Price to Red Sox 7 years $219 Million

[CheezWizHed]

CheezWiz-

That is fascinating data. I'd be interested in seeing how it trends further back in history, but I'm not sure how to dig up this particular data on baseball reference.

 

I used this page: http://www.baseball-reference.com/play-index/season_finder.cgi?type=b

 

I set the year to only be one year (e.g. 2000 to 2000), set the minimum age to 35 (e.g. 35 to Any) and made sure all positions were selected including pitchers. I'm not a BR subscriber, so I only get a limited set of data, but it does tell you how many people fit that criteria. So that is how I got those numbers.

[DuWayne Steurer]

I don't think anyone would dispute that having a larger budget is an advantage. How much of an advantage is it? That's obviously up for debate.

 

The Royals are back to back AL champs, with a WS victory under their belts, and are nicely set up for at least a few more years of success. If they keep building from within, they should be well set up for a nice sustained run of being competitive. They're right in the middle of the league in payroll.

 

You absolutely CAN be successful if you draft well, trade well, and recognize market inefficiencies well. The Rays did it (and are still doing it). The Royals are doing it. The Cardinals do it amazingly well.

 

I'd never see the point in throwing 200 million dollars at any player, position player OR a pitcher over the age of 30. EVERY team has a budget. Even the Dodgers. Even if the budget is 375 million dollars. At some point every team will say "Ok, we're losing money, we have to stop spending money".

[bill hAll Star]

You can win with a small payroll - fact. Your chances are lower.

 

Most years, the majority of playoff teams come from the top half of league payroll. Sure, the Astros and Cubs have middling/low payrolls right now and made it in, but they will be top 10 payrolls within 2 years.

 

When the Brewers made it in as a Cubs/Astros-esque team, they had to sell their souls to get Greinke/Sabathia. They could have gone the Rays route assuming they had excellent talent evaluation and hoped if they made it 5 times in 7 years that they'd luck out once, but they went the route of taking their only chance to get elite players to maybe get them through in their 2 chances. Cubs and Astros fans can be certain that they will have playoff teams for probably 5-8 of the next 10 years.

[reillymcshane]

Having a large budget is awesome. But you still have to make smart investments. If you're going to drop $100M or $200M, do it on the right guy(s). Who thought Sandoval and Ramirez were wise investments last year? I don't think anyone thought these were good moves.

 

You make dumb moves, you quickly eat up the $50M or $100M advantage your team has.

[DuWayne Steurer]

You can win with a small payroll - fact. Your chances are lower.

 

.

 

I immediately acknowledged that by saying (and I quote) "I don't think anyone would dispute that having a larger budget is an advantage. How much of an advantage is it? That's obviously up for debate"

[DuWayne Steurer]

Can you imagine if the Brewers had money? We could have kept Prince and Sabathia/Greinke and had 3-4 more 90 win seasons. What the Red Sox are doing the last two years is a perfect example of how big markets have a big advantage.

 

 

Sabathia is on an 8 year deal. He was really good the first 3 years of that deal. He was still solid the 4th year. The last 3 years he's been terribad. His ERA+ has been 84, 73, and 84. Assuming he continues to be awful (which there's no reason to believe he won't be), he's going to be absolutely butt-awful for half the life of his 182 million dollar contract.

 

I'm not sure being able to afford that kind of production is a smart way to invest.

 

Since Prince left MIlwaukee, his 4 years of production have seen a 4.7 WAR (all star level) followed by a 1.9 WAR, a -.2 WAR, and another 1.9 WAR. So he's been worth his contract the first year, and the rest of the time he's been league average, bench player, and league average. All at the low low cost of only 214 million dollars? He's in the AL, where he belongs. Hopefully the Rangers (or someone) has the good sense sooner rather than later to put him at DH, and stop wasting the positive value he DOES provide with his bat by putting him in the field.

[Thurston Fluff]

I think we have to be careful to differentiate between payroll rankings and high payrolls. Last year for example the 10th highest payroll to start last season was the White Sox at $122,630,477. If you compare that to the Dodgers $273,440,830 payroll and the Brewers $98,037,500 you can see it was far closer to the Brewers than the Dodgers. In fact to get a payroll closer to the top than to the Brewers you have to go to the Red Sox at number three and their $189,577,594 payroll. So I think it takes more than just being in the top 10 in payroll to be a big spender.

Here is a list of team payrolls if anyone is interested in seeing who the truly big spenders have been over the past decade or so. http://www.stevetheump.com/Payrolls.htm

[MrTPlush]

Sabathia is on an 8 year deal. He was really good the first 3 years of that deal. He was still solid the 4th year. The last 3 years he's been terribad. His ERA+ has been 84, 73, and 84. Assuming he continues to be awful (which there's no reason to believe he won't be), he's going to be absolutely butt-awful for half the life of his 182 million dollar contract.

The main goal every team has to win the world series. The Yankees got CC and immediately went out and won a championship. Not only that but CC ended up being a massive part of why they did. I don't think any Yankees fan is is going to or should regret giving him that deal. He gave them 4 solid seasons and was a big part of their world series team.

 

Lets say the Brewers have a really good team just missing an ace in 2018 and decide to sign Jake Arrieta to some HUGE contract. Then the Brewers go on to win the 2018 World Series title behind a dominant Jake Arrieta. If he then give of 3 disaster years at $30mil each are you really going to say, "Wow I wish the Brewers never signed him." Heck no you aren't...you are going to be waving that world series flag.

 

It is just another example of how big markets can just comfortably know half the contract will be a disaster and most likely not horribly effect them. The Yankees can pay CC $25mil to be a #5 starter, not shed a tear, and still win 87 games.

 

Now I am by no means saying this is a fool proof way or guarantee a world series championship. Winning a world series, like many other sports, is mostly hitting your stride at the right time and a lot of luck. What is undeniable is that big markets compete more, get to the playoffs more, and stay in playoff contention many more years than a small market could. Now at the end of the day a lot of times a big payroll team doesn't win the world series. Then again neither do the Brewers and at least those big markets get to compete almost every year while small markets go through painful rebuilds losing star players.

[MrTPlush]

I think we have to be careful to differentiate between payroll rankings and high payrolls. Last year for example the 10th highest payroll to start last season was the White Sox at $122,630,477. If you compare that to the Dodgers $273,440,830 payroll and the Brewers $98,037,500 you can see it was far closer to the Brewers than the Dodgers. In fact to get a payroll closer to the top than to the Brewers you have to go to the Red Sox at number three and their $189,577,594 payroll. So I think it takes more than just being in the top 10 in payroll to be a big spender.

Here is a list of team payrolls if anyone is interested in seeing who the truly big spenders have been over the past decade or so. http://www.stevetheump.com/Payrolls.htm

 

The problem is you can't just look at one years payroll rankings since they vary so much year to year. For instance there are a couple teams that could easily spend more on that list(Cardinals/Cubs/Mets) which would push that #10 number to something more like $140mil. Heck in 2012 the Brewers actually had a Top10 payroll. Difference is the Brewers were maxed out and some teams could have spent $60mil if there were the players to buy.

 

I think when it comes to differentiating small market teams and large market teams it comes down to one thing. One group of teams can(and will) sign the David Price's of the world and the other group cannot. That is the big difference in this whole thing. If the small market teams want that elite player they have to pray they can develop one or they have to trade the farm for one. If we could have just signed a Zack Greinke we would still have Escobar, Odorizzi, Cain, and Brantley on this team or available for other trades. What a massive difference that would have made.

[Thurston Fluff]

I think we have to be careful to differentiate between payroll rankings and high payrolls. Last year for example the 10th highest payroll to start last season was the White Sox at $122,630,477. If you compare that to the Dodgers $273,440,830 payroll and the Brewers $98,037,500 you can see it was far closer to the Brewers than the Dodgers. In fact to get a payroll closer to the top than to the Brewers you have to go to the Red Sox at number three and their $189,577,594 payroll. So I think it takes more than just being in the top 10 in payroll to be a big spender.

Here is a list of team payrolls if anyone is interested in seeing who the truly big spenders have been over the past decade or so. http://www.stevetheump.com/Payrolls.htm

 

The problem is you can't just look at one years payroll rankings since they vary so much year to year. For instance there are a couple teams that could easily spend more on that list(Cardinals/Cubs/Mets) which would push that #10 number to something more like $140mil. Heck in 2012 the Brewers actually had a Top10 payroll. Difference is the Brewers were maxed out and some teams could have spent $60mil if there were the players to buy.

 

I think when it comes to differentiating small market teams and large market teams it comes down to one thing. One group of teams can(and will) sign the David Price's of the world and the other group cannot. That is the big difference in this whole thing. If the small market teams want that elite player they have to pray they can develop one or they have to trade the farm for one. If we could have just signed a Zack Greinke we would still have Escobar, Odorizzi, Cain, and Brantley on this team or available for other trades. What a massive difference that would have made.

 

I'm guessing you didn't actually look at the link I provided.

[sveumrules]

I think we have to be careful to differentiate between payroll rankings and high payrolls. Last year for example the 10th highest payroll to start last season was the White Sox at $122,630,477. If you compare that to the Dodgers $273,440,830 payroll and the Brewers $98,037,500 you can see it was far closer to the Brewers than the Dodgers. In fact to get a payroll closer to the top than to the Brewers you have to go to the Red Sox at number three and their $189,577,594 payroll. So I think it takes more than just being in the top 10 in payroll to be a big spender.

Here is a list of team payrolls if anyone is interested in seeing who the truly big spenders have been over the past decade or so. http://www.stevetheump.com/Payrolls.htm

 

This point is very important. Given that salary is not distributed evenly saying a top 3, top 5, top 10 payroll is fine for quick & dirty purposes but doesn't really tell you much outside of a general range within league context. Looking at the 2015 opening day payrolls the mean payroll was approximately 125 million with a standard deviation of about 45 million. With that in mind the best way to group teams based on opening day payroll for 2015 would be as such...

 

3+ Standard Deviations above mean (Super Duper Mega Rich)

(LAD $273)

2+ Standard Deviations above mean (Super Mega Rich)

(NYY $219)

1+ Standard Deviations above mean (Mega Rich)

(BOS $187, DET $174, SFG $173)

0-1 Standard Deviations above mean (Rich)

(WAS $165, LAA $151, TEX $142, PHI $136)

0-1 Standard Deviations below mean (Status Quo)

(TOR $122, STL $121, SEA $120, CHN $119, CIN $117, CHA $115, KCR $114, BAL $110, MIN $109, MIL $105, COL $102, NYM $101, SDP $101, ATL $98, ARI $92, PIT $88, CLE $86, OAK $86)

1+ Standard Deviations below mean (Poor)

(TBR $76, HOU $71, MIA $68)

 

With those groupings established, 3 of the 9 teams in the rich & above brackets (33%) qualified for postseason play, 6 of the 18 teams in the status quo (33%) qualified for postseason play and 1 of the 3 poor teams (33%) qualified for postseason play.

[bill hAll Star]

I think we have to be careful to differentiate between payroll rankings and high payrolls. Last year for example the 10th highest payroll to start last season was the White Sox at $122,630,477. If you compare that to the Dodgers $273,440,830 payroll and the Brewers $98,037,500 you can see it was far closer to the Brewers than the Dodgers. In fact to get a payroll closer to the top than to the Brewers you have to go to the Red Sox at number three and their $189,577,594 payroll. So I think it takes more than just being in the top 10 in payroll to be a big spender.

Here is a list of team payrolls if anyone is interested in seeing who the truly big spenders have been over the past decade or so. http://www.stevetheump.com/Payrolls.htm

 

This point is very important. Given that salary is not distributed evenly saying a top 3, top 5, top 10 payroll is fine for quick & dirty purposes but doesn't really tell you much outside of a general range within league context. Looking at the 2015 opening day payrolls the mean payroll was approximately 125 million with a standard deviation of about 45 million. With that in mind the best way to group teams based on opening day payroll for 2015 would be as such...

 

3+ Standard Deviations above mean (Super Duper Mega Rich)

(LAD $273)

2+ Standard Deviations above mean (Super Mega Rich)

(NYY $219)

1+ Standard Deviations above mean (Mega Rich)

(BOS $187, DET $174, SFG $173)

0-1 Standard Deviations above mean (Rich)

(WAS $165, LAA $151, TEX $142, PHI $136)

0-1 Standard Deviations below mean (Status Quo)

(TOR $122, STL $121, SEA $120, CHN $119, CIN $117, CHA $115, KCR $114, BAL $110, MIN $109, MIL $105, COL $102, NYM $101, SDP $101, ATL $98, ARI $92, PIT $88, CLE $86, OAK $86)

1+ Standard Deviations below mean (Poor)

(TBR $76, HOU $71, MIA $68)

 

With those groupings established, 3 of the 9 teams in the rich & above brackets (33%) qualified for postseason play, 6 of the 18 teams in the status quo (33%) qualified for postseason play and 1 of the 3 poor teams (33%) qualified for postseason play.

 

You've done all of this nice analysis and then you took it and based your conclusion on a 1 season sample.

[bill hAll Star]

Over the past 5-10 years, the Yankees and Red Sox have made it a lot in the mega/super mega-rich. The Dodgers have been in the playoffs a ton. Rangers, Tigers, Giants, Nats are in the semi-rich and often make it. The Cards, A's, and Rays are the obvious outliers with their success/payroll ratio with KC and Pittsburgh asking to join that group.

 

Houston and the Cubs will be back up in the top 10 in payroll soon enough.

[sveumrules]

I think we have to be careful to differentiate between payroll rankings and high payrolls. Last year for example the 10th highest payroll to start last season was the White Sox at $122,630,477. If you compare that to the Dodgers $273,440,830 payroll and the Brewers $98,037,500 you can see it was far closer to the Brewers than the Dodgers. In fact to get a payroll closer to the top than to the Brewers you have to go to the Red Sox at number three and their $189,577,594 payroll. So I think it takes more than just being in the top 10 in payroll to be a big spender.

Here is a list of team payrolls if anyone is interested in seeing who the truly big spenders have been over the past decade or so. http://www.stevetheump.com/Payrolls.htm

 

This point is very important. Given that salary is not distributed evenly saying a top 3, top 5, top 10 payroll is fine for quick & dirty purposes but doesn't really tell you much outside of a general range within league context. Looking at the 2015 opening day payrolls the mean payroll was approximately 125 million with a standard deviation of about 45 million. With that in mind the best way to group teams based on opening day payroll for 2015 would be as such...

 

3+ Standard Deviations above mean (Super Duper Mega Rich)

(LAD $273)

2+ Standard Deviations above mean (Super Mega Rich)

(NYY $219)

1+ Standard Deviations above mean (Mega Rich)

(BOS $187, DET $174, SFG $173)

0-1 Standard Deviations above mean (Rich)

(WAS $165, LAA $151, TEX $142, PHI $136)

0-1 Standard Deviations below mean (Status Quo)

(TOR $122, STL $121, SEA $120, CHN $119, CIN $117, CHA $115, KCR $114, BAL $110, MIN $109, MIL $105, COL $102, NYM $101, SDP $101, ATL $98, ARI $92, PIT $88, CLE $86, OAK $86)

1+ Standard Deviations below mean (Poor)

(TBR $76, HOU $71, MIA $68)

 

With those groupings established, 3 of the 9 teams in the rich & above brackets (33%) qualified for postseason play, 6 of the 18 teams in the status quo (33%) qualified for postseason play and 1 of the 3 poor teams (33%) qualified for postseason play.

 

You've done all of this nice analysis and then you took it and based your conclusion on a 1 season sample.

 

Sorry, I'm at work right now and wasn't able to do the math for all 17 years that data is available on steve the ump's website. If you'd like to go through and do all the compuatations for me it will save me quite a bit of time when I get home.

[bill hAll Star]

This will save some time:

 

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/dont-be-fooled-by-baseballs-small-budget-success-stories/

 

[MrTPlush]

I'm guessing you didn't actually look at the link I provided.

 

Did you? Because the White Sox weren't #10 nor was their payroll(or any other teams) the number you provided.

 

Also I wasn't necessarily disagreeing with what you said just adding to it because it was related.

[MrTPlush]

3+ Standard Deviations above mean (Super Duper Mega Rich)

(LAD $273)

2+ Standard Deviations above mean (Super Mega Rich)

(NYY $219)

1+ Standard Deviations above mean (Mega Rich)

(BOS $187, DET $174, SFG $173)

0-1 Standard Deviations above mean (Rich)

(WAS $165, LAA $151, TEX $142, PHI $136)

0-1 Standard Deviations below mean (Status Quo)

(TOR $122, STL $121, SEA $120, CHN $119, CIN $117, CHA $115, KCR $114, BAL $110, MIN $109, MIL $105, COL $102, NYM $101, SDP $101, ATL $98, ARI $92, PIT $88, CLE $86, OAK $86)

1+ Standard Deviations below mean (Poor)

(TBR $76, HOU $71, MIA $68)

 

With those groupings established, 3 of the 9 teams in the rich & above brackets (33%) qualified for postseason play, 6 of the 18 teams in the status quo (33%) qualified for postseason play and 1 of the 3 poor teams (33%) qualified for postseason play.

 

All the bolded teams have had, what I consider, an extended period of success in recent memory...so 7/9 or 78% of rich teams have had prolonged success in the last 10 years. How many of the not rich teams? Cardinals...Rays...anyone else? So 2/21 or 10%.

 

It is obvious you can buy wins...there is just no denying that. However, can you buy a championship? Well that is a whole different story.

[sveumrules]

This will save some time:

 

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/dont-be-fooled-by-baseballs-small-budget-success-stories/

 

 

That article is interesting, if not a little contradictory. The sub title is "MLB Payrolls Matter More Than Ever" then the money quote at the close of the article suggests that maybe its other, non-payroll factors that matter more than ever.

 

Fort, however, also thinks that the case for the relationship between payroll and wins is overstated. “When have we ever been satisfied that a simple relationship between one variable and another variable tells the whole story of the determination of winning?” he says. “What you really need to do is stop and think about what are all the other things: nothing about coaches, nothing about front office/GM acumen.” In Fort’s view, equating payroll and wins leaves out too many other variables.

[bill hAll Star]

 

That article is interesting, if not a little contradictory. The sub title is "MLB Payrolls Matter More Than Ever" then the money quote at the close of the article suggests that maybe its other, non-payroll factors that matter more than ever.

 

Fort, however, also thinks that the case for the relationship between payroll and wins is overstated. “When have we ever been satisfied that a simple relationship between one variable and another variable tells the whole story of the determination of winning?” he says. “What you really need to do is stop and think about what are all the other things: nothing about coaches, nothing about front office/GM acumen.” In Fort’s view, equating payroll and wins leaves out too many other variables.

 

Sure, that is always true. The Cardinals have shown us this as well as the Rays, A's, etc. That is kind of dodging the question, though. If I am a small market, I must have brilliant management to win. If I am a larger payroll/market, I can win just by brute force given that more money equates to more success. I may dig myself a hole, but I have a good chance to be generally successful over a period of time if I just have a bunch of money to spend.

 

Outside of the steal of a trade for Miggy, I think the Tigers have been foolish in a lot of their MLB moves. Yet they've been to several World Series and have been generally successful over the past decade because they've been able to get overpaid, yet productive guys like keeping Miggy, V-Mart, Fielder, Hunter, etc.

 

Nobody's saying that other factors like coaching, management, etc. don't factor in. However, payroll is a large factor in making things a lot easier, which is what we were debating.

[Thurston Fluff]

I'm guessing you didn't actually look at the link I provided.

 

Did you? Because the White Sox weren't #10 nor was their payroll(or any other teams) the number you provided.

 

Also I wasn't necessarily disagreeing with what you said just adding to it because it was related.

 

 

I used two different sites to make sure the trend I thought was true indeed was. It was, as you can clearly see by looking at it. The site I used as the example was payroll to start the season the other cumulative throughout the year. While the numbers are not exactly the same the point i was making is. A few teams had huge payrolls and most did not. Thus lumping teams together by ranking was not a useful way to compare payroll effects. If you have a problem with my basic point please address that instead of nit picking small numerical inaccuracies from one source to another.

[DuWayne Steurer]

Lets say the Brewers have a really good team just missing an ace in 2018 and decide to sign Jake Arrieta to some HUGE contract. Then the Brewers go on to win the 2018 World Series title behind a dominant Jake Arrieta. If he then give of 3 disaster years at $30mil each are you really going to say, "Wow I wish the Brewers never signed him." Heck no you aren't...you are going to be waving that world series flag.

 

 

The Phillies went that route, and won a WS. THey're now a mess, and their fans refer to Ruben Amaro Jr as "Ruin Tomorrow Jr".

 

I'm sure they're happy they won a world series, but I'm sure they'd also like to have a franchise that is set up for long term success more.

[MrTPlush]

Lets say the Brewers have a really good team just missing an ace in 2018 and decide to sign Jake Arrieta to some HUGE contract. Then the Brewers go on to win the 2018 World Series title behind a dominant Jake Arrieta. If he then give of 3 disaster years at $30mil each are you really going to say, "Wow I wish the Brewers never signed him." Heck no you aren't...you are going to be waving that world series flag.

 

 

The Phillies went that route, and won a WS. THey're now a mess, and their fans refer to Ruben Amaro Jr as "Ruin Tomorrow Jr".

 

I'm sure they're happy they won a world series, but I'm sure they'd also like to have a franchise that is set up for long term success more.

 

I don't think the Phillies went that route. Who was their big ticket FA signing? That team was loaded with a bunch of their own homegrown studs. They signed all those disaster contracts AFTER winning the world series. They also have refused to rebuild for a while now...also leading to their current failure.

 

Winning a world series with a cheap Ryan Howard and then signing him to a disaster contract two years later is not what I am talking about. That contract did not help them win it in 2008.

[AKCheesehead]

Don't forget that the teams with the most money also can buy, by money, esteem or both, the very best in everything, not just players. And positions in their organizations will always be steps up. GMs, presidents, managers, international development, minor league operations and facilities.

Any small market team who is going win a championship must rely on a great organizational foundation, luck, AND being the first apt-footed surfer to capitalize on the next wrinkle or wave of paradigm shift in order to sneak another pennant from the big boys.

 

I love baseball and I love the Brewers.

 

Honestly, I'll be thrilled if Milwaukee wins one World Series in my lifetime.

[CheezWizHed]

Honestly, I'll be thrilled if Milwaukee wins one World Series in my lifetime.

 

Exactly. My expectations as a Packer fan and as a Brewer fan are very different. As a Packer fan, I expect to make the playoffs and keep the Vikings from winning their first championship. As a Brewer fan, I'd take 10 years of sucking for one championship. Because we have already had more than 10 years of sucking... It was called the 90s.

[Jimbo]

This will save some time:

 

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/dont-be-fooled-by-baseballs-small-budget-success-stories/

 

 

Those scatter plots look awfully random. I wonder what the R-squared value is. No mention in the article.