Orioles Payroll is a Slap in the Face to Fans

[BaltimoreTerp]

http://content.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=2010

Orioles Payroll Rankings since 2001

2001: 12

2002: 16

2003: 13

2004: 20

2005: 14

2006: 15

2007: 10

2008: 22

2009: 23

2010: 17

So over the past decade the Orioles have been in the top half of the league in payroll five times, plus a 16th and 17th-place.

Hasn't one of the main issues of this club, particularly in the early half of the decade, been keeping the payroll artifically high to try and convince fans we were trying to spend? Which didn't work?

Using base payroll to judge the progress of building a team is like using batting average to judge an offense. It might tell you something and even look right some of the time, but more often then not its going to lie to you.

[TradeAngelos]

Using base payroll to judge the progress of building a team is like using batting average to judge an offense. It might tell you something and even look right some of the time, but more often then not its going to lie to you.

How has that worked out for the Yankees and Red Sox when they spend the money? Is that "lying" to us?

[Hank Scorpio]

How has that worked out for the Yankees and Red Sox when they spend the money? Is that "lying" to us?

It works for Boston because they're smart with their player personnel decisions. They are very clearly the best run organization in baseball.

It works for the Yankees because their payroll is so far and away the largest in baseball that they don't have to be even slightly smart about it. The Yankees shouldn't even count in this discussion, quite frankly.

[BaltimoreTerp]

How has that worked out for the Yankees and Red Sox when they spend the money? Is that "lying" to us?

The player who hits .370 and leads the league is probably a great offensive player. Below him, there are guys who hit .300 with .310 OBPs and no power and guys who hit .240 with .400 OBPs and huge power.

Any questions?

[weams]

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4Au_-NvRUQ?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4Au_-NvRUQ?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[scOtt]

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRQMlXh4f-M?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRQMlXh4f-M?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[weams]

http://ia600300.us.archive.org/6/items/WilliamDyerSoundEffectsLibrary/slap.ogg

[Aloe]

I saw a November 25th blog post from the Baltimore Sun posted in another thread on another topic, and didn't want to derail that thread with the tangent I'm about to go off on.

Here's the relevant excerpt:

$45 million dollars is an insult. Even after the Reynolds trade, we're maybe talking $50 million. That's an insult. That would have been an insult 15 years ago, today is absolutely ridiculous.

Didn't I read an article in the last year or so that said that the Orioles revenue from MASN alone is like $40 million a year? Never mind ticket sales, radio rights, merchandise sales, concessions, parking, etc..

If you (Angelos) refuse to spend enough to field a competitive team with the Yankees or the Red Sox, you need to sell to someone who will. Sports franchises are public trusts, and aren't supposed to be run on the cheap as revenue generators without regard to wins and loses.

This is all the more frustrating because it does have to do with professional sports. If Coca-Cola were to double their prices or start producing an inferior product, people could switch to the Pepsi or RC Cola or whatever. But with sports, your team is your team. It's a loyalty issue by tradition and culture, so fans are kind of stuck with whatever some jerk owner wants to do.

What baseball really needs is a hard salary cap and a hard salary floor -- not only to adjust for revenue disparities, but also to ensure that all owners spend roughly the same amount to avoid situations like what's going on in Baltimore right now. After losing a World Series in '94, the owners should have just dug in their heels until the end of time if necessary to get that salary cap (And, yes, I did say so at the time, if I recall correctly).

Barring that, though, Angelos should spend or sell. Stop inflicting this stuff on the loyal fans of Baltimore.

I couldn't agree more.

[waroriole]

I couldn't agree more.

Then you'll be pleased to learn that that post is completely inaccurate. The payroll right now is much higher than 45-50M. That article he quoted was from last year.

[TonySoprano]

Then you'll be pleased to learn that that post is completely inaccurate. The payroll right now is much higher than 45-50M. That article he quoted was from last year.

The closest opening day payroll has come close to $45 mil

was in 2004 when it was $51 mil. Before that you have to go back to 1996 when it was $48 mil.

We bring you now back to the uniformed rant already in progress.

[lanslaxcj]

The Visionary.

This picture reminds me of a picture of myself at the warehouse when I was a teenager working for an architectural firm and a newspaper did a story on me. IF I knew how to embed the photo I would.

[osfan83]

The economics of baseball are so radically different from any other sport that a salary cap may not be the best thing for MLB. A limit on salary doesn't mean a limit on revenue, and certainly not on spending money. The Yankees, Red Sox, et al. would still spend tons more than the Orioles, Rays, Marlins, and Pirates of the league, they would just spend it in different ways, ways that would essentially close off talent avenues for other teams.

For example, with a salary cap in place, the Yankees and Red Sox could put up ridiculous posting fees for Japanese players, bonuses for drafted players and international amateur FAs. As one-time expenses, none of those would count towards a cap, but the large-market teams would still be able to outspend all the other teams by virtue of their greater resources.

Imagine if the Yankees had a 60 million dollar budget for the draft. They could practically sign every talented player who drops to them due to signing demands. Then, with the absurd surplus of talent they would get from their utter domination of the talent pools, they could trade for established talent and essentially field an all-star lineup every year while still staying within the salary cap limitations.

There could be ways to fix those problems as well, but you just can't compare baseball to the NFL and NBA because it's so much more complex economically. Simply proposing a hard salary cap is not the answer.

Well..the NBA and NFL both have drafts, and the NBA and NHL both have a fair amount of international signings. What you say is true about the young talent both Boston and NY could amass, but when these players hit their prime, 27 or so, they would hit the market and be available for teams like Pitt and Mil to sign because A: the Yanks and Sox would have good young talent to replace them, and B: The Yanks would not be able to pay top dollar for Jeter/Arod/Tex/Mo/CC/Lee? all at the same time because of the cap.

As it stands right now the big market teams can have as many of the best players in their primes, AND have the best minor league systems and international signings...under a cap, sure the minor league and international efforts would still be tops, but they would not corner the market on players at the top of their game in their prime years.

[osfan83]

Good talent is not always expensive. CC and Lee and Beckett were all at one time just as talented and cheap as hell. Now they are expensive as hell.

We have guys who, in a few years, we'll be breaking the bank for. Jones, Wieters, Matusz, Arrieta, etc.

Why do people insist that money equals talent? Talent is talent. Either you are acquiring it cheaply through trades and the draft or you are paying out the ass for it on the open market. How big your payroll is does not dictate how well your team is doing.

I haven't done the exercise in a few years, but if you go back to 1994, something like 70% of the playoff teams are in the top third of payroll, 25% are in the middle third, and about 5% in the bottom third....so yes, money does generally equal talent.

[waroriole]

The closest opening day payroll has come close to $45 mil

was in 2004 when it was $51 mil. Before that you have to go back to 1996 when it was $48 mil.

We bring you now back to the uniformed rant already in progress.

Right, I should have clarified that figure was in the offseason, before any FA were added.

[osfan83]

Into the breach, yet again...

What baseball needs is NOT a salary cap. What baseball needs is equitable revenue distribution, a balanced schedule and the end of interleague play.

A salary cap without revenue sharing is nothing more than a scheme to make the Yankee$ and Red $ox even more profitable.

I don't really care how profitable the Yanks or Sox are...what I care about is their ability to use their increased resources due to their market size to field a team vastly superiour in talent to other teams. Kind of like a NASCAR team that's allowed to have a much more powerfull engine than the others in the field.