when they can make their team a superior contending team - except when it comes to the Mets.
Were the Mets to shock the baseball world by signing Moustakas, Reed, and Bruce (or Hosmer), for instance, its team salary would move into the top quartile, but so (most likely) would its win total and chances for post season play.
It all depends on whether the Mets are willing to:
Budge the budget!
17 comments:
Welcome to 2018, and hey, buddy, can you spare a dime?
Tom -
Nice first post of the year.
The numbers speak for themselves. Big market teams control their own destiny. And when they don't spend, like the old Dodgers and current Mets do, they don't win.
Still, the Wilpons run this now as a profitable branch of their conglomerate. I don't expect much more this off season.
Mack, I have my toes crossed - crossing my fingers didn't work.
Noting that Flores & Mous have almost the exact same production per AB (Wilmer has half the Ab's of Mous), we'd be better off with Mous/Cabrera (3B/2B) than Carbrera/Flores because we would be SPENDING more?
If you must lock yourself in the bathroom with your Yankee centerfold, don't write your column in that aroused state.
It's not just that they don't spend, but they don't spend wisely. The whole David Wright fiasco right in the heart of the Madoff mess set the franchise back 5 years (and that's before his myriad of injuries). They bid against themselves twice for Cespedes. Then they ink second tier players like Granderson and Bay when better options existed.
I'm going to try and make a turn in my writing come Thursday.
It's time to embrace what we have and get behind them for what may be a difficult season to play.
Funny thing is I was watching Mets yearbook ‘82 yesterday & it really seems like ownership back then at least tried to put a competitive product on the field even though they fell flat . Maybe it’s becausr of Cashen’s guidance or Nelson’s urging as co-owner .. who knows for sure
Hobie, always helps to have a copy of Yankhouse magazine handy!
If you polled all 30 teams and asked would they be much better with Moustakas playing or Flores playing, I think you'd get almost all 30 signing on to "much better." And I like Wilmer, and like to overlook his fielding and base running flaws.
If we consistently spent like Boston, we'd draw more paying fans and win a lot more games over time. That's my take.
The Wilpons invested big with Bernie and got burned big. They also have had some expensive players crater. They are now risk-averse, and spend that way.
Putting your money under your mattress can feel safe, but it is false safety.
I think I understand it now:
The Mets don't spend enough, but they overspend on the wrong guys.
The Wilpons only want the team to add to their business profits, and don't realize that full seats earn more than empty ones.
We're all Mets fans here, but we (at least most of us)don't like anything they do.
Am I missing anything?
I think I understand it now:
The Mets don't spend enough, but overpay for worthless talent like Wright and Cespedes at their primes.
Fred has been a very smart, successful businessman (except for his Madoff blunder) and wants the team only as a way to increase the profit line for his other holdings, but is too dumb to realize that empty seats make less profit than filled ones.
We want them to spend more, but we should boycott the games so that they have less to spend.
Am I missing anything? 🙃
Yes. They continue to renew the deals of people who contribute to the overall losing instead of demanding better. At least they made a change with Callaway. Baby steps in a new (and hopefully right) direction...
Did I miss something?
When did Cespedes become worthless?
I am with Mack on Cespedes. I am hoping he breaks the team's season HR record, which would bring a ton of RBIs with it.
Mack--Reese named Yo and David as players we "bid against ourselves" for, or just overpaid.
Salaries are relative, actually. If you draft well, you have a large part of your roster on original (cheap) contracts. As successful players progress, they get into second generation contracts and that is where things skyrocket.
Look at the Astros......they had a payroll last year of approximately 124,000,000 million (before taking Verlander's obscene contract in trade), which was good for 18th in the league (below the Mets). What do you think will happen to that figure in the next few years when their young talent wants to get paid?
Generally speaking, "you get what you pay for", but it helps to spend your money wisely, too.
Have you ever read Klapisch's book about the '93 team?
Post a Comment