And here I was thinking this thread was stupid and pointless. There's gold to be mined everywhere.
For the next time someone cries poverty on behalf of our billionaires
- Thread starter johnlos
- Start date
- Status
Point is taken.... but there are a lot of expenses for a MLB team that are not part of the 40 man roster "payroll". I would be interested to see an itemized breakdown of expenses for one team from top to bottom.
That's a fair question. I think player payroll expense is the real difference-maker for every team, the biggest expense and the one that normally varies most directly in proportion to revenue.
What we don't know much about and probably deserves more attention is non-player payroll expense.
You're like the 4th or 5th person to question the veracity of the data and not a single one has provided their own data or a compelling argument for why this data is wrong. Happy to see what else is out there and be proven wrong but "Maybe look with a discerning eye for like a single second" isn't much of an argument.
Didnt someone show that the data was wrong for the Braves, where actual are published? No one has shown that the data was correct at all. What makes you think it is accurate?
Valid point. And maybe you can take the Theo Epstein hiring as them admitting their diverted attention. Even if it's not clear to me what he does exactly (will also point out he was hired after Breslow, Bailey, and Boddy so that was previous ownership)
Would be happy to read it but no one seems to be able to find this elusive counterpoint.
In terms of the numbers is anyone surprised that the order of revenue goes NYY, LAD, CHC, BOS, ATL, SFG, HOU, TEX? Or that the bottom is OAK, CHW, MIA, TB, KC? And the payroll numbers closely match https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/payroll/_/year/2024/sort/cap_total2
They pass the "discerning eye" test to me.
The only thing is, I believe the Braves data showed that Forbes had UNDERESTIMATED their revenues by a fair bit.
Are you just posting in bad faith or what? Once again, follow the discussion from the first time this was posted, which I helpfully linked and you responded to, for the discussion of the Atlanta revenue, or just take it upon yourself to type Atlanta Braves revenue into Google, it's really not hard.
The one set of numbers that can be verified independently (the Braves) has been shown to be inaccurate. If Forbes couldn't get that right, and we know they're guessing on the other 29 teams, why should we trust the veracity of any of their data?
I’m not even questioning the veracity of the data. I’m saying that even if the data is accurate, there’s clearly no correlation with winning, so why should anyone care? If every AL playoff team is below average, then maybe this metric just isn’t measuring what it thinks it is
Yea, since I wrote that the Astros took over the AL west lead from Seattle. So yes, 3 of the 4 teams ranked 5-8 have playoff spots. Texas is 46-52, and of course only one team of the top 4 teams is in the playoffs (the Mets, barely). Meanwhile 5 teams 16 or below are in the playoffs. There’s simply not a strong correlation between winning and the lump sum that you spend. People who want ownership to be a top five payroll, simply for the sake of being a top five payroll, seem to think that spending lots of money is an auto-bid to the ALCS. It’s really not
Obviously you shouldn't spend for the sake of spending, that can actually hurt the team long term.
But we desperately needed starting pitching in the off season and could've signed Shota (an all star) at a very reasonable price but we lowballed him with a pathetic 2/26 offer. I understand their concern with signing Japanese players after Yoshida but reportedly they offered Yamamoto $300 million... so it's a bit baffling they didn't match or outbid the Cubs at 5/56 and instead tried to convert Whitlock into a starter (in spite of Whitlock being much better as a reliever and how he got injured pretty quickly after the last time they tried it).
But we desperately needed starting pitching in the off season and could've signed Shota (an all star) at a very reasonable price but we lowballed him with a pathetic 2/26 offer. I understand their concern with signing Japanese players after Yoshida but reportedly they offered Yamamoto $300 million... so it's a bit baffling they didn't match or outbid the Cubs at 5/56 and instead tried to convert Whitlock into a starter (in spite of Whitlock being much better as a reliever and how he got injured pretty quickly after the last time they tried it).
I'm going to try to simplify this for the purposes of trying to understand just what it is that you hope to expect here. Given that you agreed that a top 5 payroll guarantees nothing why are you adamant about the Sox being a top 5 payroll team? Should they be every year regardless as to the composition of the team or are there years when it might be wise (even if painful) to reset? And if so, when might it be a good time not to spend for the sake of spending?
Basing conclusions on one league and one season would be kind of a cherry-picking approach, no?
This has been studied extensively and there is most certainly a general correlation between payroll and winning. Yankees and Dodgers are the wealthiest teams and have the most playoff appearances over the last 20 years or whatever. Red Sox have done OK too.
The Rays are really the only team that has been able to beat the correlation on a consistent basis.
The Orioles are beating it right now, but guess what, their young stars aren't going to stay cheap very long.
The strength of the farm system should help offset the rising costs of their young star players. The Rays, Guardians and Orioles will remain competitive because they have excellent systems. The Dodger model of excellent farm allows them to spend and trade for top notch players.
Hopefully the Red Sox farm continues to grow and when ready, ownership will pull the trigger on an available stud(s) that pushes the team over the top. They have made the right decision not to win the free agent auctions over the past few years. Keeping Devers has turned out pretty good so far. Not signing Rondon, DeGrom, Snell, Montgomery, etc. was the right decision at the time and proven correct. Not retaining home grown player like Xander and Ben10 also was the right move.
Sure, we could have signed Shota at a reasonable price. We also could have signed any number of other free agent pitchers, Jordan Montgomery was the most popular one here, and that wouldn’t have helped at all.
Until we can figure out which free agent pitchers are going to be good before they sign, it’s kind of a guessing game. If you don’t play, you can’t win the free agent game, but you also can’t lose.
And with the Giolito signing being one more loser, it would appear that never signing another free agent pitcher would be the perfect strategy...
The title of the thread was meant to imply that now that the window is clearly open, I don't want to hear excuses about how we can't afford guys. Tell you what, I sure would have loved if we'd invested a few $s in our bullpen this offseason after watching 4 straight games with leads blown (the 3rd was Kutter's fault...but the reason they left him in was because the pen was so taxed).
I was pushing for Shota hard. I was fine with JMont but a lot of analysts didn't like what was under the hood. As I just said though, it's our bottom-half (https://www.covers.com/sport/baseball/mlb/statistics/team-bullpenera/2024) bullpen that's currently killing us. Why on earth is Chase Anderson pitching for us?!
I’m not arguing that’s there’s nothing more that ownership could have done. I’m saying payroll/revenue doesn’t correlate to performance, so even if you wanted ownership to do more, this specific metric doesn’t show anything
Over an extended time period there is absolutely a correlation between payroll and winning. You can't just cherry-pick the 2024 American League and call it conclusive evidence to the contrary. You can't just ignore the Yankees and Dodgers vs. the Pirates and Marlins over the last two decades.
So the Yankees have won one title in this century. The Dodgers won the Covid shortened year. While the Marlins have have also won once. In a year where they had the sixth lowest payroll.
I also have never seen such a thing and it strikes me as just a weird thing to get upset about. It’s something as a fan you have absolutely no control over. I get discussing payroll and its effects on performance but nobody here is going to change how much Henry is going to spend
You're going to base everything on championships and ignore W-L records and playoff appearances?
That's just another form of cherry-picking.
Yeah, but there's nothing fans have control over, other than their decisions on whether to watch the games.
We can't control what the players and the managers do either, but folks are going to devote a lot of posts to critiquing their performances.
Yes. Coming in second means squat to me.
Or, we can use your argument on the Tampa Bay Rays. Which do you prefer? Titles or playoff appearances and W-L records?
So to you, what does the Rays lack of titles say about the correlation between payroll and winning?
No, my good Dopes, lock the Cora thread,
lock the O'Neill thread, lock Casas,
but for sweet Cedric Durst, kind Cedric Durst,
true Cedric Durst, valiant Cedric Durst,
and therefore more valiant being as he is dead Cedric Durst,
banish not him from SoSH's company.
Lock Cedric's thread and lock all the world.
I'm not saying that there's not a discussion to be had... but the phrasing in this thread is just bizarre. First, as anyone should actually know... nobody here cried poverty, or even "oh geez now Henry is only in the top .01% of income earners boo hoo!!!!". It's ridiculous. But... what is anyone going to do about it? Right.... nothing. Discussing it is fine to me, but certain posters are making weird threats about it, like it's "unacceptable" that Henry didn't spend what they want.
I find it really infuriating that Casas is injured. But "unacceptable"? I don't have much choice there. So the discussion is how to go about dealing with that... for example?
And yes, I wish Henry would spend more. I wish he'd pay all the non-athlete labor on the Sox more too and I know for sure he could do it and still live stupidly wealthy. It's unacceptable he pays the ticket collector only $18/HR!!!!!!
Yeah, I always get a chuckle out of that word "unacceptable" too - as if there's an option.
This is kind of interesting. I'm not disputing how acceptable the pay rate might be, but I wonder what comp there might be to this. Part time, seasonal work, with multiple weeks off that makes for convenient planning. It doesn't seem to be a position that takes a great deal of skill and for many it's likely a job that just supplements one's income. I'm also curious about the amount of hours they might work per event.
It's not cherry-picking when it's the one reason you play the game. I've played on 3 championship teams. That's what I remember. What about you?
It's unacceptable that Chase Anderson is pitching for the Red Sox in 2024
First of all, Big Papi, it's really cool to have you here posting with us.
Now, if you read through this thread you'll see that there are two separate arguments going on about payroll and winning, and they're in total conflict with each other.
I was responding to the argument put forth by others that the current AL standings show that there's no correlation between payroll and winning.
That argument obviously has nothing to do with championships.
Might have been. I just took ticket takers to be those who now scan e-tickets, phones or what have you.
- Status