PDA

View Full Version : Some payroll numbers



redbird89
11-06-2009, 07:04 PM
I got the salaries here: http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/salaries

The average payroll of the top 9 teams ($100 million or higher payroll) is $126,691,331.

The average Payroll of the Middle 12 ($70 million to $100 million) is $83,514,481.

The Average Payroll of the bottom 9 teams (under $70 million) is $57,372,410.

The average of all the teams payrolls is $82,124,427.36.

How about a payroll of $55 million to $130 million, or around that area? 24 teams are already in the range, and it would cut down on the extremes. Only the Yankees (who would need to shed $71 million) and the Marlins (who would need to add $19 million) would need to make drastic changes.

The Yankees, Mets, and Cubs (above $130 million) would have to shed payroll. The Pirates, Padres, and Marlins (below $55 million) would have to add some. Would this help to even the playing field? Should there be a minimum payroll and a maximum payroll? Would you make the payroll window more flexible?

Would you give the teams a certain number of seasons to shed payroll? They would need a few years to let the current contracts run out, right? Would the payroll be enacted in 5 years?

What do you think?

Fluke77
11-06-2009, 07:36 PM
I WOULDN'T...IM A METS FAN AND ONE OF THESE DECADES THE METS WILL BUY A WINNER!!!!:clap:

nr19
11-06-2009, 07:39 PM
Yeah I'm sure the players would love this.

The teams that have to reach the minimum will barely increase their payroll, teams in the middle will stay the same, and the teams at the top would have to cut a ton of salary. Just because the Yankees drop 71 million doesn't mean that other teams will take those contracts, especially since the other big market teams would be close to the cap.

Players lose money in a cap system. This is a union that won't even allow players to restructure their contracts if it means they will make a dime less.

redbird89
11-06-2009, 07:43 PM
If you give the Yankees a few years to let the contracts expire, they would only have a few still on the books at high salaries.

I think the payroll cap is a good idea, but I agree the players are too money hungry to let it happen.

nr19
11-06-2009, 07:47 PM
Yeah I agree, I have no problem with a cap system.

The only people who are against it are the owners and the players. They are both doing very well in this current system.

YankeeFan28
11-06-2009, 08:23 PM
If you give the Yankees a few years to let the contracts expire, they would only have a few still on the books at high salaries.

I think the payroll cap is a good idea, but I agree the players are too money hungry to let it happen.

Yeah, those money hungry players have seen their share of the total profit declining in recent years. Money they helped generate.

prodigy
11-06-2009, 08:34 PM
I would love a cap, But won't happen because the yanks and Boston would whine and complain. Maybe a max contract? Something needs to happen, But IDK if it will. MLB loves big market teams winning it all.

commonsense12
11-06-2009, 08:53 PM
I have not been a baseball fan in a long time because of the blatant imbalance in the sport. I dont watch games but i cant help but to keep an eye on it from afar. If the League really wanted a salary cap it could happen. I dont care who you are but not collecting a paycheck is pure motivation. You can say they are millionaires all you want, but you always spend what you make. If the owners would stick to there guns and agree not to sign any labor agreement until there is a cap in place no matter what, it could get done. It prob would cause a lockout for awhile, but eventually it will get done.

Until this happens, there will be no cap, because large market teams will simply not agree to it because of the increased revenue streams of the playoffs.

poodski
11-06-2009, 08:58 PM
I like this but I would prefer the floor to be higher.

Something like 80-120

iggypop123
11-06-2009, 09:05 PM
the players would never allow it. they wont get paid.

CQSox305
11-06-2009, 09:28 PM
130 should be the cap.

AZCardsFan
11-06-2009, 09:36 PM
No cap, but there should be a minimum (% of revenue) that you have to spend so owners cant pocket the money.

Wisdom Listens
11-06-2009, 09:50 PM
Is George Steinbrenner single-handedly ruining the sport?

fanofclendennon
11-06-2009, 10:08 PM
I got the salaries here: http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/salaries

The average payroll of the top 9 teams ($100 million or higher payroll) is $126,691,331.

The average Payroll of the Middle 12 ($70 million to $100 million) is $83,514,481.

The Average Payroll of the bottom 9 teams (under $70 million) is $57,372,410.

The average of all the teams payrolls is $82,124,427.36.

How about a payroll of $55 million to $130 million, or around that area? 24 teams are already in the range, and it would cut down on the extremes. Only the Yankees (who would need to shed $71 million) and the Marlins (who would need to add $19 million) would need to make drastic changes.

The Yankees, Mets, and Cubs (above $130 million) would have to shed payroll. The Pirates, Padres, and Marlins (below $55 million) would have to add some. Would this help to even the playing field? Should there be a minimum payroll and a maximum payroll? Would you make the payroll window more flexible?

Would you give the teams a certain number of seasons to shed payroll? They would need a few years to let the current contracts run out, right? Would the payroll be enacted in 5 years?

What do you think?

Brilliant idea! First explain to me how a team like the Yankees goes about shedding $71 million in payroll and we'll talk!

Brian Cashman: "Mark, Alex, thanks for taking my call at this late hour but I have some bad news. MLB asked that we shed some payroll so we had no choice, Mark, tha to hand your contract over to the Florida Marlins while you, Alex, are heading to Washington where you'll play either short or third for the Nationals. I'm fairly certain you can have you choice. Try not to worry too much about us, I'm sure we'll be fine with Nick (Swisher) at first and Roberto (Pena) at third. Good luck with your new teams!"

Yeah, I'm sure that'll happen.

k_rock923
11-06-2009, 10:12 PM
If the Yankees are willing to pay more for a player than any other team, they should get him. Contrary to what some like to say, that's the fairest way to do it.

Jamiecballer
11-06-2009, 11:16 PM
the players would never allow it. they wont get paid.

the players wouldn't have to.

as someone pointed out already if the owners stuck to their guns there would be a work stoppage. and ALL THE PRESSURE would be on the players. this is a move that the public would actually support so the players would end up caving if they intended to stay millionaires. having said all this Bud Selig would have to grow a pair for this to happen.

redbird89
11-06-2009, 11:43 PM
Brilliant idea! First explain to me how a team like the Yankees goes about shedding $71 million in payroll and we'll talk!

Brian Cashman: "Mark, Alex, thanks for taking my call at this late hour but I have some bad news. MLB asked that we shed some payroll so we had no choice, Mark, tha to hand your contract over to the Florida Marlins while you, Alex, are heading to Washington where you'll play either short or third for the Nationals. I'm fairly certain you can have you choice. Try not to worry too much about us, I'm sure we'll be fine with Nick (Swisher) at first and Roberto (Pena) at third. Good luck with your new teams!"

Yeah, I'm sure that'll happen.

That's why you give a few years for the current contracts to expire. Probably most of the big contracts will expire within the next 5 years. Then, whatever big contracts are left will probably fit underneath the $130 million mark.

Let's say the salary cap starts at the beginning of the season of 2015. That gives 5 whole seasons. The only players the Yankees are committed to by then are:
Alex Rodriguez 3b
# 08:$27M, 09:$32M, 10:$32M, 11:$31M, 12:$29M, 13:$28M, 14:$25M, 15:$21M, 16:$20M, 17:$20M

C.C. Sabathia
7 years/$161M (2009-15)
09:$14M, 10-15:$23M annually

Mark Teixeira 1b
8 years/$180M (2009-16)
09:$20M, 10:$20M, 11-16:$22.5M annually

That's $66 million tied up in 2015. So the Yankees would not be required to
shed anymore. $66 million would fit into the allowed payroll with another $64 million which can be added to still be under the $130 million cap. And Sabathia would be on his last year, so if the Yankees still wanted to trade him, they may be able to.

I'm not saying they have to shed $70 million overnight. But I think within 5 years would be reasonable. Just let the current contracts expire.

I know Yankee fans care not, but, to me, it's unfair to have a team like the Yankees pay out the nose for players when other teams can't. It's just crazy. There needs to be some kind of limit. And a minimum for teams like the Marlins.

Although, according to this, the Yankees lost $50 million in 2005
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2557770
And their $1.3 billion stadium lets home runs fly out all the time. The wind is all wrong.
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4080195
And they couldn't sell their $2000 seats. Shocker!

So maybe there is some justice in the world.

WSU Tony
11-06-2009, 11:52 PM
If a hard cap is enforced, a cap to raise the bottom few teams payroll has to be included as well. It only seems right. The Yankees are rediculous, though.

misterd
11-07-2009, 12:21 AM
I got the salaries here: http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/salaries

The average payroll of the top 9 teams ($100 million or higher payroll) is $126,691,331.

The average Payroll of the Middle 12 ($70 million to $100 million) is $83,514,481.

The Average Payroll of the bottom 9 teams (under $70 million) is $57,372,410.

The average of all the teams payrolls is $82,124,427.36.

How about a payroll of $55 million to $130 million, or around that area? 24 teams are already in the range, and it would cut down on the extremes. Only the Yankees (who would need to shed $71 million) and the Marlins (who would need to add $19 million) would need to make drastic changes.

The Yankees, Mets, and Cubs (above $130 million) would have to shed payroll. The Pirates, Padres, and Marlins (below $55 million) would have to add some. Would this help to even the playing field? Should there be a minimum payroll and a maximum payroll? Would you make the payroll window more flexible?

Would you give the teams a certain number of seasons to shed payroll? They would need a few years to let the current contracts run out, right? Would the payroll be enacted in 5 years?

What do you think?

I think I want to know why anyone has any right to cap the earnings of the players, and not the earnings of the owners, who not one person pays one dime to see play a game.

Imperial
11-07-2009, 12:55 AM
I would love a cap, But won't happen because the yanks and Boston would whine and complain. Maybe a max contract? Something needs to happen, But IDK if it will. MLB loves big market teams winning it all.

You have no idea that the Red Sox owner has been asking for a salary cap for some time now, do you? They're fourth in payroll, I don't see why it would be only the Sox and Yanks complaining.

1903
11-07-2009, 01:07 PM
I think there should be a cap in baseball, set it at $300 million.

quade36
11-07-2009, 06:37 PM
I think there should be a cap in baseball, set it at $300 million.

I think they should make a minor league AAAA where every team that doesn't have a 200 mil payroll will be in. Therefore there will be no more debates about salaries.... :)

NYK|NYY
11-07-2009, 07:10 PM
Even if there is a fantastic idea out there, the PA would never allow it to be implemented and some of the owners would never agree to a salary floor or even a cap.

Jamiecballer
11-07-2009, 07:38 PM
I think I want to know why anyone has any right to cap the earnings of the players, and not the earnings of the owners, who not one person pays one dime to see play a game.

because it's in the best interest of the game. the same game that gives them the opportunity to be millionaires in the first place.

and the owners are just investors, and like other investors in other markets there is no theoretical limit to what they can make off their investments.

scottythegreat1
11-07-2009, 07:48 PM
a hard cap would be too hard to implement, especially now with all the contracts that the Yankees have.

It has to be a luxury tax system that has sharper teeth. Its obvious that the luxury tax doesnt work if a team can go over it EVERY YEAR and continue to go over it like its nothing. I can be graceful to a team that goes over it once, say for every dollar youre over you pay 20 cents, but the second time youre 50 cents, then 1 dollar, then 2 dollars, 4 dollars, etc;

Id say set the luxury tax back down to 130 million its a fair number, and it should stay frozen until its time to renegotiate. The players union is too powerful, odds are, it will never happen.

fanofclendennon
11-07-2009, 07:55 PM
Even if there is a fantastic idea out there, the PA would never allow it to be implemented and some of the owners would never agree to a salary floor or even a cap.

Indeed. Oh what short memories many of us have. Does no one remember why the players went on strike in August 1994, cancelling the rest of that season and the entire post season?

That would be the proposed salary cap that the owners wanted to shove down the players throats. In hindsight, it was silly because both the players and the owners were making tons of money.

They've since gotten their act together and are now much more amiable toward each other. But we still have problems like $250 mill payoll teams winning World Championships.

But talk of a salary cap, which would directly take money out of players pockets, would not be tolerated by the players' association.

ricomactaco
11-07-2009, 09:56 PM
Is there any Yankee fans out there who are in favor of a salary cap? If you are a Yankee fan who wants a cap(maximum/minimum) you would have to be a fan of baseball first. It would be tough to give up such an advantage.

Greenmonster24
11-08-2009, 12:38 AM
I agree with making the Luxuary Tax alot stiffer and I think there should be a luxuary Tax a team that doesn't spend a certain amount of payroll like for every time there payroll under 50 million they have to pay X amount of dollars in revenue sharing. That force a team to spend a certain amount of money to not be penalized but if a team has such great young players and feel they could win a world series even with a low payroll there not force to sign someone that would not help the team if it rather pay a luxuary tax instead.

nithanyo
11-08-2009, 12:39 AM
If the Yankees are willing to pay more for a player than any other team, they should get him. Contrary to what some like to say, that's the fairest way to do it.

The NFL, NHL and NBA dont think that way unfortunately.

nithanyo
11-08-2009, 12:49 AM
I think the luxury tax should be 400% for every dollar over 100 million. So a team that has a payroll of 101 million is actually paying 105million.and a team like the yanks with 200 million is actually paying 500 million. So if they want to overspend they would really want it.

I know its a ridiculous number but what im trying to say is the current luxury tax is stupid. the yankees pay 40% since they violated the cap over 3 times. The luxury tax barrier is 160 million. The yanks were 48 million over the cap.

Thats 19.2 million dollars in luxury tax the yanks paid. 29 other teams would get 662000 dollars from the yankees choosing to spend crazy. In baeball 662000 buys u a minor league contract. Thats just stupid. If a team wants to violate the cap, they should make it so they are very careful

ricomactaco
11-08-2009, 12:57 PM
I think the luxury tax should be 400% for every dollar over 100 million. So a team that has a payroll of 101 million is actually paying 105million.and a team like the yanks with 200 million is actually paying 500 million. So if they want to overspend they would really want it.

I know its a ridiculous number but what im trying to say is the current luxury tax is stupid. the yankees pay 40% since they violated the cap over 3 times. The luxury tax barrier is 160 million. The yanks were 48 million over the cap.

Thats 19.2 million dollars in luxury tax the yanks paid. 29 other teams would get 662000 dollars from the yankees choosing to spend crazy. In baeball 662000 buys u a minor league contract. Thats just stupid. If a team wants to violate the cap, they should make it so they are very careful
Sounds good. Just hope something is done at the next labor negotiations in 2011 I believe.

oak2455
11-08-2009, 01:27 PM
Is George Steinbrenner single-handedly ruining the sport?
Hes not in control anymore??

1903
11-08-2009, 04:00 PM
Hes not in control anymore??

Hank and Hal run the team.

Moosie Doom
11-08-2009, 04:28 PM
Luxury taxes and revenue sharing are the way to go. Caps only hurt players and do nothing to owners who rake in the profits without really doing anything to put a winning product on the field. You also have to control bonuses, which is the always the loophole in a system that controls only salaries.

And you have to do all this without de-insentivising excellence. Why run your team efficiently for a high profit if you are only going to give it away to some lazy, inept owner of another team?

BronxBomb
11-08-2009, 07:41 PM
only three times in history has a team won the World Series with a $100 million plus payroll: the 2009 Yankees, 2007 Red Sox and 2004 Red Sox

donnie23
11-08-2009, 07:48 PM
You have no idea that the Red Sox owner has been asking for a salary cap for some time now, do you? They're fourth in payroll, I don't see why it would be only the Sox and Yanks complaining.

Of course owners want a cap, do you even hear yourself? Wouldn't your boss like a cap on all employees in their industry?

burgh_fan66
11-08-2009, 08:06 PM
I'll add in my two cents. I would like to see hard floor say 60 million and a soft ceiling say 140 million. Any money spent above 140 million would have a large luxury tax attached to it. I'm thinking it has to be at least 100%. So if the Yankees want to continue to spend 200 million they can do that but it will cost them say 260 million.

pasquale
11-08-2009, 08:20 PM
only three times in history has a team won the World Series with a $100 million plus payroll: the 2009 Yankees, 2007 Red Sox and 2004 Red Sox

How about this crazy idea. Add two more wild cards to the playoffs. No salary cap until the playoffs. Then have a cap of say 125 million and tell those good sports in Yankeeland to sit whoever they have to but be under the playoff cap. Now that would be interesting.

Twins Fan 7
11-08-2009, 08:32 PM
130 Million as the max sounds good. It would have to be made effective around 2016-18 so the Yankees could get it in that range.

nr19
11-08-2009, 08:52 PM
130 Million as the max sounds good. It would have to be made effective around 2016-18 so the Yankees could get it in that range.

Why in the world should the players be losing money?

Every owner is making profit and you want to cut player salaries?

That's a joke.


The cap would be attached to league revenues like every other league. The NHL's cap changes every year based on the revenue of the previous year.

You can't just throw out a number like 130 mil and say ok here's the cap limit.

Jamiecballer
11-08-2009, 11:56 PM
Why in the world should the players be losing money?

Every owner is making profit and you want to cut player salaries?

That's a joke.

In a word- yes.

Of course that's simply because I am a little pre-occupied with the big picture. Winning the world series won't mean much when the yanks are playing in a league by themselves.

And if baseball is just a business than why should it be any different than every other one?

jim51990
11-09-2009, 12:08 AM
a cap is a bad idea all it will do is cut the pay of players it will not make cheap owners meet step up and their teams will still suck so end this because it will not happen

misterd
11-09-2009, 11:35 AM
because it's in the best interest of the game. the same game that gives them the opportunity to be millionaires in the first place.

and the owners are just investors, and like other investors in other markets there is no theoretical limit to what they can make off their investments.

If its in the best interest of the game, then cap the owners income and put the rest back into payroll.

And there is no theoretical limit to what anyone can earn in any field, not just investors.

misterd
11-09-2009, 11:39 AM
only three times in history has a team won the World Series with a $100 million plus payroll: the 2009 Yankees, 2007 Red Sox and 2004 Red Sox

And what was the first year in which a team surpassed a $100m payroll? I think it was either 2000 or 2001, and roughly 1/3 of the WS winners in that time have had a $100m payroll, even though far less than 1/3 of the teams had such a payroll. Therefore, having a $100m payroll gives teams an advantage.

Brew Crew
11-09-2009, 11:50 AM
If the Yankees are willing to pay more for a player than any other team, they should get him. Contrary to what some like to say, that's the fairest way to do it.

Um do you know what the meaning of fair is?

ricomactaco
11-09-2009, 01:18 PM
only three times in history has a team won the World Series with a $100 million plus payroll: the 2009 Yankees, 2007 Red Sox and 2004 Red Sox

I think that teams with the higher payrolls clearly have an advantage to put together better teams through free agency. Because some of these teams have not won the WS is more a factor of them making poor decisions with their money and not managing their rosters effectively.

misterd
11-09-2009, 04:21 PM
Um do you know what the meaning of fair is?

Do you?

Jamiecballer
11-10-2009, 03:16 AM
If its in the best interest of the game, then cap the owners income and put the rest back into payroll.

i find it hard to agree with you on this, mainly because this would do nothing to even the playing field whatsoever.

my point about the owner was simply this: a baseball team is an investment, like any other business acquisition. ultimately the owner of a business gets to decide how the profit will be dispersed. players, however, are fortunate to be employed. if they don't like the amount they are paid, they are free to look for alternative work or consider a career change.

nr19
11-10-2009, 05:40 AM
I think that teams with the higher payrolls clearly have an advantage to put together better teams through free agency. Because some of these teams have not won the WS is more a factor of them making poor decisions with their money and not managing their rosters effectively.

Like the Mariners who spent over 200mil the last two seasons.

They went out and signed Washburn, Batista, Weaver, Silva, Beltre, and Sexson through free agency over the last half decade. They tried to put together a pitching staff and core hitters through free agency and then traded Adam Jones for Beddard when they weren't even close to contending!



Free agency can be very dangerous. The Giants would be better off without 30mil invested in Zito and Rowand next year. The Cubs probably aren't looking forward to paying Soriano 18mil for the next 5 years.

nickster16301
11-10-2009, 06:25 AM
i like how some people make the argument that a cap would be bad for the players.... i mean my god what would arod do if he only made 50 million????

homer2680
11-10-2009, 08:50 AM
only three times in history has a team won the World Series with a $100 million plus payroll: the 2009 Yankees, 2007 Red Sox and 2004 Red Sox

Phillies in 2008, payroll was 106 million.

YankeeFan28
11-10-2009, 08:50 AM
i find it hard to agree with you on this, mainly because this would do nothing to even the playing field whatsoever.

my point about the owner was simply this: a baseball team is an investment, like any other business acquisition. ultimately the owner of a business gets to decide how the profit will be dispersed. players, however, are fortunate to be employed. if they don't like the amount they are paid, they are free to look for alternative work or consider a career change.

Or the owner shares his profits with the players who are generating the revenue in the first place. :shrug: