If the payroll is $100M max, the Orioles are a small-market team.

[bt12483]

I think Mariners ownership is trying to ride the coattails of the Seahawks enthusiasm. And try to appeal to that fanbase. Smart.

[hoosiers]

I still do not understand why a team like SEA... with dwindling attendance and a tv deal... can have a bigger budget than Baltimore... Does this team not have money with MASN as well? Hasn't attendance been on the up? Maybe I am not too knowledgeable on how the funds system works with baseball... but it seems like this team should have more money ready than reported. There should be no reason, if we really want to be contenders, that we can't go out and get these guys early (Choo, Balfour, Garza) like other teams are doing...

Can someone with better knowledge please explain?

Seattle sported a baseball team with a payroll near $115M something like seven to 10 years ago. I expect they could go much higher today with the local and national TV deals.

Seattle is starting from a much lower payroll base and has more $ available.

Just like folks here mocked the Astros and Marlins for not spending last year and now they are complaining those teams are signing players.

[hoosiers]

Obviously not all of the money will be spent this season. The point is to look at the O's relative competitive position in terms of payroll going forward.

Understood, but that's not what you did in the analysis in the OP. The assumption in the OP assumes all other owners will increase their team's payrolls by $25M - making the Os relative position worse than you now say it will be.

[Singleton]

I appreciate the concept of the thread but we have no idea if $25 mil is the right number and everything rests on it. According to the analysis there are 5 teams within $7 mil of us. Obviously, if they "plow" a little less into payroll, we're about middle of the pack.

Also, to nit pick a bit -- this has nothing to do with small market vs big market. It's not market. It's just payroll.

Seems better to wait until February when things are more set and then lets see. will be interesting.

[weams]

I'm pretty sure this isn't the case, BB-ref notwithstanding. Chen signed as an international (pro) free agent, right? I believe those players become FAs when their contract is up - like Cespedes or Puig. Cespedes signed a 4-year deal, so I think he's a FA after 4 years, despite his <6 years of service time. I could be wrong about this but I'm like 80% sure....

By tethered, you mean bound to use Johnson in the 9th? I think the bullpen overall will be better than last year just due to annual variation, but I think the loss of Johnson will hurt. As for McLouth, hmm... it's possible. Nate could easily be due to hit an age wall. And someone like Urrutia could step up and perform well. But I don't think I'd bet it that way.

I think that Cespedes had specific language written in to his contract. I do believe that Chen is under club control. I believe I asked the question and was told that was the case. If I am wrong, my apologies.

[skanar]

I think that Cespedes had specific language written in to his contract. I do believe that Chen is under club control. I believe I asked the question and was told that was the case. If I am wrong, my apologies.

Now I'm unsure... I thought if an international FA had played pro ball elsewhere then they were only bound by the terms of their contract - Koji is another example. But maybe not.

Per BA,

Players who are at least at least 23 and have played five years in a recognized professional league, such as Japan's Nippon Professional Baseball, will be exempt [from the international signing pool total dollar limitation].

Are those players also exempt from the arbitration/6-yr FA rules?

Finally, Chen is on the MLBTR 2015 - ie, after 2014 season - FA list (which could of course be inaccurate for all the reasons just discussed). Of course, that assumes the option will be declined, which is what MLBTR assumes when making those lists:

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2013/02/2015-mlb-free-agents.html

[weams]

Now I'm unsure... I thought if an international FA had played pro ball elsewhere then they were only bound by the terms of their contract - Koji is another example. But maybe not.

Per BA,

Are those players also exempt from the arbitration/6-yr FA rules?

Finally, Chen is on the MLBTR 2015 - ie, after 2014 season - FA list (which could of course be inaccurate for all the reasons just discussed). Of course, that assumes the option will be declined, which is what MLBTR assumes when making those lists:

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2013/02/2015-mlb-free-agents.html

Chen proceeded the new CBA international pool language. I think he is the same as Harper. I am really pretty sure.

[BarclaySouthway]

With this payroll cap, the Orioles cannot expect to ever bid for any serious free agent or even retain their homegrown players. The only realistic option is the Rays model, consistently trading players with expensive arbitration years for as many good prospects as possible...

Even worse than this conclusion, I can't imagine Angelos approving such a strategy. So we'll be stuck in limbo with a 80-win team, a below-average farm, and both in decay rather than improving.

This is one of the bests posts of the off-season. At $100 mil./yr. not only are we unable sign enough free agent help this year, we won't realistically be able to keep our top players together in 2015 and beyond. By 2015, Davis (assuming extension)+Jones+Machado (assuming extension)+Tillman+Chen+Gonzalez could easily be costing the team $70 mil.

I don't think you can fill the remaining 19 slots with quality players for $30 mil. If you dump Chen and Gonzo, you'd have something like $45 mil. for 21 players.

Doesn't seem possible to build a 92-win team under these circumstances.

[mcneck]

The current rumor is that the Orioles have a hard budget of $100M. I wanted to see how such a budget stacks up in today's baseball financial world. To start, here are the opening day 2013 payrolls:

	Team		OD 20131	Yankees 	$ 228,835,490 	2	Dodgers 	$ 216,597,577 3	Phillies 	$ 165,385,714 	4	Red Sox 	$ 150,655,500 	5	Tigers 		$ 148,414,500 	6	Giants 		$ 140,264,334 	7	Angels 		$ 127,896,250 	8	White Sox 	$ 119,073,277 	9	Blue Jays 	$ 117,527,800 	10	Nationals 	$ 116,056,769 	11	Cardinals 	$ 115,222,086 	12	Rangers 	$ 114,090,100 	13	Reds 		$ 107,491,305 	14	Cubs 		$ 104,304,676 	[b]15	Orioles 	$ 90,993,333 	[/b]16	Braves 		$ 89,778,192 	17	Diamondbacks$ 89,100,500 18	Brewers 	$ 82,976,944 	19	Royals 		$ 81,491,725 	20	Pirates 	$ 79,555,000 21	Indians 	$ 77,772,800 	22	Twins 		$ 75,802,500 	23	Mets 		$ 73,396,649 	24	Mariners 	$ 72,031,143 	25	Rockies 	$ 71,924,071 26	Padres 		$ 67,143,600 	27	Athletics 	$ 60,664,500 	28	Rays 		$ 57,895,272 	29	Marlins 	$ 36,341,900 	30	Astros 		$ 22,062,600 

The Orioles are right in the middle of the pack. Now, let's assume that every club will take the $25M in free national TV money and devote it to increasing payroll. We'll put the Orioles' number at $100M since that seems to be their limit. The new ranking looks like this:

1	Yankees 	$ 255 M 	2	Dodgers 	$ 242 M 3	Phillies 	$ 190 M 	4	Red Sox 	$ 175 M 	5	Tigers 		$ 173 M 	6	Giants 		$ 165 M 	7	Angels 		$ 152 M 	8	White Sox 	$ 144 M 	9	Blue Jays 	$ 142 M 	10	Nationals 	$ 141 M 	11	Cardinals 	$ 140 M 	12	Rangers 	$ 139 M 	13	Reds 		$ 132 M 	14	Cubs 		$ 129 M 		15	Braves 		$ 115 M 	16	Diamondbacks$ 114 M 17	Brewers 	$ 107 M 	18	Royals 		$ 106 M 	19	Pirates 	$ 104 M 20	Indians 	$ 102 M 	21	Twins 		$ 101 M[b]22	Orioles 	$ 100 M 	[/b]23	Mets 		$ 98 M 	24	Mariners 	$ 97 M 	25	Rockies 	$ 96 M 26	Padres 		$ 92 M 	27	Athletics 	$ 85 M 	28	Rays 		$ 82 M 	29	Marlins 	$ 61 M 	30	Astros 		$ 47 M

The Orioles drop well back, to #22. Even worse, several of the teams behind them are teams with the ability to spend who were rebuilding in 2013: the Mariners (think their payroll will be over $100M next season?), the Mets, and the Astros. Even the Twins have spend a significant amount of money this year.

In short, ignoring ownership issues, the Orioles' front office is in a situation pretty close to that of the smallest market clubs: Tampa, Oakland, San Diego, and Miami (which isn't a small market but has the same sort of ownership issues). I would be unsurprised if by 2016 the Orioles had the #26 payroll in the league - perhaps even #27 if Oakland sorts out their stadium/relocation situation.

With this payroll cap, the Orioles cannot expect to ever bid for any serious free agent or even retain their homegrown players. The only realistic option is the Rays model, consistently trading players with expensive arbitration years for as many good prospects as possible.

Conclusion: IF the Orioles payroll is hard-capped at $100M, they are essentially Tampa. Any player who can be traded for prospects MUST be traded for prospects when their value is at a peak. This offseason, that means Chris Davis (two years of control), Wei-Yin Chen (one year), Matt Wieters (two years), and JJ Hardy (one year) should be out the door over the winter or perhaps at the trade deadline.

Even worse than this conclusion, I can't imagine Angelos approving such a strategy. So we'll be stuck in limbo with a 80-win team, a below-average farm, and both in decay rather than improving.

There are some assumptions here that may be wrong: teams may not add all $25 M to payroll (though given FA salaries this offseason it seems at least possible) and the $100M rumor may be wrong. Still, I'm very, very concerned. Dumping Jim Johnson's salary as an overpay is defensible, even though I think it's wrong. And the offseason isn't over yet. But not signing Nate McLouth for an extremely reasonable contract because Francisco Peguero is the apparent plan? Very bad.

Must spread Rep....

[LookitsPuck]

Orioles payrolls from 1997-2013:

$54,871,399.00

$70,408,134.00

$70,818,363.00

$83,141,198.00

$74,279,540.00

$60,493,487.00

$73,877,500.00

$51,623,333.00

$73,914,333.00

$72,585,582.00

$93,554,808.00

$67,196,246.00

$67,101,666.00

$81,612,500.00

$85,304,038.00

$81,428,999.00

$90,993,333.00

Orioles:

Average payroll over that time: $73,717,909.35

Average 2010-2013: $84,834,717.50

Payroll 2013: $90,993,333.00

MLB:

Average MLB payroll 1997-2013: $73,469,043.41

Average MLB payroll 2010-2013: $96,211,037.13

Average MLB payroll 2013: $103,358,203.57

The Orioles has exceeded $90 million twice in that 17 year span: 2007 ($93 million) and 2013 ($91 million).

We're below average for 2013 by about $12 million. And $12 million over the last 4 years.

But here's the thing, from 1998-2011 (all losing years), payroll averaged $73,279,337.71. Over the last 2 years? $86,211,166.00

The 4 years prior to our 2 winning seasons, average payroll was $75,303,612.50.

So, on the one hand, payroll was went up the 2 winning seasons by an average of $11 million. However, if you sum 2010-2011, the average is $83,458,269.00...suddenly the 2 winning seasons after 2 losing seasons really only accounts for an increase of about $3 million. On the plus side, the Orioles did increase payroll from 2012 to 2013, but wasn't that mostly a function of acquiring guys like KRod, Norris, Feldman, etc.? Either way, an increase of $9 million after the first winning season since 1997 wasn't that much. However, if indeed the payroll is $100 million this year...that would represent a $19 million increase since our first winning season (since 1997). Not too shabby. Perhaps more aggravating, however, is the reluctance to spend the MLB national TV money. It doesn't seem like any of the writers are talking about it...or asking Dan Duquette about it.

Now, the question is whether or not they WILL spend $100 million. Remember, Jim Johnson and Brian Roberts is off the books. That's $20 million freed up right there. Assuming a $100 payroll, that's $30 million ready to use if not using $25 million from the TV contract. Now, of course some of that has to go towards arbitration numbers and what have you...but that's not chump change. I'm just curious what they're going to spend it on.

[SteveO]

Orioles payrolls from 1997-2013:

$54,871,399.00

$70,408,134.00

$70,818,363.00

$83,141,198.00

$74,279,540.00

$60,493,487.00

$73,877,500.00

$51,623,333.00

$73,914,333.00

$72,585,582.00

$93,554,808.00

$67,196,246.00

$67,101,666.00

$81,612,500.00

$85,304,038.00

$81,428,999.00

$90,993,333.00

Orioles:

Average payroll over that time: $73,717,909.35

Average 2010-2013: $84,834,717.50

Payroll 2013: $90,993,333.00

MLB:

Average MLB payroll 1997-2013: $73,469,043.41

Average MLB payroll 2010-2013: $96,211,037.13

Average MLB payroll 2013: $103,358,203.57

The Orioles has exceeded $90 million twice in that 17 year span: 2007 ($93 million) and 2013 ($91 million).

We're below average for 2013 by about $12 million. And $12 million over the last 4 years.

But here's the thing, from 1998-2011 (all losing years), payroll averaged $73,279,337.71. Over the last 2 years? $86,211,166.00

The 4 years prior to our 2 winning seasons, average payroll was $75,303,612.50.

So, on the one hand, payroll was went up the 2 winning seasons by an average of $11 million. However, if you sum 2010-2011, the average is $83,458,269.00...suddenly the 2 winning seasons after 2 losing seasons really only accounts for an increase of about $3 million. On the plus side, the Orioles did increase payroll from 2012 to 2013, but wasn't that mostly a function of acquiring guys like KRod, Norris, Feldman, etc.? Either way, an increase of $9 million after the first winning season since 1997 wasn't that much. However, if indeed the payroll is $100 million this year...that would represent a $19 million increase since our first winning season (since 1997). Not too shabby. Perhaps more aggravating, however, is the reluctance to spend the MLB national TV money. It doesn't seem like any of the writers are talking about it...or asking Dan Duquette about it.

Now, the question is whether or not they WILL spend $100 million. Remember, Jim Johnson and Brian Roberts is off the books. That's $20 million freed up right there. Assuming a $100 payroll, that's $30 million ready to use if not using $25 million from the TV contract. Now, of course some of that has to go towards arbitration numbers and what have you...but that's not chump change. I'm just curious what they're going to spend it on.

Nothing its gonna end up under Pete's mattress with the rest his money

[skanar]

Orioles:

Average payroll over that time: $73,717,909.35

Average 2010-2013: $84,834,717.50

Payroll 2013: $90,993,333.00

MLB:

Average MLB payroll 1997-2013: $73,469,043.41

Average MLB payroll 2010-2013: $96,211,037.13

Average MLB payroll 2013: $103,358,203.57

The Orioles has exceeded $90 million twice in that 17 year span: 2007 ($93 million) and 2013 ($91 million).

We're below average for 2013 by about $12 million. And $12 million over the last 4 years.

But here's the thing, from 1998-2011 (all losing years), payroll averaged $73,279,337.71. Over the last 2 years? $86,211,166.00

The 4 years prior to our 2 winning seasons, average payroll was $75,303,612.50.

So, on the one hand, payroll was went up the 2 winning seasons by an average of $11 million. However, if you sum 2010-2011, the average is $83,458,269.00...suddenly the 2 winning seasons after 2 losing seasons really only accounts for an increase of about $3 million. On the plus side, the Orioles did increase payroll from 2012 to 2013, but wasn't that mostly a function of acquiring guys like KRod, Norris, Feldman, etc.? Either way, an increase of $9 million after the first winning season since 1997 wasn't that much. However, if indeed the payroll is $100 million this year...that would represent a $19 million increase since our first winning season (since 1997). Not too shabby. Perhaps more aggravating, however, is the reluctance to spend the MLB national TV money. It doesn't seem like any of the writers are talking about it...or asking Dan Duquette about it.

I like this post a lot, but I disagree with the bolded statement. In 1997, the average MLB payroll was $43M; the Orioles' $72M was 1.67x the league average. Between 1997 and 2013, average payroll increased to $103M, or 240%. The Orioles' payroll, if it is in fact around $100M this season, will be 0.97x the league average, and the increase over time since 1997 will be 140%.

Just for reference/fun, inflation has caused a 146% increase in prices since 1997. So in real-dollar terms, the a $100M payroll today is less than the Orioles paid in 1997. And of course baseball payrolls have increased much faster than inflation elsewhere in the league.

One last way to phrase the same statistic: relative to MLB average, $100M today is equivalent to $42M in 1997.

[LookitsPuck]

I was wondering what those inflation numbers were. Source? Would like to use it in a larger scale article I'm going to write.

[Frobby]

My problem with this thread is that it makes two assumptions that are not supported by any evidence: (1) the Orioles have a "hard cap" of $100 mm, and (2) "every club will take the $25M in free national TV money and devote it to increasing payroll."

Let's start with the first assumption. Where does it come from? Because Duquette used an analogy, when explaining why he traded Jim Johnson, where he compared it to spending 10 marbles on JJ when you have 100 marbles? That seems to me a very thin reed on which to base a "hard cap" theory. All we really know is that DD has stated publicly that he expects to have a higher payroll in 2014 than he had in 2013, and that he said last year's payroll was "about $100 mm." That certainly doesn't tell me that the Orioles have a $100 mm "hard cap." That said, I am not particularly optimistic that the O's plan to spend substantially more than $100 mm, and in fact, I won't be shocked if Opening Day payroll (as opposed to final payroll) is a bit under $100 mm. But, we just don't know yet.

But the bigger flaw is the assumption that the other teams will all spend their $25 mm in TV money on payroll. I've annotated the chart from the OP showing last year's Opening Day payroll for the 30 clubs, and showed next to it BB-ref's estimate of what those same clubs have committed to payroll for 2014 right now (this includes estimates for what teams will spend on their arbitration-eligible players):

	Team		OD 20131	Yankees 	$ 228,835,490 	$155 mm2	Dodgers 	$ 216,597,577   $217 mm3	Phillies 	$ 165,385,714 	$155 mm4	Red Sox 	$ 150,655,500 	$166 mm5	Tigers 		$ 148,414,500 	$157 mm6	Giants 		$ 140,264,334 	$148 mm7	Angels 		$ 127,896,250 	$144 mm8	White Sox 	$ 119,073,277 	$80 mm9	Blue Jays 	$ 117,527,800 	$133 mm10	Nationals 	$ 116,056,769 	$133 mm11	Cardinals 	$ 115,222,086 	$103 mm12	Rangers 	$ 114,090,100 	$115 mm13	Reds 		$ 107,491,305 	$102 mm14	Cubs 		$ 104,304,676 	$75 mm[b]15	Orioles 	$ 90,993,333 	[/b]$82 mm16	Braves 		$ 89,778,192    $84 mm	17	Diamondbacks    $ 89,100,500    $96 mm18	Brewers 	$ 82,976,944 	$84 mm19	Royals 		$ 81,491,725 	$88 mm20	Pirates 	$ 79,555,000    $69 mm21	Indians 	$ 77,772,800 	$81 mm22	Twins 		$ 75,802,500 	$78 mm23	Mets 		$ 73,396,649 	$76 mm24	Mariners 	$ 72,031,143 	$52 mm25	Rockies 	$ 71,924,071    $78 mm26	Padres 		$ 67,143,600 	$74 mm27	Athletics 	$ 60,664,500 	$71 mm28	Rays 		$ 57,895,272 	$62 mm29	Marlins 	$ 36,341,900 	$38 mm30	Astros 		$ 22,062,600    $29 mm 

By my rough calculation, to date teams have spent about $2 mm less than last year, on average. The biggest increase by any team is about $17 mm. So, where does the assumption that the other teams are going to spend all of their $25 mm in TV money come from? Answer: there's no basis for it.

[mdbdotcom]

And if the payroll is not $100 million, the OP represents a lot of work with little to show for it.