2009 Payroll primer

[southsider2k5]

I caught an article the other day that mentioned Anaheim's payroll dropping by $10 million from last year to this one, so I decided to check and see how much of that was going around baseball right now. I found an article that seven of the top nine payrolls of 2008 are going into 2009 with a lower payroll. I'm still trying to put together the list of who is in which group. This is as near as I can tell. Just doing some quick googling I found 13 teams going lower, 5 about the same, and 12 higher. This article is claiming 15 lower, and 11 higher, with 4 the same. In the end, it is interesting to know that we are definately not alone in our cutting. Does anyone remember the last time that more than half of baseball teams were either cutting, or at best, holding the fort?

 

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009...cting-payrolls/

 

AL Central

White Sox-lower

Kansas City-Higher

Minnesota-Same

Cleveland-Higher

Detroit-Same

 

AL East

NYY-lower

Boston-Lower

Tampa Bay-Higher

Baltimore-Higher

Toronto-Lower

 

 

AL West

LAA-Lower

Oakland-Higher

Seattle-Lower

Texas-same

 

NL Central

Cubs-HIgher

Astros-Higher

St Louis-Lower

Pittsburgh-same

Cincinnati-higher

Milwaukee-lower

 

NL East

Mets-HIgher

Atlanta-lower

Washington-lower

Florida-same

Philidelphia-Higher

 

NL West

LAD-lower

SD-lower

SF-higher

Arizona-lower

[scenario]

Seems amazing to me that the Yankees could actually have a lower team salary after signing CC, Texeira, and Burnett.

 

But then I noticed that just by dumping Giambi ($23M), Abreu ($16M), and Pavano ($11M), they cut $50M from last year's payroll.

 

Wow. Talk about cutting fat. Losing those three guys was like financial liposuction.

 

 

 

[CanOfCorn]

I caught an article the other day that mentioned Anaheim's payroll dropping by $10 million from last year to this one, so I decided to check and see how much of that was going around baseball right now. I found an article that seven of the top nine payrolls of 2008 are going into 2009 with a lower payroll. I'm still trying to put together the list of who is in which group. This is as near as I can tell. Just doing some quick googling I found 13 teams going lower, 5 about the same, and 12 higher. This article is claiming 15 lower, and 11 higher, with 4 the same. In the end, it is interesting to know that we are definately not alone in our cutting. Does anyone remember the last time that more than half of baseball teams were either cutting, or at best, holding the fort?

 

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009...cting-payrolls/

 

AL Central

White Sox-lower

Kansas City-Higher

Minnesota-Same

Cleveland-Higher

Detroit-Same

 

AL East

NYY-lower

Boston-Lower

Tampa Bay-Higher

Baltimore-Higher

Toronto-Lower

 

 

AL West

LAA-Lower

Oakland-Higher

Seattle-Lower

Texas-same

 

NL Central

Cubs-HIgher

Astros-Higher

St Louis-Lower

Pittsburgh-same

Cincinnati-higher

Milwaukee-lower

 

NL East

Mets-HIgher

Atlanta-lower

Washington-lower

Florida-same

Philidelphia-Higher

 

NL West

LAD-lower

SD-lower

SF-higher

Arizona-lower

 

But teams like the Royals and Rays couldn't go much lower. And the Padres were being sold by an owner going through a divorce, so that explains that. But other than that, it is really amazing. I think what would be even more interesting to see is how much higher/lower these teams are going? For instance, are the teams that are cutting decreasing at a significantly higher rate than the adding teams are increasing?

 

Either way, the economy is going to affect all sports for years to come...and if there was ever a time for the owners to push for a salary cap in baseball, now would be the time.

[southsider2k5]

But teams like the Royals and Rays couldn't go much lower. And the Padres were being sold by an owner going through a divorce, so that explains that. But other than that, it is really amazing. I think what would be even more interesting to see is how much higher/lower these teams are going? For instance, are the teams that are cutting decreasing at a significantly higher rate than the adding teams are increasing?

 

Either way, the economy is going to affect all sports for years to come...and if there was ever a time for the owners to push for a salary cap in baseball, now would be the time.

 

Its no biggest surprise that the biggest increases are coming in Philly and Tampa, with the two teams that just played in the World Series. I didn't really get into the exact comparision of how much, and what percentage, but I would guess that the total payroll in MLB this year is down from 2008 levels.

[CanOfCorn]

Its no biggest surprise that the biggest increases are coming in Philly and Tampa, with the two teams that just played in the World Series. I didn't really get into the exact comparision of how much, and what percentage, but I would guess that the total payroll in MLB this year is down from 2008 levels.

 

And again...Tampa had nowhere to go, but up.

[southsider2k5]

And again...Tampa had nowhere to go, but up.

 

Even the total dollar amount of about $20 million upwards in much more than just about anyone else has done, that I saw.

[Dick Allen]

But teams like the Royals and Rays couldn't go much lower. And the Padres were being sold by an owner going through a divorce, so that explains that. But other than that, it is really amazing. I think what would be even more interesting to see is how much higher/lower these teams are going? For instance, are the teams that are cutting decreasing at a significantly higher rate than the adding teams are increasing?

 

Either way, the economy is going to affect all sports for years to come...and if there was ever a time for the owners to push for a salary cap in baseball, now would be the time.

Minnesota's remaining the same seems impossible to me. Nathan got an extension. Mourneau and Mauer had to get raises, and they pretty much are bring the rest of the roster back in tact.

[southsider2k5]

Minnesota's remaining the same seems impossible to me. Nathan got an extension. Mourneau and Mauer had to get raises, and they pretty much are bring the rest of the roster back in tact.

 

If you did the research you would see they are sitting at about $60 million after being at $57 million last year. If you want to call that higher, that's fine with me. $2-3 million is hardly worth mentioning IMO.

[Melissa1334]

atleast were in good shape financially for next year. like the cubs, they have almost 100mil commited to only 7 players for next year

[Dick Allen]

If you did the research you would see they are sitting at about $60 million after being at $57 million last year. If you want to call that higher, that's fine with me. $2-3 million is hardly worth mentioning IMO.

Their owner also said there is room to add, so I have it right now at $61 million. Its about 7% higher + they may add Crede or someone else. I'm sure if your boss told you that your would be getting an additional 7% added to your paycheck, you would call it a raise.

[southsider2k5]

Their owner also said there is room to add, so I have it right now at $61 million. Its about 7% higher + they may add Crede or someone else. I'm sure if your boss told you that your would be getting an additional 7% added to your paycheck, you would call it a raise.

 

Feel free to do your own research and make your own post anytime. I know I won't be holding my breath.

[Dick Allen]

Feel free to do your own research and make your own post anytime. I know I won't be holding my breath.

If KW "raised" the payroll $3-4 million, you certainly wouldn't be calling it the "same". Your last sentence is really uncalled for.

Edited February 16, 2009 by Dick Allen

[southsider2k5]

If KW "raised" the payroll $3-4 million, you certainly wouldn't be calling it the "same". Your last sentence is really uncalled for.

 

Like I said, you can call it whatever you want. Anymore nits to pick? That would require doing some of your own work though, instead of just picking apart what others say.

[Melissa1334]

lol

Edited February 16, 2009 by Melissa1334

[Dick Allen]

Like I said, you can call it whatever you want. Anymore nits to pick? That would require doing some of your own work though, instead of just picking apart what others say.

Sorry to point out an error in your "research". I'll go to timeout for 15 minutes.

[southsider2k5]

Sorry to point out an error in your "research". I'll go to timeout for 15 minutes.

 

lol. I didn't think you would.

[BearSox]

I really like how this team is setting up not for this year, and maybe (probably?) not next year, but 2 years from now. We will be fusing in some good young talent into the ball club, getting rid of some old players and freeing up more salary (Thome, Contreras, Konerko?, Dye?), and hopefully by 2010-2011, the economy will be in decent shape.

 

I have long said that I'd gladly take a losing season or two if it meant we could set up a team capable of competing for a world series for the next 10 plus years, and I think (hope) that's what we're doing. With all this young talent we have been developing and acquiring, and the fact we're gonna have a lot of flexibility in free agency (hopefully) in the next few years, this team can become very competitive for a long time.

[3E8]

If KW "raised" the payroll $3-4 million, you certainly wouldn't be calling it the "same". Your last sentence is really uncalled for.

You're such a dick, allen

 

He clearly says in the original post that a few are "about the same". What, can we only call them same if the dollar amount matches exactly

[joeynach]

Well I made my own spreadsheet and for 2009 were at $95 MIL. That doesn't include buyouts, signing bonus or our backup catchers salary. I did plug in all Pre-Arb figures as 400K. I think its pretty accurate. So if we add signing bonus, back catcher @ 400K, and buyouts that probably an extra $2mil. So lets say we go opening day at $97 Mil. My last years figure not including signing bonus or buyouts for opening day was $117 Mil. The sox have trimmed about $20M from their payroll or about 17%. That makes sense considering the lack of sponsorship revenue and the rumor flying around that Kenny might have been as much as $10M over last year.

 

The interesting thing about all this is that if u remember the message boards circa 2002-2005 there was tons of payroll talk. JR not spending, big market vs. small market, sox are cheap, blah blah. The sox payroll in their championship year in 05 was $75M. Its funny to think that now we are in a down year and our payroll is gonna be close to $100M. Really shows how far we have come in the last 5 years, there is no arguement now, the White Sox are a large market franchise.

[Dick Allen]

You're such a dick, allen

 

He clearly says in the original post that a few are "about the same". What, can we only call them same if the dollar amount matches exactly

Actually,my original post was not directed at him, it was shock that Minnesota could remain the same because they have guys who were getting big bumps and their roster is almost identical. I think Young is getting about $300k less, but everyone else should be higher. Almost like Philadelphia who had a huge increase, but didn't change much personnel-wise except lost Burrell and added Ibanez. Then he got personal.

[southsider2k5]

Actually,my original post was not directed at him, it was shock that Minnesota could remain the same because they have guys who were getting big bumps and their roster is almost identical. I think Young is getting about $300k less, but everyone else should be higher. Almost like Philadelphia who had a huge increase, but didn't change much personnel-wise except lost Burrell and added Ibanez. Then he got personal.

 

I apologize for getting personal. After you did so Friday, I thought you had a little thicker skin, but obviously you can't handle what you sow. I'll keep in mind that you bruise easy next time that you are stalking my work.