Ranking the Top 5 Teams by Percentage of MLB Payroll Dropped for 2024

[Cody Christie]

Major League Baseball is experiencing a payroll crisis, with teams across the league cutting costs--ostensibly due to uncertainty surrounding regional television networks. Many teams cut payroll leading into the 2024 campaign, so let’s examine the five who cut the highest percentage of their 2023 salaries.

Image courtesy of Jesse Johnson-USA TODAY Sports

Much has been written about the Minnesota Twins and their payroll situation this winter. However, they were hardly the only club looking to cut costs due to the evaporating regional television markets (or at least, with that circumstance as cover for applying downward pressure on player salaries). Opening Day is at the end of March, and some of the top free agents remain unsigned because teams cut back on their spending for 2024. The Twins were one of the teams who trimmed their payroll for the upcoming season, but where do they rank in the top five? 

Honorable Mentions: Milwaukee Brewers (-12%), Detroit Tigers (-9.1%), and New York Mets (-7.9%)

5. Texas Rangers
2023 Payroll: $251 million
2024 Payroll: $220 million
Payroll Drop: -12.4%
The Rangers won the franchise's first World Series last year. That meant a big bump in revenue from their long playoff run and renewed interest in the team, leading to more season ticket sales. However, this winter, the Rangers' television deal affected the club’s free-agent spending. Initially, Texas had a deal with Diamond Sports to pay them $111 million annually, but they are expected to receive somewhere between $90-100 million for the upcoming season. Like the Twins, they don’t know where their home will be after the 2024 season, and that uncertainty has caused the team to be more cautious this winter.

4. Colorado Rockies
2023 Payroll: $171 million
2024 Payroll: $145 million
Payroll Drop: -15.3%
Colorado was one of the teams dropped by Diamond Sports in the middle of last season, causing MLB to shift television plans on the fly. For 2024, fans living in the club’s home television territory can purchase a package to watch all Rockies games in-market both live and on-demand. The package costs $99.99 for the season or $19.99 per month. The Rockies are one of baseball’s worst-run organizations, so their spending likely won’t impact their finish in the NL West.

3. Minnesota Twins
2023 Payroll: $156 million
2024 Payroll: $128 million
Payroll Drop: -17.9%
The Twins' payroll situation has been discussed at length from multiple perspectives at Twins Daily. For much of the offseason, it seemed like they would be heading toward a plan similar to the Rockies', since the team’s deal with Diamond Sports expired after the regular season. Instead, Minnesota agreed to a one-year deal to stay on Bally Sports North. Last season, the Twins made a bit less than $60 million from their television deal. This year, under the new short-term arrangement, they're expected to make between $40-50 million. (The exact total has not been reported, which says plenty on its own.)

For fans, the entire television and payroll situation has been frustrating on multiple fronts. First, team officials made comments about blackouts being removed, which won’t happen in 2024. Second, the team received an influx of revenue with the new TV deal, but the team didn’t spend any more on the payroll after that unexpected infusion. Twins fans might be frustrated, but fans of the following two teams have even more to complain about.

2. Los Angeles Angels
2023 Payroll: $230 million
2024 Payroll: $174 million
Payroll Drop: -24.4%
The Angels are another one of the teams impacted by the ongoing bankruptcy issues with Diamond Sports. Some of this drop in payroll is also tied to the loss of Shohei Ohtani, who made $30 million last season in his final year of arbitration eligibility. Last season was a one-year payroll jump for the Angels in an attempt to get to the playoffs before Ohtani left for free agency. The club has hovered between $179-$182 million in payroll since the 2020 season. Los Angeles also caused a stir last season when they placed five players on waivers less than a month after trading for many of them at the deadline. It was an attempt by the front office to drop the team’s payroll under the luxury tax threshold, which they were able to do by $30,000. 

1. San Diego Padres
2023 Payroll: $256 million
2024 Payroll: $160 million
Payroll Drop: -37.5%
The Padres have been interesting to follow of late, because their market is smaller than Minnesota, but they have outspent the Twins. San Diego was forced to trade Juan Soto this winter to clear his $31.5-million salary, an arbitration record, from their bloated books. They still have four players with an average annual contract value of over $20 million (Manny Machado, Xander Bogaerts, Fernando Tatis Jr., and Joe Musgrove). On the television side, the team was in the middle of a 20-year, $1.2-billion contract before being dropped by Diamond Sports in the middle of last season. Fans in the Padres viewing area can sign up for a television deal similar to the Rockies' through MLB’s streaming platform.

Revenue and payroll issues will continue impacting teams until baseball has more clarity on regional TV rights. Regional sports networks have been vital to revenue and growth, but it’s time for baseball to update its antiquated rules about blackouts and find ways to reach a bigger audience. Without adjusting, baseball will continue to lose fans, which will have long-term impacts on the game’s growth. If the owners are using this as a cheap guise under which to tighten the screws in the run-up to the next collective bargaining negotiations with the MLBPA, that goes double.

---

Did you expect the Twins to rank higher or lower on this list? Were any of the teams a surprise? Leave a comment and start the discussion.

View full article

[Karbo]

IMO the salaries have gotten out of hand. I wonder if maybe the owners have finally realized this and are going to start cutting back a bit. The overall interest in the sport seems to be dwindeling and revenues from TV will have to reflect that. It seems that younger people today have less interest in the game which will also effect future TV deals. The MLB made some changes last year to pick up the pace a bit and probably will need to continue to do something to pick up more younger viewers to keep the game popular.

[Jocko87]

While I'm sure there are rules about how to officially calculate payroll but shouldn't the Twins payroll actually be $142m accounting for money received in trades? The players on roster will be paid that much, the Twins gave prospect capital to get others to help pay for the roster and who pays it doesn't seem to matter to me.

That would put the decline right in line with league average at just under $10m and honorable mention on this list. I haven't worried about payroll all year and I worry about it less now.

Thanks for putting this together. Had we been Padres or Angels daily this place would have been not fun at all.

[chpettit19]

25 minutes ago, Karbo said:

IMO the salaries have gotten out of hand. I wonder if maybe the owners have finally realized this and are going to start cutting back a bit. The overall interest in the sport seems to be dwindeling and revenues from TV will have to reflect that. It seems that younger people today have less interest in the game which will also effect future TV deals. The MLB made some changes last year to pick up the pace a bit and probably will need to continue to do something to pick up more younger viewers to keep the game popular.

Getting out of the TV deals and into streaming deals is the obvious way to get more young eyeballs on their games. The younger generations stream things, they don't watch cable TV. Baseball is at a vital point in their organization's lifespan. They need to get this viewing thing correct over the next handful of years if they want to continue to grow their sport.

[JD-TWINS]

25 minutes ago, Karbo said:

IMO the salaries have gotten out of hand. I wonder if maybe the owners have finally realized this and are going to start cutting back a bit. The overall interest in the sport seems to be dwindeling and revenues from TV will have to reflect that. It seems that younger people today have less interest in the game which will also effect future TV deals. The MLB made some changes last year to pick up the pace a bit and probably will need to continue to do something to pick up more younger viewers to keep the game popular.

Most fans have thought salaries have been out of hand since Catfish Hunter was in his prime……….’74 or so - right?

Teams “informally” collude and then it becomes found out and the owners pay the price at some point. Cycle.

The TV revenues have really driven cash flow for many organizations over the past 20 plus years. They seem to be unstable. IMO, this will get solved across some or a few platforms. The faucet will be turned back on soon after.

[Cory Engelhardt]

It's so difficult for me to get mad about overall salaries for any team with the way that younger players get paid (even stars) compared to older/veteran players. 

I'm not certain how to fix that, but players being cheap/controlled for 6+ years once they make the majors certainly helps good teams have lower payrolls overall no?

[Dave Borton]

54 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

...They need to get this viewing thing correct over the next handful of years if they want to continue to grow their sport.

I believe MLB is moving away from interest in growing domestic product in the game and moving more to international.

About 30% of players are already born outside of US. Series this year in Korea, Dominican Republic, Mexico City, and London suggest MLB's awareness of diminishing market here at home. This follows closely on heels of the World Baseball Classic last year in Phoenix. 

[Major League Ready]

1 hour ago, chpettit19 said:

Getting out of the TV deals and into streaming deals is the obvious way to get more young eyeballs on their games. The younger generations stream things, they don't watch cable TV. Baseball is at a vital point in their organization's lifespan. They need to get this viewing thing correct over the next handful of years if they want to continue to grow their sport.

Without looking it up, I would assume there are a good percentage of the TV contracts with 10+ years until expiration.  This could take quite a while to get all of the teams to a new model if the RSN model remains viable.  I keep thinking that MLB, the NBA/NFL, and MLS should establish a cooperative effort that would welcome in participants as their TV deals expire.  They would keep revenue derived from their individual broadcasts while sharing the operating costs.  This would provide scale and shared resources to reduce operating costs.  The time is now.

[chpettit19]

6 minutes ago, davidborton said:

I believe MLB is moving away from interest in growing domestic product in the game and moving more to international.

About 30% of players are already born outside of US. Series this year in Korea, Dominican Republic, Mexico City, and London suggest MLB's awareness of diminishing market here at home. This follows closely on heels of the World Baseball Classic last year in Phoenix. 

That sounds like a good strategy to me, and quite possibly what they're looking at. Part of their diminishing market here, though, is that they don't get their product in front of their audience. I think I read something that the Twins were in basically 25% of households in their viewing market. Hard to even maintain your domestic market when you're missing on 75% of possible customers. Growing at home and globally is obviously the ideal situation, but they need to make some real changes in how they do things and there's many hurdles to that with RSN deals with years left on them, team owned stations/services, and teams like the Twins who are on short-term deals or have no deals at all. Hopefully the owners can take a realistic view on the league as a whole and come to some quality decisions.

[USAFChief]

From the OP:

"Last year, the Twins made a bit less than $60M from their TV deal."

They made $54M, as has been widely reported both here and in multiple places.

Here's one: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sportico.com/business/media/2024/diamond-rsn-rangers-guardians-twins-tv-deals-2024-mlb-1234765268/amp/

Simple facts cant be so casually disregarded. TD can do better than this.

[bean5302]

12 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

From the OP:

"Last year, the Twins made a bit less than $60M from their TV deal."

They made $54M, as has been widely reported both here and in multiple places.

Here's one: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sportico.com/business/media/2024/diamond-rsn-rangers-guardians-twins-tv-deals-2024-mlb-1234765268/amp/

Simple facts cant be so casually disregarded. TD can do better than this.

Not to mention it's been widely reported all agreements for Diamond Sports for this year were at least 85% of the previous season putting the Twins TV revenue somewhere between $45.9MM to $54.0MM this year. It's a pretty narrow value, and actual TV contract details are almost never reported publicly so some hint at some sort of conspiracy to not report it isn't reasonable.

Also not reported in the article is the Padres were in violation of liquidity rules for MLB. Basically, they had been spending more than they could afford as an ownership group so they were given a directive by MLB to get their financials in order. The Angels are an absolute mess, and most fans and analysts believe the team should rebuild as they don't have a good playoff potential. Not sure those fan bases have a real cause for anger.

[Twins_Fan_For_Life]

I didn't realize the Rockies had a payroll that large last year. Who the heck are they paying?

[mikelink45]

The most cogent statement in this thread is the fact that we believe salaries have gotten out of hand since Catfish Hunter.  

I hate reading about payrolls and contracts.  This is in a world that makes no sense to people like me who have never been highly paid, but love my life as it is.  I like baseball, I like to watch the plays and players but if all the salary negotiations were removed from the baseball threads I would be delighted.

Do I really care how much Ohtani gets paid?  No.  What I care about is how much talent a team like the Dodgers can accumulate.

I would love a salary cap - but I would want it to extend to what the owners get too.  Without the salary cap the luxury tax is a foolish and meaningless thing. 

I see more and more youth coming in to the game - salary considerations are certainly part of this.  We can see it in other sports where teams pay ridiculous salaries for players like Kurt Cousins and others are looking to start rookie QBs who will have a salary for five years that allow the team to accumulate more talent at other positions.

Pay to the minor leagues increasing this year was the best news.  The reduction in minor league teams a couple years ago was not.

Will it become more international?  I hope so.  World cup of baseball - without this extension calling the championship the "World Series" has always felt arrogant and wrong.

[IndianaTwin]

From the OP: "The Twins' payroll situation has been discussed at length from multiple perspectives at Twins Daily."

--------

Ad nauseum would be a suitable replacement for the words "at length," in my opinion. 

I get it -- salary is less than what many here want it to be and/or think it should be, but all of our "analysis" is done with incomplete information and without being privy to the internal discussions of what's going on. Not to mention that it's a little hard to compare "Opening Day" salaries when we're still a couple weeks from Opening Day. A late spring training trade or a signing of the Boras However Many Are Left by any of these teams changes the list.

 

[Trov]

This story helps show that Twins were not alone in the salary cutting.  Also, there are still 2 pitchers on the open market that no team is willing to meet their demands. In terms of the Twins fans were upset we did not just spend more money when we got a TV deal.  The problem with all that is who was out there we would just dump say 20 mil this year that would have taken it?  Sure, we could have found someone to take it, but why just drop 20 mil on a player for one year if he is not better than who you have?  

Could we have got a long term deal with a pitcher, sure, but then the money next year becomes a question, and we will start having younger guys needing to get more and more raises. Just as the article showed, Padres had to sell of Soto for pennies on the dollar and many other cost cutting moves because they were over paying and could continue to do what they had been. What did their huge spending get them anyways? 

Their first big contract and trade happened offseason of 2018 when they signed Hosmer and traded for Myers. They finished with a losing record. Then in 2019 they signed Machado, and brought up Tatis, They finished with losing record. 2020, They finally made playoffs, but got swept first round. 2021 More big moves, signing Darvish and trading for Snell and Musgrove.  Had a losing season. 2022 Traded for Soto, giving up young pitcher, and traded for another pitcher Manea.  Made playoffs lost in NLCS. 2023 Signed Bogarts Finshed just above .500 at 82-80, did not make playoffs. 

Yes, they were in division with Dodgers so tough to win there, but they spent a ton and got 1 playoff round win.  Point is, spending money to spend it does not equal wins, you need to spend smart too. 

[MABB1959]

Of the 5 the Twins have the lowest payroll.  The only way to impact it would be by not going to games, but that could backfire and it would go lower.

The whole TV thing is more frustrating.  I miss watching baseball and probably wouldn't know the players if I saw them in person

[bean5302]

3 hours ago, Twins_Fan_For_Life said:

I didn't realize the Rockies had a payroll that large last year. Who the heck are they paying?

Kris Bryant & Charlie Blackmon made up over $50MM of their budget last year. Their fans are really outstanding. Consistently great attendance despite poor results so there's a lot of payroll room in the budget.

[Schmoeman5]

3 hours ago, Trov said:

This story helps show that Twins were not alone in the salary cutting.  Also, there are still 2 pitchers on the open market that no team is willing to meet their demands. In terms of the Twins fans were upset we did not just spend more money when we got a TV deal.  The problem with all that is who was out there we would just dump say 20 mil this year that would have taken it?  Sure, we could have found someone to take it, but why just drop 20 mil on a player for one year if he is not better than who you have?  

Could we have got a long term deal with a pitcher, sure, but then the money next year becomes a question, and we will start having younger guys needing to get more and more raises. Just as the article showed, Padres had to sell of Soto for pennies on the dollar and many other cost cutting moves because they were over paying and could continue to do what they had been. What did their huge spending get them anyways? 

Their first big contract and trade happened offseason of 2018 when they signed Hosmer and traded for Myers. They finished with a losing record. Then in 2019 they signed Machado, and brought up Tatis, They finished with losing record. 2020, They finally made playoffs, but got swept first round. 2021 More big moves, signing Darvish and trading for Snell and Musgrove.  Had a losing season. 2022 Traded for Soto, giving up young pitcher, and traded for another pitcher Manea.  Made playoffs lost in NLCS. 2023 Signed Bogarts Finshed just above .500 at 82-80, did not make playoffs. 

Yes, they were in division with Dodgers so tough to win there, but they spent a ton and got 1 playoff round win.  Point is, spending money to spend it does not equal wins, you need to spend smart too. 

Many of the things you wrote are true. But at least they TRIED. It didn't work out for them. Same for the Mets and the Rangers. Injuries were a big reason the Padres and Mets didn't make it. And when DeGrom went down, many thought that was it for them too. Who won it all? Standing pat or cutting costs might work out too. But it's doubtful. A team would have to have above avg. performances from multiple players.  Not impossible, but highly unlikely.

[DocBauer]

Absolutely not an apologist for thr Twins owners, even though I feel that, generally speaking, they do a good job with the organization, and within baseball, and within the community. I hate not spending every penny you can to put the best team on the field every season. I'm really not happy payroll has been cut this season after reaching the playoffs, and having a team primed to do so again.

But what this OP announces and details us it isn't just a Twins issue, despite the fact this is about the 12th article about payroll in one form or another since the season ended.

The Padres spent way more than they should have, had a huge TV deal, and lost it. Payroll gets cut by 37.5% because not only did they reportedly overspend, but they lost their big TV deal.

Thr Angels, who are in LOS ANGELES, cut payroll by 24.4%. I know they're run poorly, but you have to cut payroll in LA??

The Rangers, in a much bigger market than the Twins, and with a TV deal more than double that of the Twins, flush with playoff money, still cut their payroll by 12.4%. 

What happens to the Rangers next offseason when they aren't getting their approximately $85M that they are receiving for 2024? Is there really a cable or streaming package that's going to rescue them and toss them a $85M life preserver?

Without having anything other than educated guesses available to us...with a couple exceptions...we just don't really know how much the Twins, or any team, actually takes in for yearly income. But we do have reports of what some of the TV packages that have expired, been dropped, or are on their last year are worth. And it's not small amounts. That's why you're seeing teams, even teams in larger markets, dropping payroll. And since none of these teams know what's going to happen in 2025 at this point, more cuts are probably coming for some of them.

Now, some teams have different deals with different broadcasters that pay well and aren't disappearing. That stinks for the health of the game. And it's about time MLB gets their s**t together and figure out how to make something work with better balance. And that includes getting rid of blackouts and looking to expand internationally. 

I guess nobody could be blamed for believing so many ownership groups just got cheap and are cutting payroll now because the team income dropped. But do we really believe billionaires across baseball, in all different sizes of markets, are worried about trying to recoup a few more $M? Or is it actually possible that these teams are actually cutting payroll because the loss of the TV revenue actually has them in the red or potentially facing it?

I'm just worried how big of a mess it's going to be for the next few years. MLB often adapts and progresses at a drunken snails pace.

[Jocko87]

6 hours ago, Cory Engelhardt said:

It's so difficult for me to get mad about overall salaries for any team with the way that younger players get paid (even stars) compared to older/veteran players. 

I'm not certain how to fix that, but players being cheap/controlled for 6+ years once they make the majors certainly helps good teams have lower payrolls overall no?

They purposely made incentives to get prospects to the league faster. I think we are seeing the start of a very tough market for the average post arb player. It's going to be a stars and paid-like-scrubs league in very short order. I'm not sure a settled TV situation changes that, now that I say it out loud it's probably preparing for the expansion push.

[Major League Ready]

6 hours ago, bean5302 said:

Not to mention it's been widely reported all agreements for Diamond Sports for this year were at least 85% of the previous season putting the Twins TV revenue somewhere between $45.9MM to $54.0MM this year. It's a pretty narrow value, and actual TV contract details are almost never reported publicly so some hint at some sort of conspiracy to not report it isn't reasonable.

Also not reported in the article is the Padres were in violation of liquidity rules for MLB. Basically, they had been spending more than they could afford as an ownership group so they were given a directive by MLB to get their financials in order. The Angels are an absolute mess, and most fans and analysts believe the team should rebuild as they don't have a good playoff potential. Not sure those fan bases have a real cause for anger.

The Twins were in an entirely different position.  They no longer had a contract.  It should not be assumed they automatically got the same percentage as those teams that were still under contract.  

[Cory Engelhardt]

1 hour ago, Jocko87 said:

They purposely made incentives to get prospects to the league faster. I think we are seeing the start of a very tough market for the average post arb player. It's going to be a stars and paid-like-scrubs league in very short order. I'm not sure a settled TV situation changes that, now that I say it out loud it's probably preparing for the expansion push.

Agreed completely. 5th starters, middle relievers, quality bench players; those types of guys aren’t set to make big money like they would have 10 years ago

[DocBauer]

3 hours ago, Jocko87 said:

They purposely made incentives to get prospects to the league faster. I think we are seeing the start of a very tough market for the average post arb player. It's going to be a stars and paid-like-scrubs league in very short order. I'm not sure a settled TV situation changes that, now that I say it out loud it's probably preparing for the expansion push.

I think expansion may happen. I hope to the baseball gods it DOESN’T happen! 

The leagues and divisions are perfectly balanced right now as is.

The league is a complete cluster of a mess financially right now! Some teams, Yankees for instance, have their own unique TV deals in place for the near future, at least, and from that and pure population base, have and will always have a financial advantage. Meanwhile, there's more than the 8 teams listed in this OP that have cut, or going to cut, may cut deeper, or have virtually ZERO clue any sort of pending 2025 and beyond broadcasting deals. 

Some teams have barely been solvent the past few seasons like the A's and Ray's. One has done well and might do better with a new stadium...still a few years away...and the other is such a mess they can't even make the HOPEFUL move to Las Vegas anything other than a messy dream. And some kind of "buy in" deal to MLB for an expansion of teams is a limited reward. Someone please tell me what cities are left that would be viable, profitable options???

[Whitey333]

The Twins handling of the TV Diamond sports has been a fiasco.  For nearly 5 years they have promised to increase opportunities for tv viewership.  Their contract with Bally ended.  They didn't have to resign with them.  They could have worked to find a better alternative to increase viewership.  Instead they " took the money" from Bally and left potential viewers holding the bag again for a 5th year dealing with inaccessibility and blackouts.  I'm growing so tired of all the Twins apologists.  You can stop now because we know they never do anything wrong or questionable.

[Major League Ready]

None of us has any idea what the options were or what long-term influences impacted the broadcast rights.  You have no idea what could or could not be worked out.  To assume they favor a deal with less viewership options is absurd.  I am growing equally tired of people without any actual knowledge assuming they have all the answers and everyone else must be incompetent.  

[gman]

When you go to a game and only 10-12 thousand are showing up to watch a first place team, no matter the paid attendance. Of those in attendance 9000 are in line, always, to buy food and most of the rest are studying their phone, you only have a couple hundred actually watching the game. But if some hits a homer, then everybody stands up and asks what happened, then go back to their food and phones. How many will option to pay for streaming? Maybe more than buy tickets, but I think baseball did this to them selves.

[TwinsDr2021]

Best way to keep payroll down it to not bring prospects up until age 24 or 25, that way you never pay a premium for their prime years. Let other teams give them the big money at age 30 or later. Guys that are just so good you can't keep them in the minors will be high priced superstars.

Imagine for a minute, if the Twins never have to pay a free agent price for Ober, Jax, Duran, Ryan, Wallner, Julien, Lewis, Festa, Canterino they will have all of them basically though age 30 paying less than market rate, sure the the last year of Arb might get high, but if they can keep Lee down until Mid 25 and continue to bring EROD and Raya along slowly they could have a bunch of really good players without ever really paying for them. Jenkins could then be the superstar up at 20,21,22 that they pay big. The rest of their top pitching prospects that are kind of close are all already 22 or 23.

[Major League Ready]

44 minutes ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

Best way to keep payroll down it to not bring prospects up until age 24 or 25, that way you never pay a premium for their prime years. Let other teams give them the big money at age 30 or later. Guys that are just so good you can't keep them in the minors will be high priced superstars.

Imagine for a minute, if the Twins never have to pay a free agent price for Ober, Jax, Duran, Ryan, Wallner, Julien, Lewis, Festa, Canterino they will have all of them basically though age 30 paying less than market rate, sure the the last year of Arb might get high, but if they can keep Lee down until Mid 25 and continue to bring EROD and Raya along slowly they could have a bunch of really good players without ever really paying for them. Jenkins could then be the superstar up at 20,21,22 that they pay big. The rest of their top pitching prospects that are kind of close are all already 22 or 23.

If the premise is they are never going to pay free agent prices, what difference does it make when they bring them up?  They are still going to pay roughly the same amount for their 6 full years of control.  What players have they extended that became free agents in their 30s?  The best way to keep premium talent is to extend them early like Atlanta is done.  

The lower revenue teams that have been successful are the teams that have traded experienced players like Polanco when they have suitable replacements.  Most of the 90+ win (lower revenue) teams have produced significantly more WAR from players that were acquired as prospects or very early in their MLB career before they became established than they have from players they drafted.  Players that were acquired as prospects represent about double the WAR as that of the combined WAR of free agents and established players acquired in trade.    

[TwinsDr2021]

13 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

If the premise is they are never going to pay free agent prices, what difference does it make when they bring them up?  They are still going to pay roughly the same amount for their 6 full years of control.  What players have they extended that became free agents in their 30s?  The best way to keep premium talent is to extend them early like Atlanta is done.  

The lower revenue teams that have been successful are the teams that have traded experienced players like Polanco when they have suitable replacements.  Most of the 90+ win (lower revenue) teams have produced significantly more WAR from players that were acquired as prospects or very early in their MLB career before they became established than they have from players they drafted.  Players that were acquired as prospects represent about double the WAR as that of the combined WAR of free agents and established players acquired in trade.    

My point had nothing to do with signing free agents or keeping talent, just keeping payroll down by by not bringing up prospects up too early. For example, Buxton, Sano, Polanco, Rosario, Kepler, Berrios, Arraez all where up by age 23 all where extended or traded, Rosario if I remember was allowed to become a FA at age 28.

Compare that to the recent group of prospects (mentioned above), there is no reason to extended any of them (maybe Lewis but he will only be 30 prior to FA.

As for Atlanta, there are completely different story, they have superstars or possible super stars that were brought up in there early 20's and extended makes sense for reasons they are super good and they would become FA in the middle of their prime.

[Major League Ready]

1 hour ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

My point had nothing to do with signing free agents or keeping talent, just keeping payroll down by by not bringing up prospects up too early. For example, Buxton, Sano, Polanco, Rosario, Kepler, Berrios, Arraez all where up by age 23 all where extended or traded, Rosario if I remember was allowed to become a FA at age 28.

Compare that to the recent group of prospects (mentioned above), there is no reason to extended any of them (maybe Lewis but he will only be 30 prior to FA.

As for Atlanta, there are completely different story, they have superstars or possible super stars that were brought up in there early 20's and extended makes sense for reasons they are super good and they would become FA in the middle of their prime.

Sorry,  I just fail to see how any of this supports your original point that bringing up players later would result in keeping payroll lower?  The initial 6+ years are going to cost roughly the same.  Obviously, the extension would cost more if a player has more prime years but they have exactly one player that fits this description in Buxton.   I doubt his AAV would have changed had he been up a year earlier.  The greatest influence by far on our payroll was a premium free agent (Correa).   They were able to fit Correa into the budget because of the number of young/inexpensive players on the roster.  Had those young players been held back, it likely would have made it more difficult to fit Correa into the budget because we would have had more Vazquez / MAT or even Gallo type players on the roster.