PDA

View Full Version : Interesting BP tidbit on salaries


Flight #24
01-15-2007, 04:23 PM
There's a brief note on the tendency for salaries to jump in the first year following a CBA signing/renewal. They also produce a table comparing the increase in average salary in the years following CBAs:


Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Y6
1977 48% 31% 14% 27% 29%
1982 30% 20% 14% 13%
1986 11% 0% 6% 13% 20%
1991 43% 21% 5% 9% -5% 1%
1997 19% 5% 15% 18% 13% 7%
2003 3% -2% 7% 9%
AVERAGE 26% 13% 10% 15% 14% 4%

They conclude that historical data supports the anecdotal comments of MLB folks that there's a big jump in salaries in the first year after a deal, which then tapers off.

The other interesting and troubling thing that I find is that there are few, if any negative numbers in the table. So while the rate of increase may slow, it pretty much only goes up. Which means that if the Sox don't think they can afford marquee players at today's rates, they either need to a)expand revenues so that they can or b)get them subsidized in some way, shape, or form - which most likely means they'll be giving away significant young/cheap talent or taking flawed guys on in trade (because absent flaws, I don't see many teams dumping highly paid stars very frequently,a nd especially not in early years of contracts).

Now that doesn't mean that they can't trade for a pitcher and take on the last 3 years of a 5-yr deal and assume his full salary, but it does effectively significantly limit then in terms of either resigning their own marquee guys or signing other marquee guys.

munchman33
01-15-2007, 04:43 PM
There's a brief note on the tendency for salaries to jump in the first year following a CBA signing/renewal. They also produce a table comparing the increase in average salary in the years following CBAs:


They conclude that historical data supports the anecdotal comments of MLB folks that there's a big jump in salaries in the first year after a deal, which then tapers off.

The other interesting and troubling thing that I find is that there are few, if any negative numbers in the table. So while the rate of increase may slow, it pretty much only goes up. Which means that if the Sox don't think they can afford marquee players at today's rates, they either need to a)expand revenues so that they can or b)get them subsidized in some way, shape, or form - which most likely means they'll be giving away significant young/cheap talent or taking flawed guys on in trade (because absent flaws, I don't see many teams dumping highly paid stars very frequently,a nd especially not in early years of contracts).

Now that doesn't mean that they can't trade for a pitcher and take on the last 3 years of a 5-yr deal and assume his full salary, but it does effectively significantly limit then in terms of either resigning their own marquee guys or signing other marquee guys.

I don't think it's that the sox don't think they can afford marquee players at today's rate. It's that players outside of marquee are getting close to that. And now their simply above average talent, like Mark Buehrle, can get close to $20 million per year. And that doesn't make fiscal sense, when you can go out and get someone like Carlos Zambrano next offseason and spend close to the same.

Flight #24
01-15-2007, 04:45 PM
I don't think it's that the sox don't think they can afford marquee players at today's rate. It's that players outside of marquee are getting close to that. And now their simply above average talent, like Mark Buehrle, can get close to $20 million per year. And that doesn't make fiscal sense, when you can go out and get someone like Carlos Zambrano next offseason and spend close to the same.

That's the key. If true, they're in solid shape. But if Zambrano's going to get $20M/yr on a 7-yr deal......I'm not so sure the Sox will play that game.

It's one thing to say "there's better value out there, or soon there will be", another to say "Everything's too expensive". The former is what smart teams do, the latter is what cheap/poor teams do.

caulfield12
01-15-2007, 06:21 PM
Or they play the Twins and A's game of staying ahead of the curve on contracts, outscouting everyone...except the White Sox have an additional $30-50 million they can spend over those 2 teams.

The White Sox seem to be willling to be creative and not follow the trends...tacking counteruintively usually works, but you need to have patience and not give up or cut your losses when things don't look good. That's the risk here, the fans become disenchanted with a "co-equal" long-term/short-term perspective and wonder why we're getting behind the Cubs or Tigers.

Daver
01-15-2007, 06:34 PM
There's a brief note on the tendency for salaries to jump in the first year following a CBA signing/renewal. They also produce a table comparing the increase in average salary in the years following CBAs:


They conclude that historical data supports the anecdotal comments of MLB folks that there's a big jump in salaries in the first year after a deal, which then tapers off.

The other interesting and troubling thing that I find is that there are few, if any negative numbers in the table. So while the rate of increase may slow, it pretty much only goes up. Which means that if the Sox don't think they can afford marquee players at today's rates, they either need to a)expand revenues so that they can or b)get them subsidized in some way, shape, or form - which most likely means they'll be giving away significant young/cheap talent or taking flawed guys on in trade (because absent flaws, I don't see many teams dumping highly paid stars very frequently,a nd especially not in early years of contracts).

Now that doesn't mean that they can't trade for a pitcher and take on the last 3 years of a 5-yr deal and assume his full salary, but it does effectively significantly limit then in terms of either resigning their own marquee guys or signing other marquee guys.

BP is just noticing this now?

Phil Rogers made comments about it after the LAST CBA was signed.