Kick Runners banner

1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,646 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
<p>Would it actually make any difference in their profitability?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I was looking at last year's payroll and saw the Red Sox paid out $162 million for 89 wins and the Blue Jays paid out $62 million for 85 wins. The Red Sox had a pile of injuries so it may not be entirely fair, but they do play the same schedule and Blue Jays lost 2 probable starters + Roy Halladay went to the Phillies.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Were each of those 4 extra wins worth $25 million in payroll?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>And what would 8 more wins have cost? That would have put them ahead of Division Champion Tampa Bay...who incidentally paid $91 million less than Boston (and $135 million less than the Yankees).</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Apparently...at least last year... payroll doesn't guarantee much of anything.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Cubs $146 million</p>
<p>Mets $132 million</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Giants $97 million</p>
<p> </p>
<p>So do these big spending teams (not just Yankees and Red Sox) spend bags of money in payroll  to make more money in other areas or do they actually think they can spend more and more and more to win more?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>What if the Red Sox decided they wouldn't spend 1 cent more than the league average? Would people stop going to Fenway? Fewer hats in Red Sox Nation? Lower TV ratings?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Would the chant change from "Yankees Suck" to "Yankees are just dumb to spend so much"?</p>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,267 Posts
<p>Whatever the Yankees are doing, it seems to finally be working.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Its probably something to do with me buying them a new stadium.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="font-family:'courier new';">2009: $24.9 MM profit</span><br><span style="font-family:'courier new';">2008: $ 3.7 MM loss</span><br><span style="font-family:'courier new';">2007: $47.3 MM loss</span><br><span style="font-family:'courier new';">2006: $25.2 MM loss</span><br><span style="font-family:'courier new';">2005: $50.0 MM loss</span><br><span style="font-family:'courier new';">2004: $37.1 MM loss</span><br><span style="font-family:'courier new';">2003: $26.3 MM loss</span></p>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,885 Posts
<p>No, payroll doesn't <strong>gaurantee</strong> anything.  But it certainly helps.  Yeah, some teams (like the Cubs and Mets, as you cite) can spend tons of money without winning.  But the Red Sox and Yankees do a pretty good job of spending their money.  The Yankees, with the most money, have made the playoffs in 15 of the last 16 seasons.  The Red Sox, with the next-most money, have made the playoffs in 6 of the last 8.  And the only times either of those teams missed out was when they had a ton of injuries.  So these teams can't gaurantee playoff spots because you can't gaurantee against injuries.  But whenever they stay pretty healthy, these teams make the playoffs.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>And yes, you can make the playoffs (and even win the World Series) with a low payroll.  But it's hard to sustain the success.  A bunch of low payroll teams have made the World Series lately (Giants, Rangers, Rays, Rockies, Astros, White Sox, etc).  But how many of them were still competitive a year or two later? </p>
<p> </p>
<p>The Sox and Yankees have been competitive for a decade or more, and the way they've set themselves up, they'll probably be in the pennant race every year for the next decade or more.  Unless that ol' injury bug really steps up...</p>
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,646 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
<p>That bottom line does look better and maybe you do need to spend money to make money. When you think that their profit for the year is equal to about 3 days payroll for the team it makes you wonder.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Then again the team and the stadium could well be chump change in the Yankee Empire.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I'm most familiar with the Blue Jays and their owners (Rogers Communications) find that the team is useful to provide really cheap programming for their TV networks. Who would have thought that a major league baseball team was cheaper in the long run than producing sitcoms?</p>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,187 Posts
<p>Then everyone would realize the ultimate truth that The Boston Red Sox truly are America's Greatest Baseball Team!! <span><img alt="cool.gif" src="http://files.kickrunners.com/smilies/cool.gif"></span></p>
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,646 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
<br><br><div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>the kenyan</strong> <a href="/forum/thread/71695/what-if-the-yankees-and-red-sox-decided-to-cut-payroll-by-100-million#post_1970434"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style="border-bottom:0px solid;border-left:0px solid;border-top:0px solid;border-right:0px solid;"></a><br><br><p>Then everyone would realize the ultimate truth that The Boston Red Sox truly are America's Greatest Baseball Team!! <span><img alt="cool.gif" src="http://files.kickrunners.com/smilies/cool.gif"></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p><br>
Gee I dunno. Now that a team from one of the minor leagues won the World Series  AND the All-Star game last year, some of those teams, most notably the Phillies, are going to be thinking they could well compete with a lot of big league teams.<span><img alt="blob7.gif" src="http://files.kickrunners.com/smilies/blob7.gif" style="width:31px;height:31px;"></span></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Bob you are absolutely right about spending  huge dollars gives teams a much better probability of being competitive each year. It just makes sense that most mega stars sign long term contracts so if they are good they'll be good for years and if they are not good they will be rich golfers in Florida.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I have gotten a bit away from my initial question. I do wonder if the Yanks would have made a profit of $124.9 million (instead of $24.9 million) if they had cut their payroll by $100 million. </p>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
494 Posts
<p>If the Yankees and Red Sox had to cut payroll I still think the Red Sox would be near the top. Not so sure about the Yankees. They would not be a playoff contender every year, But at least the Red Sox I think would be one of the better teams. That is just my opinion of the management of the two.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Right now until someone proves other wise next year the San Francisco Giants are the greatest team.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Having a huge payroll can be detriment as well as a benefit. I kept hearing how the Yankees had to get someone expensive just keep up with the Red Sox. Why ? They were the team the Red Sox were looking up at the last couple of years. The Yankees are capable of growing good players on their farm, they just generally trade them away for high priced free agents. Two of the Tigers better players were acquired that way (Phil Coke and Austin Jackson). If they could not afford the free agents they might have to stick with their farm talent and may be better in the end.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I am not sure the Red Sox are that much better then last year. They got two very good players (Crawford is very good but overpriced IMHO) this offseason for beaucoupe dollars but they also lost two in Beltre and V-Mart. They will sink or swim based on well their pitching staff holds up.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I keep hearing baseball experts on TV asking if the Phillies high priced rotation is the greatest ever. I argue it's not even the greatest this year. It is last year's Phillies staff plus Cliff Lee. Take all the wins last year's Phillies pitchers had over the Giants in the postseason, then add Cliff Lee and all the wins he had over the Giants in the postseason and what do you get ? No difference. The Giants rotation is better. It also faced better hitters in last year's postseason (Phillies line up is stronger then the Giants).</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Everyone predicted the Red Wing's would crash back to earth when the salary cap was implemented in the NHL. For the most part they have not skipped a beat. They remain one of if not the most successful team in the NHL because their management knows what they are doing. FWIW, the Red Wing's never had the highest salary in the NHL, that distinction belonged the NY Rangers, who did not know what they were doing. Since they built losing teams with their money, no one cared what they were spending.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I think the Yankees and Rangers were saved from themselves by losing out on the 7 year Cliff Lee deal.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>You do need enough payroll to hold a team together though. I think what happened this off season  to Tampa Bay is perfect illustration of what is wrong with the payroll structure when a team that does grow its own just can't afford to keep any of them.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I would like to see a salary cap, but I also want to see a salary floor. And some cities are just not big enough to have teams. And other teams are owned by owners who do not care if they win, it is just an investment, and other owners are just cheap and use "small market" as an excuse. There are too many of them in all of the sports leagues IMHO (NFL,MLB,NHL and NBA).</p>
<p> </p>
<p>You have to know how to use the money. See NY Mets and NY Rangers for team that spend and spend and still generally lose.</p>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
179 Posts
<p>baseball needs a salary cap.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>how about it is based on how much revenue, aside from endorsement, that your stadium can generate?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>is a winning team worth a $20 hot dog?</p>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,884 Posts
<p>yeah, but without the big payroll, you have the TX Rangers, counting on Colby lewis to have his 2nd consecutive career year.  Without Lee and now that they've missed out on Greinke, they are going to have to take their closer and put him in the rotation.  They'll spend more $$ than last lear, but if the As hit or the Angels decide not to suck - they could miss the playoffs.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>yar</p>
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,646 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
<p>I watched a thing on the 2011 Yankees on one of the Canajun Sports Channels and the more I watched the more I was buying into the narrator's opinion that they were going to be pretty mediocre with only 4 stars....ARod, Cano, Rivera and Sabathia.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>hmmmmm......maybe 4 is enough</p>
<p> </p>
<p>...and maybe they have more than 4</p>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,885 Posts
<p>Teixeira is a star.  You can argue against anyone else on their roster, I think.  Jeter is a HOFer, but he's over the hill.  Some of the other guys are borderline (Granderson, Swisher, Hughes, etc).  But Teixeira is clearly a great player...</p>
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,646 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
<br><br><div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>GatorBob</strong> <a href="/forum/thread/71695/what-if-the-yankees-and-red-sox-decided-to-cut-payroll-by-100-million#post_1970823"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style="border-bottom:0px solid;border-left:0px solid;border-top:0px solid;border-right:0px solid;"></a><br><br><p>Teixeira is a star.  You can argue against anyone else on their roster, I think.  Jeter is a HOFer, but he's over the hill.  Some of the other guys are borderline (Granderson, Swisher, Hughes, etc).  But Teixeira is clearly a great player...</p>
</div>
</div>
<p><br>
The guy doing the show did a quick gloss over him which is a tad ridiculous for a guy who hits 35 home runs and gets over 100 RBI every year. I think his point was that the Yankees may very well not dominate, but probably you'd have to put Teixeira ahead of ARod these days. You are right that Jeter is just a serviceable shortstop these days. Don't the Yankees send off their stars to the Boston Braves to finish out their careers? :)</p>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,885 Posts
<p>At this point, most of the talking heads seem to be giving the division to the Red Sox already.  So I think that means that most people agree that the Yankees won't "dominate".  As I posted in the other current baseball thread (see here <a href="http://www.kickrunners.com/forum/thread/71651/the-official-2011-boston-red-sox-thread#post_1970198"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style="border-right:0px solid;border-top:0px solid;border-left:0px solid;border-bottom:0px solid;"></a> ), I think the Sox and Yankees rosters are eerily evenly-matched right now.  And as is often the case, the actual winner of the AL East will be the one of these two teams that has the least amount of injuries...<br>
 </p>
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,646 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
<br><br><div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>GatorBob</strong> <a href="/forum/thread/71695/what-if-the-yankees-and-red-sox-decided-to-cut-payroll-by-100-million#post_1970961"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style="border-bottom:0px solid;border-left:0px solid;border-top:0px solid;border-right:0px solid;"></a><br><br><p>  And as is often the case, the actual winner of the AL East will be the one of these two teams that has the least amount of injuries...<br>
 </p>
</div>
</div>
<p><br>
Yeah, kinda like last year.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>...oh wait<br>
 </p>
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,646 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
<br><br><div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>GatorBob</strong> <a href="/forum/thread/71695/what-if-the-yankees-and-red-sox-decided-to-cut-payroll-by-100-million#post_1971149"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style="border-bottom:0px solid;border-left:0px solid;border-top:0px solid;border-right:0px solid;"></a><br><br><p>That's why I said "often", not "always" <span><img alt="cool.gif" src="http://files.kickrunners.com/smilies/cool.gif" style="width:16px;height:16px;"></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p><br>
Maybe if the Rays, Jays and Orioles each planned well they could make a run at it once every 5 years....but not in the SAME year.  That would mean that in 3 years out of 5 it would be a 3 team race and if the "other team" won 1/3 of the time the Yanks or Sox would win the division 8 years out of 10 (about right) and in a couple of those years the "other" team could get a wild card entry. Who knows with extra wild card teams on the horizon perhaps the Yanks and Red Sox might be down to getting about 75% of playoff berths coming from AL East.<br>
 </p>
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top