This made me think about how I had read that last year had the lowest correlation between wins and payroll and caused me to poke around a little bit. A Google search found some interesting papers (the Google AI summary also noted that other factors that could influence this relationship includes "the number of players on the team," which sounds like a new wrinkle for Boston to exploit---what if they just stationed a fourth "outfielder" in, say, short CF and just waited to see if anyone would say anything?) ---the correlation seems pretty consistent though I've read some studies that if there is a small concentration of high salaried players increasing the payroll, that decreases the overall correlation, which makes sense. I admit that I was pretty frustrated this offseason that it didn't seem like the team was particularly active in free agency, but on the other hand a pretty high proportion of the deals that I thought the FO "should" have made have turned out badly. In some ways, I feel like being towards the top of the "revenue/payroll" chart is sort of like being towards the top of the "wins/payroll" chart---I guess it's kind of nice but it's not really the point of the game.
Sure, I think this is relevant whenever we hear rumblings about how the team "can't afford" a player but we've all seen the damage that expensive bad players can do to a team's makeup---hell, a lot of discussion about our DH hinges on his contract. Given that the FO has spent heavily in the past, I'm hopeful that they will increase the budget if it looks like the team is on track to be at least a playoff contender for a few years, but I don't want them spending just for the sake of spending, especially if the added salary only helps us move from last to fourth in the AL East. I guess we'll see.