Financial state of baseball: New Quotes from Brewerfan Agent39

[tmwiese55]

It is possible that franchise values could go down on all sports as the TV contract bonanza of the last 15-20 years goes away with cable dying. I wouldn't predict it, as I'd assume some other avenue shows up to make up for it, but it is possible once TV networks aren't capable of handing them billions. ESPN is losing money bigtime right now as they're overextended.

[dacbrewers]

I have a feeling the next TV deal is going to be a lot less than the ESPN deal.

[KeithStone53151]

#2. I think you hit on a very good point. It is a little ridiculous that a player has a minor league contract for 7 years (most don't last 7 years) and then gets called up and needs to sign a Major league contract. That's a long time to control a player. The team owns a player way too long. The players union should be looking out for the players. This needs to be addressed. Maybe they could tie draft rounds to total years of control. Example...1st to 5th rounders getting controlled longer.

 

I'm not sure I like the longer control by draft round, but I tend to agree that team control should be reduced from maybe 6 MLB years to 4. I don't think minor league control should change, it takes time for players to develop. Age 30-31 free agents would be 28-29 instead, they still might have some peak years left. But keep in mind, doing this would severely impact small market clubs ability to compete. It would have to come with some additional revenue sharing from big market clubs...which they will surely resist and will lead to a massive labor dispute.

 

It's also possible/likely the remaining guys sign solid contracts, and next year there's a spending bonanza and people no longer care about the slow offseason of 2017-18.

[Fear The Chorizo]

How about an owner who managed to walk away with nothing after selling teams from 3 different sports, including MLB?

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2010/11/04/tom-hicks-debt-laden-sports-empire-devastated-his-net-worth/#167debfb6c57

 

While the franchise values of these teams increased, the costs of operating them incurred enough debt to wipe out any profit gained by selling them. It's tough to really gauge how much owners make/lose when they sell a team, because oftentimes much of the value increase goes straight to paying off debt or gets put into other business interests managed by the former owner. And it's not like sports owners take the gate from each home game straight to the bank in order to buy their next private jet - franchise profits are almost always reinvested into the organization in effort to further increase revenues and pay down debt.

 

When a sports league is doing well financially, you'll never see an owner sell a team - however, when team sales happen it's typically because their balance sheets or the league they operate in forces them to. I will be very interested to see what happens to some of the NFL owners who are highly leveraged into a team and not independently wealthy beyond it if there's a lost season during the next CBA in a few years - I feel like the NFL reached its peak a few years ago and is on the downside of popularity and revenues. Yes, franchises if sold would still be worth oodles more than when they were bought or even founded (Maras, Halases, etc), but I don't see huge windfalls of cash left for ownership groups to divy up after debt & tax payments would be taken off the top.

[GAME05]

There's no collusion. What few teams that would be willing to give Yu Darvish or Martinez $25M are saving their pennies to give Bryce Harper $40M+ next year.

 

The luxury tax is a joke and very few teams could ever reach the $175M threshold, anyway. It hurts everyone. Rich-team owners have an excuse not to spend above that and they can pocket more revenue, top-tier FAs lose bidding teams which may be already at that cap, and lesser teams lose teams they could otherwise trade overpriced players to.

 

Loria always got hate for pocketing revenue sharing, but he built a team just as a have-not team should, and I hope even more teams adopt the tank-to-win strategy because that's the only way for fans to finally get fed up and for the system to finally change. Selig's big answer to the wealth disparity was to hand poor teams money and expand the playoffs so more have-not teams made it, which does nothing but incentivizes the have-not teams to continue doing what they're doing.

[tmwiese55]

If I was an NFL owner I'd likely be looking at cashing out in the next few years. I'd probably try to hold onto some percent of ownership but in order to keep living with some of the perks and fun of it. But I'd guess their values take a big hit the next 15-20 years. Heck, the league could be gone in 20 years.

[pacopete4]

If I was an NFL owner I'd likely be looking at cashing out in the next few years. I'd probably try to hold onto some percent of ownership but in order to keep living with some of the perks and fun of it. But I'd guess their values take a big hit the next 15-20 years. Heck, the league could be gone in 20 years.

 

Yes, not to derail the MLB discussion but I do agree with you. The NFL is going to be very interesting to follow over the next decade or so. We already know the numbers of kids playing football is going down all across the country. We know the product they are pushing out is already in question. We know TV ratings are down. We know that there is great concern about the human brain and what it can take contact wise. It will all be interesting as to how that effects the NFL over the next 10-20 years. If I was an owner, I probably would be looking to do what you said above.

[Fear The Chorizo]

Collusion is the wrong word to use thus far this offseason - I'd call it teams being pragmatic with a crop of free agents that all have warts (age, limited track record, etc) one offseason before there will be alot of free agents without those warts available.

 

Also, Mike Ilitch isn't around anymore to dole out at least one ridiculous contract this offseason, too. When agents are using contracts authorized by that guy as benchmarks for their current free agent clients, they simply don't have a tree to bark up anymore.

[JohnBriggs12]

As quoted in an article on MLBTR, "with fewer than 10 teams ready to run roughshod over the remainder of the league, there's a lack of incentive for win-now spending from mid-level organizations." So true. We know who the bullies are, Dodgers Cubs and Nationals in the NL Yankees, Astros, Red Sox and Cleveland in the AL. I include Cleveland because no less than 60% of their division has no intention of trying to compete this year. Why should they make any big money moves? There's just a few teams behind those that so far have made any splash: Angels and Twins in the AL and Cardinals and Giants in the NL. Everyone else is either clearly rebuilding or sitting on their hands (including the Brewers).

 

In short, with the talent concentrated in these few mostly big market teams, they have little incentive to gobble up more talent, especially if it means exceeding the luxury tax. And a team like the Brewers looks and sees their only realistic hope if to grab a wild card spot, and a potential one and done playoff run.

 

I know a lot of Brewer fans put their faith in the rebuild, but they'll never be in position to be one of the bully teams. Not with the Cubs and to a lesser extent the Cardinals in their division. Heck the Cubs bullied their way to the division last year when it was there for the taking because DS couldn't pull the trigger and deal his top prospect.

[pacopete4]

I know a lot of Brewer fans put their faith in the rebuild, but they'll never be in position to be one of the bully teams. Not with the Cubs and to a lesser extent the Cardinals in their division. Heck the Cubs bullied their way to the division last year when it was there for the taking because DS couldn't pull the trigger and deal his top prospect.

 

This. This is why baseball stinks to some degree. This is 100% correct. We'll be lucky if our "window" gets us anywhere or if we'll be a Pirates team that ends up winning nothing and tearing it down a few years after.

[dacbrewers]

#2. I think you hit on a very good point. It is a little ridiculous that a player has a minor league contract for 7 years (most don't last 7 years) and then gets called up and needs to sign a Major league contract. That's a long time to control a player. The team owns a player way too long. The players union should be looking out for the players. This needs to be addressed. Maybe they could tie draft rounds to total years of control. Example...1st to 5th rounders getting controlled longer.

 

I'm not sure I like the longer control by draft round, but I tend to agree that team control should be reduced from maybe 6 MLB years to 4. I don't think minor league control should change, it takes time for players to develop. Age 30-31 free agents would be 28-29 instead, they still might have some peak years left. But keep in mind, doing this would severely impact small market clubs ability to compete. It would have to come with some additional revenue sharing from big market clubs...which they will surely resist and will lead to a massive labor dispute.

 

It's also possible/likely the remaining guys sign solid contracts, and next year there's a spending bonanza and people no longer care about the slow offseason of 2017-18.

 

I'm not too sure it would severely impact small market teams because they would have the same ability to pick up other players that teams were losing. Small market teams that have super low payrolls for an extended period like the Brewers will be able to afford some premium players. It might cause small market teams to actually bring young talent to the majors sooner. Owning a player for 13 years seems way over the top to me. On another note, the MILB players deserve a decent living wage.

[KeithStone53151]

As quoted in an article on MLBTR, "with fewer than 10 teams ready to run roughshod over the remainder of the league, there's a lack of incentive for win-now spending from mid-level organizations." So true. We know who the bullies are, Dodgers Cubs and Nationals in the NL Yankees, Astros, Red Sox and Cleveland in the AL. I include Cleveland because no less than 60% of their division has no intention of trying to compete this year. Why should they make any big money moves? There's just a few teams behind those that so far have made any splash: Angels and Twins in the AL and Cardinals and Giants in the NL. Everyone else is either clearly rebuilding or sitting on their hands (including the Brewers).

 

In short, with the talent concentrated in these few mostly big market teams, they have little incentive to gobble up more talent, especially if it means exceeding the luxury tax. And a team like the Brewers looks and sees their only realistic hope if to grab a wild card spot, and a potential one and done playoff run.

 

I know a lot of Brewer fans put their faith in the rebuild, but they'll never be in position to be one of the bully teams. Not with the Cubs and to a lesser extent the Cardinals in their division. Heck the Cubs bullied their way to the division last year when it was there for the taking because DS couldn't pull the trigger and deal his top prospect.

 

I don't think other teams being well built significantly impacts what other teams will do. If the Brewers were willing/able to spend $150 million this year, they'd be far more aggressive targeting the high end pitchers. They aren't going to NOT target them because the Cubs are too good and even adding one or two good pitchers won't make them good enough to compete on paper. The Cubs fell almost 10 games short of their general consensus projection last year. The Giants fell almost 30 games short. The Mets fell 15 games short. Mariners 10 games. Tigers 20 games. Blue Jays 10. Orioles 10. This stuff isn't written in ink. Any of the Dodgers, Yankees, Cubs, Astros, Indians, Nationals, Red Sox could fall off a cliff just like the Giants this year.

[KeithStone53151]

 

I'm not too sure it would severely impact small market teams because they would have the same ability to pick up other players that teams were losing. Small market teams that have super low payrolls for an extended period like the Brewers will be able to afford some premium players. It might cause small market teams to actually bring young talent to the majors sooner. Owning a player for 13 years seems way over the top to me. On another note, the MILB players deserve a decent living wage.

 

How would it be any different than it is now? Top free agents have 8 teams trying to sign them. Teams like the Brewers sign C tier free agents because we can't responsibly afford A and B tier. The problem only gets magnified when we have less team control and we can fill a much smaller chunk of our roster with min salary guys. Let's say the new model was 2 years of min salary and 2 years of arbitration before free agency. Well we have Davies, Shaw, Santana, Aguilar, Bandy, and Broxton in their 3rd year of min salary set to hit arbitration next year. They would instead be in arbitration this year, and that alone would chew up probably an additional $15-20 million in payroll. Guys like Nelson, Knebel, Villar, and Perez would have seen significant increases as they would be in their 2nd year of arbitration...especially Villar considering he would have had a much higher starting point hitting arbitration in 2016 offseason. Let's say that eats another $10 million in payroll, we go from our current standing of $70 million to $95-100 million. Right now, we could sign just about any free agent and stay at a reasonable payroll level under the current model. Changing the structure as I've noted would have destroyed that, giving us no shot at a big free agent this year. And we happen to be in a fantastic spot with payroll, no bad contracts. Imagine how quickly that could change if we make one or two bad multi-year free agent signings...that would decimate our ability to compete.

[bill hAll Star]

As quoted in an article on MLBTR, "with fewer than 10 teams ready to run roughshod over the remainder of the league, there's a lack of incentive for win-now spending from mid-level organizations." So true. We know who the bullies are, Dodgers Cubs and Nationals in the NL Yankees, Astros, Red Sox and Cleveland in the AL. I include Cleveland because no less than 60% of their division has no intention of trying to compete this year. Why should they make any big money moves? There's just a few teams behind those that so far have made any splash: Angels and Twins in the AL and Cardinals and Giants in the NL. Everyone else is either clearly rebuilding or sitting on their hands (including the Brewers).

 

In short, with the talent concentrated in these few mostly big market teams, they have little incentive to gobble up more talent, especially if it means exceeding the luxury tax. And a team like the Brewers looks and sees their only realistic hope if to grab a wild card spot, and a potential one and done playoff run.

 

I know a lot of Brewer fans put their faith in the rebuild, but they'll never be in position to be one of the bully teams. Not with the Cubs and to a lesser extent the Cardinals in their division. Heck the Cubs bullied their way to the division last year when it was there for the taking because DS couldn't pull the trigger and deal his top prospect.

 

I don't think other teams being well built significantly impacts what other teams will do. If the Brewers were willing/able to spend $150 million this year, they'd be far more aggressive targeting the high end pitchers. They aren't going to NOT target them because the Cubs are too good and even adding one or two good pitchers won't make them good enough to compete on paper. The Cubs fell almost 10 games short of their general consensus projection last year. The Giants fell almost 30 games short. The Mets fell 15 games short. Mariners 10 games. Tigers 20 games. Blue Jays 10. Orioles 10. This stuff isn't written in ink. Any of the Dodgers, Yankees, Cubs, Astros, Indians, Nationals, Red Sox could fall off a cliff just like the Giants this year.

 

That's how it is every year. There are 15 or so teams that are either well-built (Indians) or are completely loaded money-wise (Giants/Red Sox).

 

Yeah, you're right. I bet someone like the Red Sox will completely fall apart this year.

 

But, you know what? The Yankees will be good in turn. So I'd still stand pat if I'm the Orioles.

 

It's not just a single bet. Sure, I'd put some money on just the Cubs falling short of projections this year. But the odds of the Cubs falling short, the Brewers holding up their end of the bargain, AND the Cardinals not having a good enough year...now you're getting to long odds in a parlay of bets.

 

If I'm an owner/GM, I'd absolutely stand pat in a year that I don't think I have a chance because I'm two years away and my division has two juggernaut teams. The odds of me becoming the best team isn't just a one-way thing of one of the teams in front of me struggling. The odds are extremely long that all of the big market teams are worse than me AND my team is worth its weight of what I did this offseason to "go for it."

[KeithStone53151]

 

That's how it is every year. There are 15 or so teams that are either well-built (Indians) or are completely loaded money-wise (Giants/Red Sox).

 

Yeah, you're right. I bet someone like the Red Sox will completely fall apart this year.

 

But, you know what? The Yankees will be good in turn. So I'd still stand pat if I'm the Orioles.

 

It's not just a single bet. Sure, I'd put some money on just the Cubs falling short of projections this year. But the odds of the Cubs falling short, the Brewers holding up their end of the bargain, AND the Cardinals not having a good enough year...now you're getting to long odds in a parlay of bets.

 

Sure, there are some teams that even signing Arrieta won't move the needle much. But a team like the Phillies could easily be in the mix for a top notch FA starter. A young, talented core with money to spend. I think it's more the asking prices than anything for them, they aren't over there like "well the nationals are too good, so we might as well not even try competing yet". Same for the Rangers, if they thought they had no chance...Hamels would have been traded already and they wouldn't be so widely reported to be in the mix for the top SP. There are only maybe 6-7 teams this year that appear to be tanking or in full rebuild mode. The remaining teams have their reasons for not having signed the big FA already, I just don't think any of them are "well those other 7 teams are too good, I'm not going to try and compete with them".

[bill hAll Star]

 

That's how it is every year. There are 15 or so teams that are either well-built (Indians) or are completely loaded money-wise (Giants/Red Sox).

 

Yeah, you're right. I bet someone like the Red Sox will completely fall apart this year.

 

But, you know what? The Yankees will be good in turn. So I'd still stand pat if I'm the Orioles.

 

It's not just a single bet. Sure, I'd put some money on just the Cubs falling short of projections this year. But the odds of the Cubs falling short, the Brewers holding up their end of the bargain, AND the Cardinals not having a good enough year...now you're getting to long odds in a parlay of bets.

 

Sure, there are some teams that even signing Arrieta won't move the needle much. But a team like the Phillies could easily be in the mix for a top notch FA starter. A young, talented core with money to spend. I think it's more the asking prices than anything for them, they aren't over there like "well the nationals are too good, so we might as well not even try competing yet". Same for the Rangers, if they thought they had no chance...Hamels would have been traded already and they wouldn't be so widely reported to be in the mix for the top SP. There are only maybe 6-7 teams this year that appear to be tanking or in full rebuild mode. The remaining teams have their reasons for not having signed the big FA already, I just don't think any of them are "well those other 7 teams are too good, I'm not going to try and compete with them".

 

It's not really an either/or thing. The Phillies are waiting it out for next year's crop and the Rangers still have plenty of time to unload Hamels if they need to...they have a good enough roster and ammo to at least see if they can hang around the race until the trade deadline.

[Bombers]

I am all for fixing it, I just don't think there is 1 solution. There are problems but on the face of it are these statistics pasted below. I can upload my excel chart showing the calculations but from 2008 - 2017 these are the stats:

This shows the # of teams who make their leagues championship game ranked by team payroll. Over those 10 years, there are 40 teams who have made the championship game. Some teams have made it multiple times. But the fact remains, there is a direct correlation to spending and making your leagues championship when 65% of the teams who make their championship game are in the top 10 in MLB in team payroll.

 

Team Payroll Rank between 1 - 10: 26 (65%)

Team Payroll Rank between 11 - 20: 6 (15%)

Team Payroll Rank between 21 - 30: 8 (20%)

 

I am a data guy and you have to use data to tie it to your emotion. I have always thought there was a problem, but the data shows there is a big problem in my opinion.

[pacopete4]

Bombers, thank you for sharing that data. Really interesting stuff there and it does show that spending, to some extent, does matter quite a bit.

[monty57]

I am all for fixing it, I just don't think there is 1 solution. There are problems but on the face of it are these statistics pasted below. I can upload my excel chart showing the calculations but from 2008 - 2017 these are the stats:

This shows the # of teams who make their leagues championship game ranked by team payroll. Over those 10 years, there are 40 teams who have made the championship game. Some teams have made it multiple times. But the fact remains, there is a direct correlation to spending and making your leagues championship when 65% of the teams who make their championship game are in the top 10 in MLB in team payroll.

 

Team Payroll Rank between 1 - 10: 26 (65%)

Team Payroll Rank between 11 - 20: 6 (15%)

Team Payroll Rank between 21 - 30: 8 (20%)

 

I am a data guy and you have to use data to tie it to your emotion. I have always thought there was a problem, but the data shows there is a big problem in my opinion.

 

Obviously big spending teams have a decided advantage, but one flaw here is that a lot of big contracts are swapped from losing teams to winning teams at the trade deadline. A team taking on some big money rentals could add tens of millions to their payroll while deducting that same amount of money from other teams who are out of the playoffs. That could be enough to bump a team up or down a bracket, and teams with playoff hopes will often be willing to expand their maximum payroll at the deadline due to the hopes of making that up with the extra revenue from the playoffs.

[bill hAll Star]

I am all for fixing it, I just don't think there is 1 solution. There are problems but on the face of it are these statistics pasted below. I can upload my excel chart showing the calculations but from 2008 - 2017 these are the stats:

This shows the # of teams who make their leagues championship game ranked by team payroll. Over those 10 years, there are 40 teams who have made the championship game. Some teams have made it multiple times. But the fact remains, there is a direct correlation to spending and making your leagues championship when 65% of the teams who make their championship game are in the top 10 in MLB in team payroll.

 

Team Payroll Rank between 1 - 10: 26 (65%)

Team Payroll Rank between 11 - 20: 6 (15%)

Team Payroll Rank between 21 - 30: 8 (20%)

 

I am a data guy and you have to use data to tie it to your emotion. I have always thought there was a problem, but the data shows there is a big problem in my opinion.

 

Obviously big spending teams have a decided advantage, but one flaw here is that a lot of big contracts are swapped from losing teams to winning teams at the trade deadline. A team taking on some big money rentals could add tens of millions to their payroll while deducting that same amount of money from other teams who are out of the playoffs. That could be enough to bump a team up or down a bracket, and teams with playoff hopes will often be willing to expand their maximum payroll at the deadline due to the hopes of making that up with the extra revenue from the playoffs.

 

In those examples you speak of, that means that the middle/large market team is already in the playoff hunt...further agreeing with the suggestion of big markets having an advantage.

 

Also, teams like Detroit were in the top 10 and dropped into the middle bracket most likely when they made some trades, so it can also potentially cancel out over time.

[FVBrewerFan]

I am all for fixing it, I just don't think there is 1 solution.

 

Everyone knows what the solution is, but it won't happen. Hard salary cap with true revenue sharing.

[owbc]

I am all for fixing it, I just don't think there is 1 solution. There are problems but on the face of it are these statistics pasted below. I can upload my excel chart showing the calculations but from 2008 - 2017 these are the stats:

This shows the # of teams who make their leagues championship game ranked by team payroll. Over those 10 years, there are 40 teams who have made the championship game. Some teams have made it multiple times. But the fact remains, there is a direct correlation to spending and making your leagues championship when 65% of the teams who make their championship game are in the top 10 in MLB in team payroll.

 

Team Payroll Rank between 1 - 10: 26 (65%)

Team Payroll Rank between 11 - 20: 6 (15%)

Team Payroll Rank between 21 - 30: 8 (20%)

 

I am a data guy and you have to use data to tie it to your emotion. I have always thought there was a problem, but the data shows there is a big problem in my opinion.

 

I don't consider this a problem. One interpretation is that the best players are getting paid the most money, as it should be. If low payroll teams are winning championships then baseball has a big problem--specifically the problem mentioned in this thread with pre-arbitration players being underpaid.

 

The unfair part is that not every team can be a big spender every year. But the Brewers proved back in 2012 that a small market team could have a top-10 payroll, at least temporarily. It's a tough balance for the league to encourage spending while keeping competitive balance.

[KeithStone53151]

I am all for fixing it, I just don't think there is 1 solution.

 

Everyone knows what the solution is, but it won't happen. Hard salary cap with true revenue sharing.

 

Right on, but also with a salary floor. But agreed, no way it happens. There are basically 3 sides to labor negotiations/competitive balance in baseball. Small market teams, big market teams, and the players. Salary cap/floor is unwanted by the players and big markets, so it won't happen.

[monty57]

There's no collusion. What few teams that would be willing to give Yu Darvish or Martinez $25M are saving their pennies to give Bryce Harper $40M+ next year.

 

The luxury tax is a joke and very few teams could ever reach the $175M threshold, anyway. It hurts everyone. Rich-team owners have an excuse not to spend above that and they can pocket more revenue, top-tier FAs lose bidding teams which may be already at that cap, and lesser teams lose teams they could otherwise trade overpriced players to.

 

Loria always got hate for pocketing revenue sharing, but he built a team just as a have-not team should, and I hope even more teams adopt the tank-to-win strategy because that's the only way for fans to finally get fed up and for the system to finally change. Selig's big answer to the wealth disparity was to hand poor teams money and expand the playoffs so more have-not teams made it, which does nothing but incentivizes the have-not teams to continue doing what they're doing.

 

I agree with your first sentence.

 

Not so much with the second paragraph. It is the teams that can reach the $197M luxury threshold that the rule is trying to affect. By making those teams think twice about spending more, it theoretically will lessen the gap between big markets and smaller markets. Plus, if the big markets aren't spending to buy every free agent, the contracts will lower (hence this entire thread) to the point that other teams may be able to afford guys they wouldn't have been able to afford in the past. You state that it hurts everyone, while I would argue that it hurts the player who is receiving less than they may have otherwise received, but it helps the teams who sign the player to a lower value contract.

 

As long as the league allows teams to have their own TV deals, there will not be a "good" answer as there will always be financial disparity. This tougher luxury tax does seem to be having some effect at lessening the gap between "Haves" and "have-nots," which is what it was intended to do.

[monty57]

I am all for fixing it, I just don't think there is 1 solution. There are problems but on the face of it are these statistics pasted below. I can upload my excel chart showing the calculations but from 2008 - 2017 these are the stats:

This shows the # of teams who make their leagues championship game ranked by team payroll. Over those 10 years, there are 40 teams who have made the championship game. Some teams have made it multiple times. But the fact remains, there is a direct correlation to spending and making your leagues championship when 65% of the teams who make their championship game are in the top 10 in MLB in team payroll.

 

Team Payroll Rank between 1 - 10: 26 (65%)

Team Payroll Rank between 11 - 20: 6 (15%)

Team Payroll Rank between 21 - 30: 8 (20%)

 

I am a data guy and you have to use data to tie it to your emotion. I have always thought there was a problem, but the data shows there is a big problem in my opinion.

 

Obviously big spending teams have a decided advantage, but one flaw here is that a lot of big contracts are swapped from losing teams to winning teams at the trade deadline. A team taking on some big money rentals could add tens of millions to their payroll while deducting that same amount of money from other teams who are out of the playoffs. That could be enough to bump a team up or down a bracket, and teams with playoff hopes will often be willing to expand their maximum payroll at the deadline due to the hopes of making that up with the extra revenue from the playoffs.

 

In those examples you speak of, that means that the middle/large market team is already in the playoff hunt...further agreeing with the suggestion of big markets having an advantage.

 

Also, teams like Detroit were in the top 10 and dropped into the middle bracket most likely when they made some trades, so it can also potentially cancel out over time.

 

No, a small market team could substantially add to its payroll at trade deadline if they are in the hunt. The Brewers could have easily added more money last July and that may have got them to the playoffs.

 

I don't know where $124M puts a team, but that was the Astros' opening day payroll, while their ending payroll was $140M, which was rank #19 (lower end of the middle tier above). I'd guess that most playoff teams, whether big market or small, add payroll at trade deadline, and that payroll is fully deducted from non-playoff teams.

 

There is certainly an advantage to big market teams. I'm just pointing out that I noticed a flaw in the numbers as presented. I don't know how meaningful it is, just that it's there.