Jump to content

Orioles are 10th in payroll in MLB


wildcard

Recommended Posts

According to Cots Contracts (which IMO is about the best source)

1. Dodgers 241m

2. Tigers 199m

3. Red Sox 197m

4. Yankees 196m

5. Giants 180m

6. Cubs 172m

7. Angels 166m

8. Rangers 165m

9. Nats 164.33m

10 Orioles 164.32m

11. Jays 163m

12. Mets 154.4m

13. Mariners 154.3m

14. Cardinals 147m

15. Royals 143m

16. Rockies 127m

17. Astros 124.3m

18. Indians 124.1m

19, Braves 122m

20. Marins 115m

21. Twins 108m

22. Phillies 100m

23. White Sox 97m

24. Pirates 95.8m

25. Reds 95.3m

26. Diamondbacks 93m

27. Athletics 80m

28. Rays 70m

29. Padres 69m

30. Brewers 63m

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 46
  • Created
  • Last Reply
21 minutes ago, ChinMusic said:

The disparity between the Dodgers and Padres in particular is truly eye opening. How can they expect to compete in that division?

 

Same goes for the Rays in the AL East. 

Unfortunately, those teams kind of have to wait for a perfect storm where a bunch of draft picks and trades work out.    The Rays had a nice run for 5-6 years but it's really  tough to compete on their budget.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Frobby said:

Unfortunately, those teams kind of have to wait for a perfect storm where a bunch of draft picks and trades work out.    The Rays had a nice run for 5-6 years but it's really  tough to compete on their budget.  

How much is the budget and how much is losing their GM and Manager?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, wildcard said:

According to Cots Contracts (which IMO is about the best source)

1. Dodgers 241m

2. Tigers 199m

3. Red Sox 197m

4. Yankees 196m

5. Giants 180m

6. Cubs 172m

7. Angels 166m

8. Rangers 165m

9. Nats 164.33m

10 Orioles 164.32m

11. Jays 163m

12. Mets 154.4m

13. Mariners 154.3m

14. Cardinals 147m

15. Royals 143m

16. Rockies 127m

17. Astros 124.3m

18. Indians 124.1m

19, Braves 122m

20. Marins 115m

21. Twins 108m

22. Phillies 100m

23. White Sox 97m

24. Pirates 95.8m

25. Reds 95.3m

26. Diamondbacks 93m

27. Athletics 80m

28. Rays 70m

29. Padres 69m

30. Brewers 63m

 

 

 

Count me in for an eyebrows-raised golf clap. That's pretty impressive for the Birds to be in Top 10. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, TradeAngelos said:

*14th in payroll. 

And in 2018, likely back down to Lord only knows where as the team is decimated because of our refusal to pay Manny. And pretty much everyone else that matters outside of Davis. 

Where is this asterisk being applied?

Also, it's a bit weak to move the goalposts for your criticism to a hypothetical 2018 payroll structure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, jamalshw said:

I don't think any argument against the Orioles willingness to spend holds much weight right now. What can be criticized, however, is how they spend the money. 

I guarantee that I could find plenty of online support to criticize "Cheap Angelos" as opposed to "Incompetent Angelos."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




  • Posts

    • Not that I am in any way full agreement, but this is a classic post.  Doesn't Machado play chess?  Maybe we could get some chess boards in the clubhouse and junk all the legos.  Not all great baseball men are John McGraw bad asses.  Some can be Christy Mathewsons as well, I suppose.  Not that I imagine today's young players much resembling McGraw or Mathewson, but they are the first two contrasting old school types that come to mind.  I will say just based on his postseason alone I'd much rather have Tatis over Machado.
    • Well I refuse to believe that only the O's have no players that want extensions.
    • Customer advocate groups have tried for decades to force the cable companies to allow channel by channel (a la carte) subscriptions, but the cable companies fought this because it would result in far less revenue (than forcing us to pay for a hundred channels we don't watch).  The government refused to intervene, so we've been stuck with the existing business model for all this time.  Streaming is forcing the change because streaming -- for now -- is an a la carte model.   MLB's fear must be this: if the regional sports network cable channel model goes away, will most users pay anywhere close to what these channels made as part of a cable bundle for just one streaming channel where all you watch are Orioles games (or maybe Orioles and Nats games -- whatever the case may be)?  So if you pay $100/month for cable with MASN, you are probably watching at least a few other channels too.  But will you pay $15/month (or whatever the price may be) just to watch the Orioles -- even during the months when there is no baseball?  The existing basic cable model has been quite stable because people tend to watch at least 5 or 6 channels.  They're reluctant to cancel their whole cable package just because baseball season is over -- or they've been too busy to watch many games this season.  But with a single streaming channel of just baseball there is bound to be a far more unstable revenue base.  All the streaming channels are already dealing with this problem.  I think MLB is maybe reluctant to go all in on streaming for this reason.  Perhaps they're looking for new different model that could allow them to bundle individual team channels with Netflix, or Prime, or maybe with your cell phone plan or something else.  This could give them some stability, but it could also be a turn off for the more hardcore fans who just want the Orioles and little else.  It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out and if MLB, and the Orioles, will prosper or suffer as a result.
    • What if they don’t want to be extended?
    • I don't want the O's to lose much, but I do want there to be a massive streaming deal with Amazon or some other company the O's are left out of.  This blackout nonsense is bullsh!t. 🤬
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...