Payroll to stay put?

[Marc Newfield of Dreams]

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/brewers/36670629.html

 

"At some point it gets to be absurd when a team has a $200 million payroll," he said, adding that the Brewers wouldn't raise their $81 million payroll because of the recession.

 

[kramnoj]

I wouldn't put too much stock in that story. The writer doesn't actually quote Attanasio regarding the Brewers payroll. So for example, Attanasio could have said he doesn't plan on adding to the payroll, and could be talking about the $90M or so the Brewers ended the season with, and the reporter could have thought Attanasio meant the number the Brewers started the season with.

[reillymcshane]

I think most teams are going to be a little wary of adding too much payroll (I stress 'most' teams) because of the economy. Frankly, people are spending less, and owners are business people who don't want to over extend themselves financially. They'll probably wait and see how attendance numbers appear early on before feeling comfortable (or not) with expanding budgets. Teams like the brewers rely more on attendance than local TV revenues, so it's a big wild card. Teams like the yankees have guaranteed substantial revenues with their own TV contracts. With people anxious about their money (not to mention jobs), saving a $100 or $200 by watching the game on TV instead of going to the park is a real alternative.

 

I doubt the crew make a big move - a Looper like player may be as big as it gets - 2 year type deal for $6 million a year. Maybe then reliever like Hoffman for a similar number, then a few low cost add ons - I think that's gonna be our big off season. End up with an $80-85 million payroll with the ability to add on if revenues are solid and the team is in contention. Not what I want, but I understand. Too bad teams like the Yankees don't.

[JohnBriggs12]

There's no question that this Yankee spending spree at a time when most teams have to hold the line or cut payroll is going to harden this current group of owners for a cap.

 

It's terrible for the health of the game at a critical point in time. The game was starting to flourish because of the success of the Tampa Bays, Milwaukees, etc. That gave all the other small markets hope.

 

Now it appears we are headed again to a period of utter domination of the big markets. Yankees, Red Sox, Angels in the AL, and Mets, Cubs, Dodgers, and Phillies in the NL. This is horrible for the health of the game in general.

[kramnoj]

This is horrible for the health of the game in general.

 

Do you understand that at this point, absolutely nothing has changed? That right now the Yankees payroll projects to be less than last year? Seriously, if you didn't write these posts before Teixeira signed with the Yankees, there is no reason to write them now. The Yankees can do this because they are losing Giambi, Abreu, Mussina, the dead weight of Pavano, etc.

 

Now it appears we are headed again to a period of utter domination of the big markets. Yankees, Red Sox, Angels in the AL, and Mets, Cubs, Dodgers, and Phillies in the NL.

 

It's far too early to say this. Right now the Angels and Dodgers are losing ground, not gaining utter domination.

[Ennder]

Now it appears we are headed again to a period of utter domination of the big markets. Yankees, Red Sox, Angels in the AL, and Mets, Cubs, Dodgers, and Phillies in the NL. This is horrible for the health of the game in general.

 

The fact that the Rays and Rockies went to the world series the last two years would suggest that this isn't true. I said it in the other thread and I'll say it again, most likely a lot of this is dead money for the Yankees. There is almost no chance Sabathia and Burnett stay healthy over their entire contract and Teix will likely be overpaid for the downside of his career. For 2-3 years this is looking good for the Yanks but then a huge chunk of what is left is probably bad contracts.

[MessiahRp]

Where is the $81 million figure from? Weren't we around that last year before the CC trade? Haven't we already lost over $30 million off the books with Sheets, Gagne, Shouse, Torres, Mota, Counsell all coming off the books? Arby's not going to get anywhere close to what all those guys made even if Prince does get $6.5 million.

 

Rp

[PilprinBuddha]

I am actually okay with the payroll staying about the same. As others have stated, some teams are going with smaller payrolls. If we can reamin about the same, we will have an opportunity to add a couple players in the near future.

Now that Texieria has signed, does that open a market for Prince? Do we want it to open a market for Prince?

[Crewin06]

$81 million is what I expected right now with some rough guesses on arby raises I would say the Brewers are at around 70-73 million. If the Brewers add 8 million more in salary this team could be very good.

[Never Outhustled]

I hope Attanosio remembers that he's not just competing against the other 29 teams, but he's competing against of forms of entertainment for our entertainment dollar. I haven't been hurt by the recession (yet), but I don't spend much to support bad teams.

[RockCoCougars]

I'm going to withhold judgment until I see what happens, but I'm beginning to worry that this ownership group has lost a ton of wealth "in the market" as of late. With all the salaries coming off the books salary should be well below last year, even with the raises for Suppan and the like. I'm starting to feel like the Yankees called Melvin's bluff with Cameron and unless he can be moved, nothing substantive is going to happen..... "adding that the Brewers wouldn't raise their $81 million payroll because of the recession" sounds like something Laurel Prieb used to say to justify the penny pinching operations of the Seligs. As I said before, I will withhold judgment here, but I will say that the level of fan support this team got last year (and the dollars that went along with it) should not warrant a payroll cut, especially considering that the core of this team will probably only be together for another year or two.

[kramnoj]

The Brewers have info that we don't have. They know how many season tickets have been renewed, they know how many holiday 4-packs they have sold. If the Brewers aren't going to add to payroll, I suspect it will be because they are forecasting fewer ticket sales and are planning accordingly. Actually, I think we should accept that there will be fewer tickets sold this year, it's just a question of how big the drop will be.

[twobrewers]

This is horrible for the health of the game in general.

I actually disagree 100%.

 

The Yankees draw huge television ratings. So do the Red Sox, Cubs, Dodgers etc. Television ratings for the World Series are much better with the Yankees v Cubs instead of Brewers v Rays.

 

Because of the Yankee's drunken spending, teams like the Brewers are able to get additional draft picks and revenue sharing. In addition, I enjoy the underdog role versus the evil empires that only happens in baseball. (Toppling dynasties is more exciting than parity, in my opinion)

[Mass Haas]

Because of the Yankee's drunken spending, teams like the Brewers are able to get additional draft picks.

Not really, teams like the Brewers usually trade potential free agents in July, where they are scooped up by teams like the Yankees and Red Sox, who then allow them to walk and benefit from the draft picks after just a few months of player ownership. The powerhouse teams can afford the risk to offer arbitration to players that mid-to-small market teams cannot, thus benefitting more when those players leave as well. These two teams in particular have had an insane number of additional prime draft picks in recent years.

[Invader3K]

Yeah, our second rounder for CC sure isn't much compensation. If you're the Yankees, giving that up to get one of the best pitchers available is a no brainer. It really doesn't create much balance at all. The thing with the draft in baseball is that it's basically a crap shoot as far as who will turn into a quality MLB player, and also that they usually don't make it to the majors for 2-3 years minimum, since the gap between college baseball and the pros is huge. It's not like the NFL where a crappy team like the Raiders or Lions could draft the next superstar quarterback, who has the capability of leading them towards the playoffs the very next year.

[JohnBriggs12]

This is horrible for the health of the game in general.

I actually disagree 100%.

 

The Yankees draw huge television ratings. So do the Red Sox, Cubs, Dodgers etc. Television ratings for the World Series are much better with the Yankees v Cubs instead of Brewers v Rays.

 

Because of the Yankee's drunken spending, teams like the Brewers are able to get additional draft picks and revenue sharing. In addition, I enjoy the underdog role versus the evil empires that only happens in baseball. (Toppling dynasties is more exciting than parity, in my opinion)

In 1990 before the Yankees emerged as the dominant spender, the Reds and A's (two small markets) averaged a 21 rating and 35 million viewers for a 4 game Reds sweep. The last time the Yankees were in the series they averaged around a 13 rating and 20 million viewers.

 

The fact is that ratings for baseball nationally are horrible in part because fans are smart enough to know the game isn't played on a level playing field. It's basically fixed in a sense. Sure the big market teams draw better overall numbers because there are more people living in those markets. But people in Kansas City and Pittsburgh couldn't care less what the Yankees and Red Sox are doing.

 

Revenue has increased in baseball over the last 5 years because teams besides the Yankees and Red Sox have been competitive. Sooner or later, you have to have competition among more than a handfull of teams to make championships even meaningful.

 

As far as parity hurting a sport, parity hasn't hurt the NFL which clobbers MLB in ratings.

[kramnoj]

JB, if you are going to mention tv ratings for baseball and not mention that ratings for MNF are down and that TV ratings in general are down, then you aren't making any real point at all.

[TheCrew07]

Yeah, our second rounder for CC sure isn't much compensation. If you're the Yankees, giving that up to get one of the best pitchers available is a no brainer. It really doesn't create much balance at all. The thing with the draft in baseball is that it's basically a crap shoot as far as who will turn into a quality MLB player, and also that they usually don't make it to the majors for 2-3 years minimum, since the gap between college baseball and the pros is huge. It's not like the NFL where a crappy team like the Raiders or Lions could draft the next superstar quarterback, who has the capability of leading them towards the playoffs the very next year.

You mean a guy like David Price? or Prior? The best talent is usually drafted out of High School and those players are typically making an impact by 21/22 years old, the time they would be eligible for the draft. The whole international FA situation must be addressed though, those players should have to declare for the draft and be part of the process like any US born player. The Red Sox may not have a grossly obscene payroll but I'm surprised how quickly people forgot the obscene amount of money they paid to be able to negotiate with Dice K, it was over 51 million dollars... money that's not considered part of Dice K's contract but shouldn't it be? I believe with incentives the deal was for around 60 million, but the total cost of the commitment was 6 years and 110+ million... still better than Burnett but that was significant sum of cash that gets hidden in terms of revenue sharing/luxury tax.

 

MLB is the only major sport that's still more of a Free Market... only US players have to be drafted so he who scouts the most can spend the most, basically your talent pool is only limited by your resources. The larger the market, the larger the resource base... The flip side of course is parity. I like parity, I get that others don't, but I'd rather the team I root won because it was managed and coached properly than because they used every other team in the league as a talent resource and signed all of the best players from around the league. The Yankees may not win a World Series, but they'll win games, alot of games, and that will keep fans in the seats and interest high.

[Ennder]

The fact is that ratings for baseball nationally are horrible in part because fans are smart enough to know the game isn't played on a level playing field

 

That is 100% opinion and one that I disagree with. Ratings are down because the number of choices of what to watch are up. The reason super bowl ratings stay strong is because it is now a party type event that people watch even if they could care less about football. I'm sure if baseball cut the season in half and had 1 game playoffs the ratings for each game would go up too, the game wouldn't be as good of course.

[TooLiveBrew]

For 2-3 years this is looking good for the Yanks but then a huge chunk of what is left is probably bad contracts.

 

That's an interesting comment, because I'm one that believes the Yankees are indeed making these kinds of commitments not because they truly believe that the players will be 'worth' their contracts each season. Instead it's my inkling that the Yanks & other big market teams sign players to these huge contracts because they can sustain the 'bad money' that's often likely to come at or near the ends of said deals.

 

In other words, paying a guy $180M for 8 seasons, when you're really paying to ensure that you get the first 4 seasons or so of the deal at elite production. Does that make any sense? Not sure why, if my 'theory' is true, that teams wouldn't just pay the full amount (or close) over the 4 seasons or so of prime production, aside from deferring some of the cost to future seasons, when you're probably at least still getting some kind of production from a guy.

[twobrewers]

In 1990 before the Yankees emerged as the dominant spender, the Reds and A's (two small markets) averaged a 21 rating and 35 million viewers for a 4 game Reds sweep.

I understand your point - but ignoring 18 years of lifestyle changes in America kinda makes this stat moot.

 

As far as parity hurting a sport, parity hasn't hurt the NFL which clobbers MLB in ratings.

I understand that the NFL has increased in popularity substantially in the past 20 years. But you really can't just say parity in the NFL = better ratings. That is obviously an overly simplistic viewpoint. You have no way of knowing what the NFL would be like without parity, perhaps ratings would be twice as good.

 

And I don't see much parity in the NFL. I see lots of luck that evens the competitive field from year to year. This year there were 8 really, really bad teams. That isn't parity.

[Ennder]

In other words, paying a guy $180M for 8 seasons, when you're really paying to ensure that you get the first 4 seasons or so of the deal at elite production. Does that make any sense?

 

Yes that is exactly how it works and it is why the payroll differences aren't usually as bad as they look as the large market teams generally have more money tied up on washed up/injured vets. The yankees have an extremely hard time developing young talent and overpay to get veterans rarely getting their moneys worth out of the contract.

 

Same thing happens with teams that are in the dumps, nobody wants to sign with them as a FA and they have to overpay which is why it is so important for the Brewers to stick in that .500 range for a while.

[bucks2281]

The fact is that ratings for baseball nationally are horrible in part because fans are smart enough to know the game isn't played on a level playing field

 

As others have said, there are limitless options for television watchers nowadays. Ratings are down for virtually every sport, except the NFL. But, if TV ratings are suffering because of the lack of parity, why does MLB seemingly break its own attendance record every season?