PDA

View Full Version : Reds payroll 20th in MLB



BRM
04-04-2007, 11:13 AM
From John Fay:


What $68.9 million buys these days

The Reds payroll is 20th among the 30 teams in baseball. That from the USA Today data base. Don't know if they ran the list in the paper or not. The Reds would probably put the figure at $74 million. USAT lists Ken Griffey Jr. at $8.4 million. The Reds have listed him at $12.5 million for accounting purposes, even the though a lot of the money is deferred. The payroll is up significantly over last year when it was $60.9 million. But it's fifth in the NL Central. Here's how the rest of the division ranks: 8. Cubs $99.6 million; 11. Cardinals $90.3 million; 14. Astros $87.7 million; 19. Brewers $70.9 million; 26. Pirates $38.5 million. Yankees, of course, are No. 1 at $189.6 million, followed by the Red Sox $143 million. Seven teams are over $100 million.

UGADaddy
04-04-2007, 11:23 AM
Thanks for posting that.

I hate that MLB can't get a more strict salary cap in place, but I also know that it's not how much you spend, but how you spend it. We're paying too much for Griffey (obviously) and Milton (even more obviously), but other than that, I think we we've been smart lately with our money. I know he's not always populat with everyone on here, but overall, I think WK's done a pretty darn good job in Cincinnati.

Any other opinions?

BRM
04-04-2007, 11:27 AM
Here is the link to the USA Today article. There is a link to the salaries database in the article.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/2007-04-04-salaries_N.htm

Sea Ray
04-04-2007, 11:40 AM
Thanks for posting that.

I hate that MLB can't get a more strict salary cap in place, but I also know that it's not how much you spend, but how you spend it. We're paying too much for Griffey (obviously) and Milton (even more obviously), but other than that, I think we we've been smart lately with our money. I know he's not always populat with everyone on here, but overall, I think WK's done a pretty darn good job in Cincinnati.

Any other opinions?

This is still the biggest problem in baseball. Take for instance pitching. What if your team needs pitching and what team doesn't? The Reds go off and pick up rule 5 guys and attempt to find a Bronson Arroyo. If you're the Boston Red Sox you can pick up a 26 yr old stud from Japan. It cost them $50mill just for the meeting and another $50mill for his 5 yr contract. Such a market puts most teams out of the running for his talent. That's not right. All teams should have equal access to FA talent.

Obviously in baseball there's no guarantees. He could blowout his arm but his acquisition clearly helps the Red Sox chances.

durl
04-04-2007, 11:41 AM
What's interesting is that in 2005 (I'm waiting to see 2006's data), the Yankees posted the largest LOSS ever for a baseball team. They were $50 million in the hole. It took the YES Network's cash stream to make the organization profitable. So while the organization overall made money, the baseball end is leaking cash.

HumnHilghtFreel
04-04-2007, 11:42 AM
All the other teams in the division are paying a whole lot more money to be just as mediocre as us.

I think WK has done a good enough job with what he has, but I also hope to see them pony up some cash in the coming off-seasons.

Sea Ray
04-04-2007, 11:44 AM
What's interesting is that in 2005 (I'm waiting to see 2006's data), the Yankees posted the largest LOSS ever for a baseball team. It took the YES Network's cash stream to make the organization profitable. So while the organization overall made money, the baseball end is leaking cash.

This clearly illustrates the problem. The Yankees have a YES network to make them money. No way you can have such a network in Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Minneapolis, KC, ...

Sea Ray
04-04-2007, 11:49 AM
All the other teams in the division are paying a whole lot more money to be just as mediocre as us.



I'm not picking the Cubs to win the division but let's look at where some of their big money is going. Both Aramis Ramirez and Derek Lee were acquisitions from salary dumping teams. They were only available because of the money disparity in baseball.

Soriano puts up huge offensive numbers every year.

How good would the Cubs be without Lee, Ramirez and Soriano?

durl
04-04-2007, 11:50 AM
This clearly illustrates the problem. The Yankees have a YES network to make them money. No way you can have such a network in Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Minneapolis, KC, ...

EXACTLY right, my friend. Markets like NY and Boston can pull in tens of millions of dollars with their private TV networks. The Yankees own 38% of YES which raked in over $200 million in revenue in 2005. (I would guess that means YES helped pad baseball operations by over $70 million.)

top6
04-04-2007, 12:04 PM
IMO, the Reds need to focus on becoming a regional team again - really work on building a presence in Louisville, Lexington, Columbus, Indianapolis, etc. I wouldn't even mind seeing them play a regular season series in those cities now and again, if possible. The Reds used to be popular all over the midwest, but the Cubs and the Braves (and to a lesser degree the Indians) have sort of taken over.

If I were the Reds, this would be by # 1 business priority. Then you could work on establishing some sort of regional sports network. Maybe it would somehow be possible to join with Ohio State football and Kentucky basketball to form some sort of super-midwest sports television network. I'm thinking 10, 20 years in the future. Obviously, that won't work until they are a major presence in the region.

coachw513
04-04-2007, 12:35 PM
1. Revenue sharing should include all revenue streams...thus the YES and NESN $$ also helps all teams...

2. NBA type Salary cap basement must be established...all teams must spend $XXX million in salary ($80 mil???)

3. NBA type cap for the ceiling...no team can spend more than $xxx million in salary ($150 mil???)

Money doesn't buy you championships and pennants, but a lack of money cripples the ability of even well-run organizations to regulary compete...it takes WK total "out of the box" creativity to unearth Hamilton and Burton...it took the Red Sox a checkbook to get Dice-K...

Chip R
04-04-2007, 12:52 PM
What's interesting is that in 2005 (I'm waiting to see 2006's data), the Yankees posted the largest LOSS ever for a baseball team. They were $50 million in the hole. It took the YES Network's cash stream to make the organization profitable. So while the organization overall made money, the baseball end is leaking cash.


I wouldn't put a lot of stock into those figures. There are many, many ways to move money around to make it look like the Yankees are losing money and the other entities are making it. An example would be the Yankees charging YES $10M for TV rights. The TV rights are worth 10 times that but YES gets all the revenue for that. The Braves used to do this all the time with TBS. Marge used to charge the Reds for expenses related to her car businesses. StL would funnel all their parking revenue into the company who owned the parking garage which just so happened to be owned by the brewery.

dfs
04-04-2007, 01:08 PM
Chip is absolutely right. There are too many ways to cook the books. Till the owners disclose income to each other, (and that aint happening folks) there is no chance of any kind of real salary cap.

The reds COULD spend money on free agents. Remember players ARE investments, not costs. The fact that they don't tells us that they do not consider the cost of free agents to be an effective investment in they way the reds make their cash.

fearofpopvol1
04-04-2007, 01:12 PM
I think baseball should institute a salary cap of $100 million. That should leave plenty of room for everyone to compete. It truly would only punish a few teams anyhow. If basketball and football have one, MLB should too. I do think the spend wisely philosophy is important, but why not be able to do that and have a salary cap in place? The 2 don't have to be independent of each other...

Dunner44
04-04-2007, 01:22 PM
The problem with instituting a salary cap is exacerbated in baseball by the minor leagues. While there are other leagues in football and baseball, they are not owned/affiliated with a single team. The D-league just started up in the NBA, and my understanding is that certain teams only own players, not teams. The NFL has nothing to do with Arena, the CFL, etc (and players rarely make the cross over).

The only players that the NFL has to worry about paying who aren't on their 53 man roster are the 8 practice squad players who are owned by the team and practice with the team. The NBA teams don't pay many players in the D-league. I don't know as much about this system, but I don't imagine many teams own more than 5 or 6 players in the D-league.

But how do you count minor leaguers into a salary cap in the MLB? Do you only include the 25 man roster or do you include the 40 man into your salary cap? Or is this the whole orginization wide? Interesting question.

Chip R
04-04-2007, 01:38 PM
But how do you count minor leaguers into a salary cap in the MLB? Do you only include the 25 man roster or do you include the 40 man into your salary cap? Or is this the whole orginization wide? Interesting question.


Excellent point. Let's say you have a kid like Homer Bailey who got a generous bonus and is probably making way better money than the average minor leaguer is making. Does his salary count too?

Take Matusaka's situation too. None of the money that BOS paid the Japanese league to get his rights and sign him was salary. He's making around $10M a year, IIRC. That's expensive but it's only $1M more than what Milton makes. You make a $100M cap, the rich teams are going to be all over this Japanese and Cuban thing. They rake in so much revenue yet only have to spend $100M on salaries. What are they going to do with the rest? If you are in favor of a salary cap, do you like a hard cap where it counts against the cap to re-sign your own free agent like the NFL or a soft cap like the NBA where it doesn't?

A salary cap isn't going to make players like A-Rod come to Cincinnati or Pittsburgh or KC. If he were a free agent and there was a cap problem, the Yankees could sign him for as much as they could and then they could defer salary or YES could hire him as a mulit-million dollar "consultant." Yankees pay A-Rod $15M and YES pays him $10M.

Let's say the Reds are at or near the salary cap ceiling but they need another pitcher down the stretch. The guy is going to cost the Reds big bucks but if the Reds trade for him, they are going to be over the cap. You can't blame ownership again for not wanting to bring an expensive player in. The cap is the culprit in this case.

durl
04-04-2007, 01:51 PM
I wouldn't put a lot of stock into those figures. There are many, many ways to move money around to make it look like the Yankees are losing money and the other entities are making it. An example would be the Yankees charging YES $10M for TV rights. The TV rights are worth 10 times that but YES gets all the revenue for that. The Braves used to do this all the time with TBS. Marge used to charge the Reds for expenses related to her car businesses. StL would funnel all their parking revenue into the company who owned the parking garage which just so happened to be owned by the brewery.

Good points. In case anyone is interested, here's where I got the info, ranked by team valuation:

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/33/Rank_1.html

Forbes ranks teams every year so I expect their 2006 results to be available soon.

bucksfan2
04-04-2007, 01:52 PM
You have to do something about the salaries in baseball. There is a $50 million differenct between the yankees and the red sox. The left side of the yankees infield makes more money that the entire d rays. If baseball doesn't want to do a salary cap they need to do a more expensive luxery tax and revenue sharing. Right now it isn't good for baseball that Gary Mathewes is being paid what he is. The Marquis, Mench, and Lilly's don't deserve to be paid what they are. We have seen what a bad contract (Milton) does to a small market club. I am not exactly sure how you change the current landscape but I know it is not good for baseball when steriod using, average players are getting 5 years $50 million contracts.

RedEye
04-04-2007, 02:17 PM
What's interesting is that in 2005 (I'm waiting to see 2006's data), the Yankees posted the largest LOSS ever for a baseball team. They were $50 million in the hole. It took the YES Network's cash stream to make the organization profitable. So while the organization overall made money, the baseball end is leaking cash.

Yeah, but they plan for that. What counts is the organization as a whole, not the team. With a cushion like that, you can take a chance on free agent pitcher that other teams don't. Sometimes they work out, sometimes they don't--but it's that cushion that makes the difference.

I don't buy the whole "It's whether you're smart with your money and not how much you have" argument because it makes an excuse for keeping some teams down. Frankly, all teams should have equal chances to spend money wisely or unwisely. The Reds have so much less margin of error that their bad moves (Milton) haunt them for years while the Yankees (Pavano) just stick them on the DL and move on.

PuffyPig
04-04-2007, 02:29 PM
Thanks for posting that.

I hate that MLB can't get a more strict salary cap in place, but I also know that it's not how much you spend, but how you spend it. We're paying too much for Griffey (obviously) and Milton (even more obviously), but other than that, I think we we've been smart lately with our money. I know he's not always populat with everyone on here, but overall, I think WK's done a pretty darn good job in Cincinnati.

Any other opinions?

The Griffey signing at the time was a great move. That's the problem with saying "how you spend it". You can't spend it perfectly, and the more money you have, the more mistakes you can make.

Jpup
04-04-2007, 02:53 PM
This clearly illustrates the problem. The Yankees have a YES network to make them money. No way you can have such a network in Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Minneapolis, KC, ...

why not?

Sea Ray
04-04-2007, 02:56 PM
Excellent point. Let's say you have a kid like Homer Bailey who got a generous bonus and is probably making way better money than the average minor leaguer is making. Does his salary count too?

Take Matusaka's situation too. None of the money that BOS paid the Japanese league to get his rights and sign him was salary.

These issues can easily be hammered out. First of all the only players which count against the cap are the top paid 25 major leaguers. Minor leaguers like Homer do not count. Most savy teams will count his bonus as part of his minor league career. In football, only the top 53 paid players count against the cap even though with IR they probably have over 60 players under contract.

As for the Japanese players, there has to be an international draft. It's nuts that signing players from Japan or Cuba is a free for all.

kaldaniels
04-04-2007, 02:56 PM
why not?

I would speculate NY has 10 times the market size in it's surrounding area than Cincy = more and more and more ad revenue from TV.

Sea Ray
04-04-2007, 02:57 PM
why not?


Simple. There aren't 8 million people in greater Cincinnati to subscribe to such a network.

kaldaniels
04-04-2007, 02:58 PM
These issues can easily be hammered out. First of all the only players which count against the cap are the top paid 25 major leaguers. Minor leaguers like Homer do not count. Most savy teams will count his bonus as part of his minor league career. In football, only the top 53 paid players count against the cap even though with IR they probably have over 60 players under contract.

As for the Japanese players, there has to be an international draft. It's nuts that signing players from Japan or Cuba is a free for all.

I figure in 10 years we will look back and see the free for all that we have today to be one of the craziest things ever allowed in MLB.

Sea Ray
04-04-2007, 03:01 PM
I figure in 10 years we will look back and see the free for all that we have today to be one of the craziest things ever allowed in MLB.

I hope you're right. You have more confidence in the powers that be in MLB than I do.

kaldaniels
04-04-2007, 03:03 PM
I hope you're right. You have more confidence in the powers that be in MLB than I do.

After I posted I thought...maybe I should have said 25 years. After all, it's probably already coming on 10 years since Ichiro signed.

Chip R
04-04-2007, 03:06 PM
As for the Japanese players, there has to be an international draft. It's nuts that signing players from Japan or Cuba is a free for all.


I agree but no one seems to want that enough to push for it. Besides you need to compensate the teams/league from Japan for signing their players. Now what that price is, is up for debate but they do need to be compensated. Then you have it like the amateur draft where the poorer teams may not be able to afford the best amateur players because they want too much of a bonus.

Sea Ray
04-04-2007, 03:15 PM
I agree but no one seems to want that enough to push for it. Besides you need to compensate the teams/league from Japan for signing their players. Now what that price is, is up for debate but they do need to be compensated. Then you have it like the amateur draft where the poorer teams may not be able to afford the best amateur players because they want too much of a bonus.

Why do you have to compensate them? Is Japan a free country? Do they compensate us when they sign our players? When a Japanese player is a free agent he should be free to negotiate with American teams. If he's not the problem lies in Tokyo, not NY. If Japan wants to make it possible for their players to show off their skills in America, they'll come up with a system to let them walk.

Surely you're not trying to protect a system that pays them $50m for negotiating rights? That's part of the idiocy that needs to be abolished.

blumj
04-04-2007, 03:29 PM
Why do you have to compensate them? Is Japan a free country? Do they compensate us when they sign our players?
Well, yes, if they're not free agents, Japanese teams do compensate US teams for the rights to players all the time. It's just that there aren't any great US players who'd agree to have their rights sold to a Japanese team, so the big money only goes in one direction.

bucksfan2
04-04-2007, 04:00 PM
Why do you have to compensate them? Is Japan a free country? Do they compensate us when they sign our players? When a Japanese player is a free agent he should be free to negotiate with American teams. If he's not the problem lies in Tokyo, not NY. If Japan wants to make it possible for their players to show off their skills in America, they'll come up with a system to let them walk.

Surely you're not trying to protect a system that pays them $50m for negotiating rights? That's part of the idiocy that needs to be abolished.

Actually european soccer teams do it quite a bit. They pay a transfer fee in order to sign a player from a different league.

I agree there has to be something done about negotiating rights. They can incorporate that into some kind of international draft. Let the teams chose players and then deal with the negotiating rights.