Jump to content

MLB Opening Day Payrolls


AZRon

Recommended Posts

I drew the data from this series of posts from the Baseball Prospectus Compensation Website

For the 1st time in MLB history, the total of opening day team payrolls exceeded 4 billion dollars

The LA Dodgers led the way with over $241M -- a decrease of 3.6% from last year
The Detroit Tigers were next at just under $200M -- an increase of less than 1% from the previous year

The top 10 ten payrolls by team were:

 Los Angeles Dodgers $241,149,167
 Detroit Tigers $199,750,600
 Boston Red Sox $197,041,179
 New York Yankees $196,389,700
 San Francisco Giants $180,822,611
 Chicago Cubs $172,199,881
 Los Angeles Angels $166,375,833
 Texas Rangers $165,348,063
 Washington Nationals $164,335,444
 Baltimore Orioles $164,326,172

The Nationals and Orioles were in a virtual tie with Toronto next at $1M less

The bottom 10 payrolls by team were:

 Minnesota Twins $108,102,500
 Philadelphia Phillies $100,041,000
 Chicago White Sox $97,823,271
 Pittsburgh Pirates $95,807,004
 Cincinnati Reds $95,375,786
 Arizona Diamondbacks $93,120,200
 Oakland Athletics $81,738,333
 Tampa Bay Rays $70,064,700
 San Diego Padres $69,624,400
 Milwaukee Brewers $63,061,300
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The mean team payroll was $136.6M
The median was $152.1M

MLB total team payroll increased by $190.6M and 4.9%
The mean increase was $6.4M and 6.6%
The median was -$4.9 and -2.5%

Miami had the largest team increase -- $41M and 55.2%

The Yankees had the largest $ decrease at $31.5M
The Padres had the largest % decrease at 30.7%

9 teams increased their payroll by more than 10%
17 teams increased their payroll by more than 2%
4 teams increased their payroll by between 0% and 2%
9 teams decreased their payroll by 0.4% or more

Among the highest spending teams the deltas were:
Dodgers -- -3.6%
Tigers -- +0.6%
Red Sox -- -0.4%
Yankees -- -13.8%
Giants -- +5.1%
Cubs -- +0.3%
 

 

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...