PDA

View Full Version : Sox Payroll


Dadawg_77
07-21-2003, 09:48 PM
For the Luxury tax the Sox payroll is 71.3 million dollars this year.
Looks like the Yankees will be the only team to pay the tax.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/news/2003/0721/1583823.html

TornLabrum
07-21-2003, 11:10 PM
Interesting to note that the Sox, in the third largest market are right in the middle of the American League payrolls.

Lip Man 1
07-21-2003, 11:35 PM
Before anybody starts let me defuse it right now.

The Sox major league payroll is NOT 71 million dollars!

From the ESPN story:

Payrolls are for 40-man rosters and include averages of multiyear contracts plus $7,552,271 to cover health and pension benefits; clubs medical costs; insurance; workman's compensation, payroll, unemployment and Social Security taxes; spring training allowances; meal and tip money; All-Star game expenses; travel and moving expenses; postseason pay; and college scholarships.

The Sox major league roster is about 53 million, less then the Twins, Indians and Tigers.

Lip

VeeckAsInWreck
07-21-2003, 11:38 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
The Sox major league roster is about 53 million, less then the Twins, Indians and Tigers.

Lip

:reinsy
"Don't listen to him! If you fans don't show up, I'll have to set up a lemonade stand outside The Cell!"

TornLabrum
07-21-2003, 11:58 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Before anybody starts let me defuse it right now.

The Sox major league payroll is NOT 71 million dollars!

From the ESPN story:

Payrolls are for 40-man rosters and include averages of multiyear contracts plus $7,552,271 to cover health and pension benefits; clubs medical costs; insurance; workman's compensation, payroll, unemployment and Social Security taxes; spring training allowances; meal and tip money; All-Star game expenses; travel and moving expenses; postseason pay; and college scholarships.

The Sox major league roster is about 53 million, less then the Twins, Indians and Tigers.

Lip

Correct, but in the end it's all expenses, and the Sox are, if I counted correctly, seventh in the AL in these expenses.

voodoochile
07-22-2003, 12:12 AM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
Correct, but in the end it's all expenses, and the Sox are, if I counted correctly, seventh in the AL in these expenses.

How much difference between #1 and #7? Shouldn't those expenses be pretty evenly divided between teams, or is it a percentage of payroll?

gosox41
07-22-2003, 06:05 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
How much difference between #1 and #7? Shouldn't those expenses be pretty evenly divided between teams, or is it a percentage of payroll?

I would assume every team in the AL has about $21 mill. in expenses outside of payroll. That means the Yankees are probably at $170-175 mill or so and ranked number 1. One other factor to consider is they take the average of multiyear contracts. If a team has a lot of players who have back waited contracts then it would inflate this years totals, but then benefit the team (from al uxury tax POV) in the last years of these contracts.

Bob

B. Diddy
07-22-2003, 07:21 AM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77

Looks like the Yankees will be the only team to pay the tax.


Then what the hell is the point of having a luxury tax?!?

I with the player's union would've went on strike last year and the owners would've implemented a proper salary cap. What a half-assed solution...

ozzman
07-22-2003, 09:31 AM
talk about needing a salary cap AND a salary floor. nyy has almost 6 times the numbers of tampa bay. that is just ridiculous. the rich get richer

gosox41
07-22-2003, 09:37 AM
Originally posted by B. Diddy
Then what the hell is the point of having a luxury tax?!?

I with the player's union would've went on strike last year and the owners would've implemented a proper salary cap. What a half-assed solution...

I don't know if any studies have been done on it in other sports, but I'm sure it serves as a soft salary cap. Or at least that's what the owners hope it will do. I don't know what the tax rates are, but if it's 20%, then for every $5 mill a team spends on payroll they will have to cough up $1 mill. to their competitors.

Bob

Lip Man 1
07-22-2003, 12:22 PM
The 'salary cap" was SOLELY directed towards the Yankees which is why George Steinbrenner put on retainer one of the top lawyers in the country in case he decides to sue MLB for trying to devalue his corporation / team.

That's why this whole salary cap deal is so funny!

You think paying ten million dollars is going to cause the NEW YORK YANKEES to think twice about signing someone? LOL

Maybe FIFTY million but not ten! I mean they spent 35 MILLION ona deal with Jose Contreras!

Lip

doublem23
07-22-2003, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1

The Sox major league roster is about 53 million, less then the Twins, Indians and Tigers.

So... You're jealous of Cleveland, Detroit, and Minnesota? :?:

joecrede
07-22-2003, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1

The Sox major league roster is about 53 million, less then the Twins, Indians and Tigers.

The Royals have spent the least in the division.

MarkEdward
07-22-2003, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by ozzman
talk about needing a salary cap AND a salary floor. nyy has almost 6 times the numbers of tampa bay. that is just ridiculous. the rich get richer

Yup those small market teams just can't compete. Look at Minnesota, St. Louis, Kansas City, Oakland, and San Francisco. They're all just floundering!

hold2dibber
07-22-2003, 06:20 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
Yup those small market teams just can't compete. Look at Minnesota, St. Louis, Kansas City, Oakland, and San Francisco. They're all just floundering!

I don't know if I'd count Oakland or San Francisco as small market teams. The Bay area is awfully big in terms of population. Of course, the A's don't have a huge revenue stream but, like the Sox, that isn't because they're not in a big market. It's because they're getting their arses kicked by the other team in town in terms of attention/popularity.

MarkEdward
07-22-2003, 06:49 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
I don't know if I'd count Oakland or San Francisco as small market teams. The Bay area is awfully big in terms of population. Of course, the A's don't have a huge revenue stream but, like the Sox, that isn't because they're not in a big market. It's because they're getting their arses kicked by the other team in town in terms of attention/popularity.

Here's what I use to judge small and large market teams:

http://home.nycap.rr.com/nickandaj/marketsize.html

San Fran is actually a lower-middle market, and Oakland is a small market.

Lip Man 1
07-22-2003, 08:18 PM
St. Louis with a 75+ million dollar payroll is NOT a small market, neither is the city itself! Ditto for San Francisco with a 75+ million dollar payroll and Seattle.

As far as Oakland, Minnesota, Kansas City yea they've done really well in the World Series haven't they?

The issue isn't can small market (or perhaps a better term would be small payroll ) teams compete? ANYBODY can get "lucky" for one year (re: Sox 2000). The issue is can these small payroll teams compete for a number of years?

Let's see how good Oakland is after this season when they start losing their stars because they won't pay them. Let's see how good Minnesota is after they lose Hawkins and Guardado this season. Personally I think K.C. is for real but there are many on this board who insist they'll collapse so they might not even be around in late September. If they lose Beltran and or Sweeney will they be good next season?

Baseball doesn't need a salary cap or luxury tax, baseball needs to purge itself of bad / cheap owners like Glass, Reinsdorf, Pohland, Linder etc and invite well heeled people like Cuban, Allen and Gates to start taking on the Steinbreener's of the world instead of throwing up their hands, wailing alligator tears and saying "we can't compete..." (While lauging all the way to the bank.)

Lip

Daver
07-22-2003, 08:23 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1


Baseball doesn't need a salary cap or luxury tax, baseball needs to purge itself of bad / cheap owners like Glass, Reinsdorf, Pohland, Linder etc and invite well heeled people like Cuban, Allen and Gates to start taking on the Steinbreener's of the world instead of throwing up their hands, wailing alligator tears and saying "we can't compete..." (While lauging all the way to the bank.)

Lip

Actually,they could follow the example of the NFL and share 100% of all revenue,then the so called "Small Market" teams would have no reason to cry poor.

Of course this would involve opening their books,so it will never happen.

doublem23
07-22-2003, 08:23 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1

Let's see how good Oakland is after this season when they start losing their stars because they won't pay them.

Dude, that's already been happening and they've countered with 2 straight 100-win seasons.

xil357
07-22-2003, 08:35 PM
Originally posted by daver
Actually,they could follow the example of the NFL and share 100% of all revenue,then the so called "Small Market" teams would have no reason to cry poor.

Of course this would involve opening their books,so it will never happen.

Daver, I so totally agree with you on the total revenue sharing, with a salary cap and floor.

Then, realignment along geographical lines, with the Twins moving to DC as the Senators, the Expos moving to the New York / New Jersey area and the D-Rays to San Juan (or Havana!!!), elimination of the DH and expansion of MLB rosters to 27, and we'll be set.

Daver
07-22-2003, 08:40 PM
Originally posted by xil357
Daver, I so totally agree with you on the total revenue sharing, with a salary cap and floor.

Then, realignment along geographical lines, with the Twins moving to DC as the Senators, the Expos moving to the New York / New Jersey area and the D-Rays to San Juan (or Havana!!!), elimination of the DH and expansion of MLB rosters to 27, and we'll be set.

I don't see a need for a salary cap or a floor if they had total revenue sharing,the owners would be forced to police themselves by the court of public opinion.

As for the rest of your ideas,I disagree with all of them aside from moving the Expo's to New Jersey,the 27 man roster is something I would have to think about.

:redneck

MarkEdward
07-23-2003, 12:07 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
St. Louis with a 75+ million dollar payroll is NOT a small market, neither is the city itself! Ditto for San Francisco with a 75+ million dollar payroll and Seattle.

The large payrolls of St. Louis, San Francisco, and Seattle don't escape the fact that these teams are located in small market cities.

Kansas City could have a payroll of 200 million. They're still located in a small market.

As far as Oakland, Minnesota, Kansas City yea they've done really well in the World Series haven't they?

Yeah, Oakland didn't dominate the 70s, Kansas City didn't dominate the 80s, and Minnesota hasn't won two world championships in the past 15 years.

The issue isn't can small market (or perhaps a better term would be small payroll ) teams compete? ANYBODY can get "lucky" for one year (re: Sox 2000). The issue is can these small payroll teams compete for a number of years?

Yup, teams like Oakland and Minnnesota just can't compete on a year-to-year basis (this could also be said for Seattle, St. Louis, San Francisco, and Arizona).

Let's see how good Oakland is after this season when they start losing their stars because they won't pay them.

Wasn't this said after Giambi, Damon, and Isringhausen left? Funny, the A's still seem to be competing.

Let's see how good Minnesota is after they lose Hawkins and Guardado this season.

They'll probably do better, if Cuddyer and Morneau make the team and they find some better middle infielders.

Personally I think K.C. is for real but there are many on this board who insist they'll collapse so they might not even be around in late September. If they lose Beltran and or Sweeney will they be good next season?

Beltran and Sweeney are both signed through next year, at the least.

Baseball doesn't need a salary cap or luxury tax, baseball needs to purge itself of bad / cheap owners like Glass, Reinsdorf, Pohland, Linder etc and invite well heeled people like Cuban, Allen and Gates to start taking on the Steinbreener's of the world instead of throwing up their hands, wailing alligator tears and saying "we can't compete..." (While lauging all the way to the bank.)
Lip

This I do agree with.

gosox41
07-23-2003, 08:16 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
.

As far as Oakland, Minnesota, Kansas City yea they've done really well in the World Series haven't they?

Let's see how good Oakland is after this season when they start losing their stars because they won't pay them. Let's see how good Minnesota is after they lose Hawkins and Guardado this season. Personally I think K.C. is for real but there are many on this board who insist they'll collapse so they might not even be around in late September. If they lose Beltran and or Sweeney will they be good next season?

Lip

First, anything can happen in the playoffs and luck plays a huge role in a short series.

As for Oakland, I think Beane is a genius. He's averaged 99 wins 3 years in a row. After they lost Giambi everyone thought the A's were done so they came back and won 100+ games the next season. They're in Year 4 of their window of opportunity to win.

The fact that they're winning so many games with a $40 mill. payroll in the toughest division in baseball says a lot of how good they really are. What would the Sox record have been the last 3 years if they had faced Seattle and Anaheim the last 3 seasons while the A's got to feast on the Indians, Tigers, Royals, and Twins? Imagine if the Rangers and White Sox dwitched divisions. The Sox would have been lucky to win 70 games last season the way they played against the West Coast.

Losing Tejada won't hurt the A's as much as some thing. In "Moneyball" Beane doesn't even like him calling him "Mr. Swing at Everything." They have a solid replacement in the minors and am confident that Beane will find a way to use Tejada's current salary to make up any lost offense.

Bob

Lip Man 1
07-23-2003, 12:55 PM
Guys:

No question Oakland has survived the loss of Giambi. THAT'S ONE PLAYER.

They'll lose Tejada which will be two... but the REAL question is what happens when they lose Hudson, Mulder and Zito.

I know...all the stat heads out there have come rushing to the A's defense. They are an excellent team no question but the fact is with all the genius moves of Billy Beane (and I'd love to have him as Sox G.M.) they HAVEN'T ever made it to the World Series have they?

The bottom line, money talks (in this case getting to the series) and you know what walks.

If you have a payroll at 70 - 75 million or above you've got a hell of a lot better chance of getting there then the A's, Twins, Royals, White Sox and so on.

At least that's what the numbers have said for the past ten years or so.

Lip

MarkEdward
07-23-2003, 01:08 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Guys:

No question Oakland has survived the loss of Giambi. THAT'S ONE PLAYER.

They also lost Izzy and Damon.


They'll lose Tejada which will be two... but the REAL question is what happens when they lose Hudson, Mulder and Zito.

They'll have Harden and Blanton in place.


I know...all the stat heads out there have come rushing to the A's defense. They are an excellent team no question but the fact is with all the genius moves of Billy Beane (and I'd love to have him as Sox G.M.) [B]they HAVEN'T ever made it to the World Series have they?

They've been very unlucky in the playoffs.

The bottom line, money talks (in this case getting to the series) and you know what walks.

Those 2002 Anaheim Angels sure did have a high payroll, huh?

If you have a payroll at 70 - 75 million or above you've got a hell of a lot better chance of getting there then the A's, Twins, Royals, White Sox and so on.

Do you really think the high payroll Orioles and Rangers have a better chance than the low-payroll Royals, Twins, and A's at making the playoffs this year?

gosox41
07-23-2003, 02:07 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Guys:

No question Oakland has survived the loss of Giambi. THAT'S ONE PLAYER.

They'll lose Tejada which will be two... but the REAL question is what happens when they lose Hudson, Mulder and Zito.

I know...all the stat heads out there have come rushing to the A's defense. They are an excellent team no question but the fact is with all the genius moves of Billy Beane (and I'd love to have him as Sox G.M.) they HAVEN'T ever made it to the World Series have they?

The bottom line, money talks (in this case getting to the series) and you know what walks.

If you have a payroll at 70 - 75 million or above you've got a hell of a lot better chance of getting there then the A's, Twins, Royals, White Sox and so on.

At least that's what the numbers have said for the past ten years or so.

Lip

Even making it the World Series takes a lot of luck in the two playoff series' leading up to it. Like you, I'd take Beane here in a second. The fact that his teams have made the playoffs 3 years in a row says a lot. Wouldn't it be a lot of fun to see the Sox make the playoffs, let alone win a home playoff game or even advance a round.

I don't think the A's failure to make the World Series should be looked at negatively. If anythign they're a great success story. As for eventually losing their Big 3, I'm sure Beane has a plan. Harden looks like a legit prospect and is finally getting a chance in the majors. If his 2002 draft works out, they have a couple of potential dangerous arms that can work out. And of course there may need to be a time where the A's go through a rebuilding process. Teams that operate under tighter budgets generally have a 6 year window to win. The A's are in Year 4 of this and are on pace to win more games then the Sox while in the toughest division in baseball.

I am willing to bet that whatever rebuilding the A's are forced to due in the future, it'll be shorter and more efficient then watching the current list of losing teams try to win.

Bob

Paulwny
07-24-2003, 06:51 AM
Originally posted by MarkEdward

They'll have Harden and Blanton in plac


Blanton may be traded.

Mike Ganter--- Toronto Sun:

A team source confirmed last night that a Kelvim Escobar for Ted Lilly trade with the Oakland A's would be just the type of deal that makes complete sense for both clubs.

The source stopped short of saying how close such a deal actually was but indications last night were that it could be done as early as today.

The deal would also include minor-league pitcher Joe Blanton coming to Toronto. The right-hander, an A's first-round pick in the 2002 amateur draft, is 7-7 with a 2.71 ERA for class-A Kane County. He has struck out 130 in 126 innings

http://www.slamsports.com/Slam030723/mlb_tor1-sun.html