The Yankees, the Dodgers, Payroll's Relationship to Winning, and What It Means as Twins Face Ownership Changes

[Matthew Taylor]

As the Minnesota Twins prepare for an ownership change, the importance of payroll in building a contender comes into focus. With the 2024 World Series showcasing two of MLB's top spenders, the Dodgers and Yankees, it’s clear that financial commitment often drives sustained success in baseball.

Image courtesy of © David Richard-Imagn Images

In the upcoming World Series, the Los Angeles Dodgers will face off against the New York Yankees. It's a clash between two franchises who entered the 2024 season ranked second and third in payroll, respectively. This showdown highlights an undeniable truth in modern baseball: payroll drives success. And while some small-market teams have made noise with limited budgets, the overwhelming majority of World Series champions have spent their way to the top.

To hammer the point home, look no further than the Dodgers’ path to the Fall Classic. They just eliminated the New York Mets, who led Major League Baseball in payroll this season. Yes, the Mets fell short of a World Series berth, but their ability to compete at the highest level was fueled by financial firepower. Meanwhile, here we are once again with two of baseball’s wealthiest teams in the World Series. Coincidence? Far from it.

In fact, Baseball America breaks it down perfectly. Since the Wild Card Era began in 1995, 26 of the 29 World Series champions ranked in the top half of MLB in Opening Day payroll. And it’s not just about being competitive; it’s about being elite. Twenty of those champions were ranked in the top 10 in payroll to start the season. There are always outliers—teams like the 2015 Kansas City Royals come to mind—but the data doesn’t lie. When it comes to consistent success and lifting that World Series trophy, it’s often the teams who open their wallets the widest who find themselves covered in confetti.

That’s the reality the Minnesota Twins face as they navigate their ownership transition.

Two weeks ago, news broke that the Pohlad family is exploring a sale of the Twins franchise, and for many fans, this was cause for celebration. After decades of frustration with the Pohlads’ reluctance to spend, Twins fans were thrilled at the prospect of new ownership. The Pohlads had earned a reputation for being cheap, consistently cutting payroll when the team seemed poised to take the next step. After the Twins finally broke their 18-game playoff losing streak in 2023, fans hoped the team would build on that success. Instead, the front office slashed payroll, dropping to 20th in MLB at the start of the 2024 season—a decision that left fans outraged and disillusioned.

It’s the same script we’ve seen for years under the Pohlads. Whenever the team appears ready to make a legitimate postseason push, they pull back, trim payroll, and settle for mediocrity. This is not just a 2024 issue; it’s a trend that’s spanned decades, and it’s precisely why the upcoming ownership change looms so large.

When new ownership steps in, one of the most significant items on the fan base's wish list—apart from keeping the team in Minnesota, of course—will be a commitment to spending. A franchise that has tasted the postseason but consistently comes up short needs more than just a shrewd front office or a promising farm system. It needs financial backing to push them over the top.

Let’s be clear: spending money doesn’t guarantee a championship. But if you look at the list of World Series winners, spending almost always correlates with success. The only team to win a World Series while ranking in the bottom 10 in Opening Day payroll? The 2003 Marlins. That kind of small-market magic happens once in a generation. Every other outlier, like the 2017 Astros or 2015 Royals, spent big at the trade deadline to ensure their rosters were stacked when it mattered most.

For the Twins to become more than just a team who sneaks into the playoffs, they need an ownership group willing to spend. They need to push their payroll from “average” to “above-average” when the moment calls for it, and never drop into the 20s. As an average-sized market for the league, they shouldn't settle for a bottom-quartile annual expenditure on players.

As the Pohlad Era potentially comes to a close, Twins fans have every right to demand more from whoever takes the reins. The new owner’s willingness to invest in the team will determine whether Minnesota can truly compete for its first World Series title since 1991. History tells us that championships may not be bought, but they come a bit easier to those who try it. Spending doesn’t guarantee success, but as the Dodgers and Yankees remind us, not spending almost certainly guarantees failure.

---

Do you think payroll will play a big role in the Twins' World Series chances under new ownership? Leave a comment below and start the conversation!

View full article

[LambchoP]

Who's to say new owners will spend more? It's just as likely they are even cheaper than the Pohlad's and are buying the team as a business investment rather than to win. I sure hope this isn't the case, Twins fans have suffered enough.

[tony&rodney]

If the Twins had Juan Soto and Aaron Judge playing for them in 2024, with the numbers they put up during the season, then the Twins would be in the World Series. FWIW, this scenario would still leave the Yankees with a larger payroll.

But you want to know if payroll will play a big roll. I would say it plays a role but not as important of a role as identifying talent, developing it, and having a balanced roster.

While everyone might hope or believe that new ownership means more money for free agents and player extensions (etc.), the market does have a bigger role in how much money is available. A large media deal and a sold out stadium (3 million fans per year) would play a bigger role in payroll. If you put down $1.5 billion for a sports franchise you would hope to break even for the first five years while you make whatever changes it seems would strengthen the product and provide hopes for financial growth in some fashion. It might be wonderful but somewhat implausible that someone buys a franchise with the expectation to lose a bunch of money.

The PBO/GM have more influence on the roster than the owner unless one can expect the Twins to sign Corbin Burnes and Juan Soto this offseason due to new ownerships's splashes.

[Trov]

One thing the payroll numbers do not think about is teams with young guys, generally do not win, and they have low payrolls because pre-arb years generally.  However, as guys get to arb years, if they are MVP level guys you have to pay more for them.  Rarely will a team dump those guys because they do not want to pay for them.  Sometimes, the Rays will trade them for prospects.  

I will still maintain trying to build a team on all FA will never work.  Having 1 here or there, can work.  But trades and bring from your own system is generally the best way.  Now, that being said Dodgers and Yankess made trades for guys because they had the payroll ability.  Also, each signed some big name FA as well. 

Yankees, built their team, mostly from their own talent, a couple of trades and a couple of big time pitching signings.  Their starting line up, Stanton and Soto are two high paid guys they traded for.  Soto high paid because arb says he worth it, not because he was signed to big deal.  Both teams that traded them away could not afford what they needed to pay them, but Yankees could. The rest of the starting line up, other than Rizzo and Verdugo who were not good for them and did little to help them win, were drafted or signed by Yankees as international guys, or traded for while in minors. Their rotation had 2 big time signings Cole and Rondon(who was average at best) Stroman was a middle of rotation type signing that most clubs could have done, but would be a big chunk of budget. 

Their ability to pay more clearly allowed them to take on Stanton and Soto, resign Judge to his huge deal, bring in Cole, Rondon, and Stroman.  However, that is only a few of their players.  They still needed to get some from their homegrown guys. 

Dodgers, were very similar with trading for Betts, signing Freeman, Otahni, and signing Yamamoto and Glasnow.  However, similar they had plenty of home grown guys as well. 

The big time clubs can take on a ton of payroll and miss on some guys.  The smaller clubs can never miss on a vet signing or they pay for it for years.  Payroll is not 100% success, but it can make up for a lot of bad mistakes.  Either way you need to build from the farm system no matter what. 

[Guest]

More money is the answer!!  New owners raining dollars down on the Cities from helicopters!!  More money....

[EGFTShaw]

23 minutes ago, Minderbinder said:

More money is the answer!!  New owners raining dollars down on the Cities from helicopters!!  More money....

Make it rain... 😎

[nicksaviking]

The lack of parity is going to get worse before it gets better based on these new, lower paying streaming deals.

If the mid and small market teams continue to see the gap widen, the small and mid market teams are going to continue to generate less interest. Less interest will continue to generate less TV revenue and at some point, the value of those organizations is going to start to stagnate. If the value stagnates or drops, the owners won't be able to flip them for a profit and contraction will be back on the table.

My hope is that if it gets bad enough, the owners and MLBPA will finally get together and fix it with revenue sharing on the level of every other pro sports league instead of letting MLB cannibalize itself and collapse. 

[EGFTShaw]

I didn't take this article to say that Money was the only factor in winning the world series, but that money plays a big factor.

Identifying talent is more important, both as in drafting, trading or signing free agents.  However you acquire them, you need to be able to identify good talent.

But with the dollars, your parts can be of higher quality versus trying to hope for lightening in a bottle.

What I would like to see, is taking the same idea of salary with respects to winning at least the LCS.

First how much was spent.
Where did the money come from? (better TV contracts, attendance, corporate sponsors)
How was it spent? (pitchers or non-pitchers)
How much of the talent was Developed Internally?
How much of the talent was acquired via Free Agency?
How much of the talent was acquired via Trade?
How much of the team were on long term contracts?

lets get some meat behind this idea. 

[Riverbrian]

2 hours ago, Trov said:

One thing the payroll numbers do not think about is teams with young guys, generally do not win, and they have low payrolls because pre-arb years generally.  However, as guys get to arb years, if they are MVP level guys you have to pay more for them.  Rarely will a team dump those guys because they do not want to pay for them.  Sometimes, the Rays will trade them for prospects.  

I will still maintain trying to build a team on all FA will never work.  Having 1 here or there, can work.  But trades and bring from your own system is generally the best way.  Now, that being said Dodgers and Yankess made trades for guys because they had the payroll ability.  Also, each signed some big name FA as well. 

Yankees, built their team, mostly from their own talent, a couple of trades and a couple of big time pitching signings.  Their starting line up, Stanton and Soto are two high paid guys they traded for.  Soto high paid because arb says he worth it, not because he was signed to big deal.  Both teams that traded them away could not afford what they needed to pay them, but Yankees could. The rest of the starting line up, other than Rizzo and Verdugo who were not good for them and did little to help them win, were drafted or signed by Yankees as international guys, or traded for while in minors. Their rotation had 2 big time signings Cole and Rondon(who was average at best) Stroman was a middle of rotation type signing that most clubs could have done, but would be a big chunk of budget. 

Their ability to pay more clearly allowed them to take on Stanton and Soto, resign Judge to his huge deal, bring in Cole, Rondon, and Stroman.  However, that is only a few of their players.  They still needed to get some from their homegrown guys. 

Dodgers, were very similar with trading for Betts, signing Freeman, Otahni, and signing Yamamoto and Glasnow.  However, similar they had plenty of home grown guys as well. 

The big time clubs can take on a ton of payroll and miss on some guys.  The smaller clubs can never miss on a vet signing or they pay for it for years.  Payroll is not 100% success, but it can make up for a lot of bad mistakes.  Either way you need to build from the farm system no matter what. 

I agree 100%. Very well said. 

There is no question that having money to spend is a rather large advantage. I agree with what you say. The primary advantage is that money provides the ability to cover large contract mistakes. The Dodgers can easily eat millions of dollars in waste. They can pay 17 million to Paxton and Margot to play for other teams. They can just release Heyward and Biggio's and absorb the financial hit. They can absorb the money they spent for a total of 90 Innings of Yamamoto. They had young pitchers like Gavin Stone, Landon Knack and River Ryan filling in quite capably in the meantime. The Yankees can absorb around 64 million to players like Stroman, Verdugo, Rizzo and Lemehieu who probably shouldn't have made that kind of money based on performance.  

Again... to be clear... I believe that payroll is a rather large advantage that the wealthy enjoy but this discussion is very nuanced.

Yes the Rangers won with the 4th highest payroll last year.

A. They barely got in

B. Around 100 million of that 4th ranked payroll was either unavailable or not effective come playoff time.

C. The 119m D-Backs gave them a run for the money after they knocked off the 240m Dodgers to get there. 

If the purpose of this article is to express that the Twins would have been more successful if they just spent more money. Maybe... money is helpful... it is an advantage.

However... I do feel it necessary to point out that there is a rather large canyon between spending some more money and the financial ability or willingness to just absorb 50 to 100 million in non-performing money like the Big Boys can do.   

 

[bean5302]

1 hour ago, nicksaviking said:

The lack of parity is going to get worse before it gets better based on these new, lower paying streaming deals.

If the mid and small market teams continue to see the gap widen, the small and mid market teams are going to continue to generate less interest. Less interest will continue to generate less TV revenue and at some point, the value of those organizations is going to start to stagnate. If the value stagnates or drops, the owners won't be able to flip them for a profit and contraction will be back on the table.

My hope is that if it gets bad enough, the owners and MLBPA will finally get together and fix it with revenue sharing on the level of every other pro sports league instead of letting MLB cannibalize itself and collapse. 

There is no significant lack of parity. Even small market teams have shown a willingness to expand payroll into the top 1/2 of MLB when their window is open. Just because the Pohlad's have ignored that doesn't mean it's not right in everybody's face.

The Royals pushed opening day payroll to $140MM (top 1/2) in 2017.
The Orioles pushed opening day payroll to $164MM in 2017 $143MM in 2018, both (top 1/2).
The Diamondbacks opened 2024 at $157MM (top 1/2)
Even iron lock wallet Cleveland expanded to $134MM in 2018 (ranked #16)
used Stevetheump cause it's easy. https://www.stevetheump.com/Payrolls.htm

Once teams start building and their core appears competitive, teams go out and spend on free agents and then pick up big name targets at the deadline which push their payrolls up into the top half. Having a team which just starts building turn in a surprise season to make and advance in the playoffs isn't super common despite the Royals' surprise success this year. The build process identifies key missing pieces to turn the Pohlad definition of competitive (a .500+ ballclub) into World Series hopeful team, and even small market "competitive" teams are willing to trade and spend to fill the gaps.

While the Pohlad family likes to run a .500 team with an ultimate goal of winning the division, almost all other teams in baseball are aiming for a World Series. 

[nicksaviking]

15 minutes ago, bean5302 said:

The Royals pushed opening day payroll to $140MM (top 1/2) in 2017.
The Orioles pushed opening day payroll to $164MM in 2017 $143MM in 2018, both (top 1/2).
The Diamondbacks opened 2024 at $157MM (top 1/2)
Even iron lock wallet Cleveland expanded to $134MM in 2018 (ranked #16)
used Stevetheump cause it's easy. https://www.stevetheump.com/Payrolls.htm
 

And it's not sustainable because those payrolls did not last, just like the Twins 2023 payroll didn't last. And even at those peaks, the top teams are still spending nearly 100M more than them. It's nearly impossible to build a year-in-year-out contender like the top teams do, You end up talking about 'windows' and wringing your hands about whether it's time to 'go for it'. If the Yankees and Dodgers can always go for it, the rest of the teams need to have that option too or this league is going to continue to circle the drain. This league is royally screwed up at the moment and this is the main culprit.

And again, with the new lower paying TV deals, it's going to get worse and teams that can't scrap together a team that competes most years is going to have fans that lose interest and TV streamers who will lower what they'll pay to show their games.

[NYCTK]

36 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

My hope is that if it gets bad enough, the owners and MLBPA will finally get together and fix it with revenue sharing on the level of every other pro sports league instead of letting MLB cannibalize itself and collapse. 

Teams already share 48% of local revenues with the league. This idea that the MLB system is inherently unfair because a bunch of cheap owners use their revenue sharing to pad their bottom line is just nonsense. There should be incentive for teams to actually improve their own revenues, not just relying on revenue sharing from better organizations. 

 

[NYCTK]

3 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

And it's not sustainable because those payrolls did not last, just like the Twins 2023 payroll didn't last.

As we all know, it's not "sustainable" because the loser billionaires that control the purse strings would rather use their franchise as a way to make money rather than actually concern themselves with winning or growing their brand in any way. Sacrificing long term investment for short term payout.

It's their right, but we don't have to pretend as if the poor innocent billionaires are losing money. Because we know they aren't. 

 

[nicksaviking]

15 minutes ago, NYCTK said:

As we all know, it's not "sustainable" because the loser billionaires that control the purse strings would rather use their franchise as a way to make money rather than actually concern themselves with winning or growing their brand in any way. Sacrificing long term investment for short term payout.

It's their right, but we don't have to pretend as if the poor innocent billionaires are losing money. Because we know they aren't. 

 

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/u-s-sports-leagues-by-revenue/

Not going to work. 66% of the NFLs revenue is shared, 41% of the NBAs revenue is shared. The MLB share is 26%. Meanwhile local media makes up 23% of MLBs revenue. 23% of NY and LA media is exponentially greater than Minnesota. I'm fine blaming greedy owners, but even if the Twins floated a payroll with zero profit for the owners, they'll still be spending way less than the big market teams.

And again, that local revenue is going to be less and less if the mid and small market teams can't keep fan attention due to being uncompetitive or in a market with demographics that can't or won't access the product.

[lake_guy]

2 hours ago, nicksaviking said:

The lack of parity is going to get worse before it gets better based on these new, lower paying streaming deals.

If the mid and small market teams continue to see the gap widen, the small and mid market teams are going to continue to generate less interest. Less interest will continue to generate less TV revenue and at some point, the value of those organizations is going to start to stagnate. If the value stagnates or drops, the owners won't be able to flip them for a profit and contraction will be back on the table.

My hope is that if it gets bad enough, the owners and MLBPA will finally get together and fix it with revenue sharing on the level of every other pro sports league instead of letting MLB cannibalize itself and collapse. 

Exactly this.  I hope it's a raging bonfire of a revenue crisis because that's sadly what it's gonna take for MLB to solve the core problem of the sport.  13 of 30 clubs, 43% of the league is facing unprecedented revenue declines, this can't continue.

[NYCTK]

Just now, nicksaviking said:

The MLB share is 26%

26% is a lot! This means each MLB team is getting a nice $95 million check before anything else even happens. 

The teams that are uncompetitive, like the Pirates and Reds and the Twins, are uncompetitive not because of a lack of money, but because of a lack of desire to actually be competitive. It really is that simple. 

[Riverbrian]

45 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

And it's not sustainable because those payrolls did not last, just like the Twins 2023 payroll didn't last. And even at those peaks, the top teams are still spending nearly 100M more than them. It's nearly impossible to build a year-in-year-out contender like the top teams do, You end up talking about 'windows' and wringing your hands about whether it's time to 'go for it'. If the Yankees and Dodgers can always go for it, the rest of the teams need to have that option too or this league is going to continue to circle the drain. This league is royally screwed up at the moment and this is the main culprit.

And again, with the new lower paying TV deals, it's going to get worse and teams that can't scrap together a team that competes most years is going to have fans that lose interest and TV streamers who will lower what they'll pay to show their games.

Yep

For the health of the sport.

MLB and the players association needs to understand that there needs to be hope in Pittsburgh. In the NFL... there is hope in Pittsburgh and Green Bay and Jacksonville.

OK... Maybe not Jacksonville 😄

Baseball has a chance at being a national sport when all the small markets are added together as happy consumers of the sport. The first step is the owners and players union working together under the common goal of providing hope to Pittsburgh, Kansas City, Milwaukee, Cincinatti, Minnesota and so on. 

In the meantime. I'm going to understand the reality that has been reality for decades in the sport of baseball. The owners and players union are going to fight over money until it goes off the cliff. I'm not going to get excited about labor negotiations because I understand that it is money fighting over money and agreement after agreement doesn't change anything and the end result will not be in MY best interest once again. 

And finally... I will always understand that the Twins will spend in a range along with other teams and that payroll will go up and down in that range. And I will also understand that even if the Twins raised that payroll range up a bit to lets say... Cardinal Territory... they will still be 100 million short of what other clubs are able to do.  

[NYCTK]

36 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/u-s-sports-leagues-by-revenue/

Not going to work. 66% of the NFLs revenue is shared, 41% of the NBAs revenue is shared. The MLB share is 26%. Meanwhile local media makes up 23% of MLBs revenue. 23% of NY and LA media is exponentially greater than Minnesota. I'm fine blaming greedy owners, but even if the Twins floated a payroll with zero profit for the owners, they'll still be spending way less than the big market teams.

And again, that local revenue is going to be less and less if the mid and small market teams can't keep fan attention due to being uncompetitive or in a market with demographics that can't or won't access the product.

After some research...I don't buy these numbers. 

MLB shares 48% of local revenues, and then the national revenue as well. National broadcast revenue is about $60 million per team annually right now, so I have a hard time believing the share from local broadcast deals and other local revenue as designated from the 2022 CBA is only $35 million. 

I've seen a figure closer to $200 million in revenue sharing from other sources, which seems a lot closer to reality. Which, if accurate, would be something like 55%. 

 

[Major League Ready]

3 hours ago, bean5302 said:

There is no significant lack of parity. Even small market teams have shown a willingness to expand payroll into the top 1/2 of MLB when their window is open. Just because the Pohlad's have ignored that doesn't mean it's not right in everybody's face.

The Royals pushed opening day payroll to $140MM (top 1/2) in 2017.
The Orioles pushed opening day payroll to $164MM in 2017 $143MM in 2018, both (top 1/2).
The Diamondbacks opened 2024 at $157MM (top 1/2)
Even iron lock wallet Cleveland expanded to $134MM in 2018 (ranked #16)
used Stevetheump cause it's easy. https://www.stevetheump.com/Payrolls.htm

Once teams start building and their core appears competitive, teams go out and spend on free agents and then pick up big name targets at the deadline which push their payrolls up into the top half. Having a team which just starts building turn in a surprise season to make and advance in the playoffs isn't super common despite the Royals' surprise success this year. The build process identifies key missing pieces to turn the Pohlad definition of competitive (a .500+ ballclub) into World Series hopeful team, and even small market "competitive" teams are willing to trade and spend to fill the gaps.

While the Pohlad family likes to run a .500 team with an ultimate goal of winning the division, almost all other teams in baseball are aiming for a World Series. 

The top teams have literally double the revenue of teams like the Twins and they are spending double the teams you mentioned even in their highest years.  I don't understand using examples of teams highest payrolls at half of what the Dodgers and Yankees are spending and concluding the revenue inequity is not a problem.

BTW .... Over the past couple of decades, teams in the bottom half of revenue that achieved 90 wins produced 15% of their WAR from free agents.   The teams with by far the most 90 win seasons produced 11% of their WAR from FAs.  Free agency is a good tool to fill a hole or two but it's not been a big part of roster building for successful low revenue teams.  I am just reporting what has happened so don't shoot the messenger.

[Major League Ready]

2 hours ago, NYCTK said:

As we all know, it's not "sustainable" because the loser billionaires that control the purse strings would rather use their franchise as a way to make money rather than actually concern themselves with winning or growing their brand in any way. Sacrificing long term investment for short term payout.

It's their right, but we don't have to pretend as if the poor innocent billionaires are losing money. Because we know they aren't. 

 

The players took a very strong stance on pushing the luxury tax threshold much higher which of course increased the gap in spending.  They also wanted a year less of team control which would have also been a blow to smaller markets and it was the players who vetoed an international draft.

During the CBA I looked up the profiles for many of the owners.  I would suggest you take a look at these profiles and see if you still think they need your advice on how to manage their investment.  

[NYCTK]

4 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

The players took a very strong stance on pushing the luxury tax threshold much higher which of course increased the gap in spending.  They also wanted a year less of team control which would have also been a blow to smaller markets and it was the players who vetoed an international draft.

During the CBA I looked up the profiles for many of the owners.  I would suggest you take a look at these profiles and see if you still think they need your advice on how to manage their investment.  

I'm not suggesting they aren't making money. They're very good at making money clearly. That doesn't mean they're good at running a baseball team. Nor do I feel bad for the owners from smaller markets who make a little bit less money. 

And I'm happy the players are pushing for those things. Paul Skenes getting away from Pittsburgh is good for baseball. Not because Pittsburgh sucks. I actually really like Pittsburgh. But because Pittsburghs owner cares only about making money. I am for the redistribution of wealth from the **** owners to the players. 100%

I'm for forced removal of wealth from the owners if we're being completely honest, but that's sadly not on the table. 

[NYCTK]

25 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

The top teams have literally double the revenue of teams like the Twins and they are spending double the teams you mentioned even in their highest years.  I don't understand using examples of teams highest payrolls at half of what the Dodgers and Yankees are spending and concluding the revenue inequity is not a problem.

BTW .... Over the past couple of decades, teams in the bottom half of revenue that achieved 90 wins produced 15% of their WAR from free agents.   The teams with by far the most 90 win seasons produced 11% of their WAR from FAs.  Free agency is a good tool to fill a hole or two but it's not been a big part of roster building for successful low revenue teams.  I am just reporting what has happened so don't shoot the messenger.

Sounds like it's the pohlads fault for owning the team for 40 years yet still suck at producing revenue. Thank God they're selling. 

There are only like 3 teams that are actually in a really difficult situation (Milwaukee, Kansas City, Cincinnati). Minnesota is nowhere near a small market team but a lot of fans have bought the BS argument anyways. 

[rv78]

Spending doesn’t guarantee success, but as the Dodgers and Yankees remind us, not spending almost certainly guarantees failure.

This sentence bears a lot of weight but spending on the "wrong" players also guarantees failure. With the likes of Gallo, Mahle, DeSclafani, Margot, Garlick, Archer, Bundy, Happ, Shoemaker, JLopez, Cotton, JSmith, Luplow, Keuchel, Paddack, Okert, JJackson, Tonkin, Richards, Dobnak, Duarte, Irvin, Topa, it's just too big of a list of non-difference makers to over-come. Add in players like Vazquez and Farmer, while contributing slightly, they too aren't difference makers. Wasting money is just as bad as not having money to spend, and this current FO has wasted a ton of money on washed up veterans, injured players and role-type players that none of, will ever make a difference.

[bean5302]

1 hour ago, Major League Ready said:

The top teams have literally double the revenue of teams like the Twins and they are spending double the teams you mentioned even in their highest years.  I don't understand using examples of teams highest payrolls at half of what the Dodgers and Yankees are spending and concluding the revenue inequity is not a problem.

BTW .... Over the past couple of decades, teams in the bottom half of revenue that achieved 90 wins produced 15% of their WAR from free agents.   The teams with by far the most 90 win seasons produced 11% of their WAR from FAs.  Free agency is a good tool to fill a hole or two but it's not been a big part of roster building for successful low revenue teams.  I am just reporting what has happened so don't shoot the messenger.

and 50% of the revenue of the top teams goes to the bottom half, some of whom have built that welfare check right into their budget (Tampa Bay Rays) Look at the NFL and compare it to MLB in terms of teams which make the playoffs. 

In any case, you just said the top teams get the least amount of WAR from free agency? There are different models to building teams in MLB.

[Doctor Gast]

NY & LA have big money to throw around in FA, money is not a problem. Where mid-small markets, they have to focus on player evaluation, development, initiate necessary trades & if they have any money left over use it to extend their own valuable players. If mid-small market FOs don't have the ability to initiate trades they want more money to waste in FA.

[bean5302]

4 hours ago, nicksaviking said:

And it's not sustainable because those payrolls did not last, just like the Twins 2023 payroll didn't last. And even at those peaks, the top teams are still spending nearly 100M more than them. It's nearly impossible to build a year-in-year-out contender like the top teams do, You end up talking about 'windows' and wringing your hands about whether it's time to 'go for it'. If the Yankees and Dodgers can always go for it, the rest of the teams need to have that option too or this league is going to continue to circle the drain. This league is royally screwed up at the moment and this is the main culprit.

And again, with the new lower paying TV deals, it's going to get worse and teams that can't scrap together a team that competes most years is going to have fans that lose interest and TV streamers who will lower what they'll pay to show their games.

...why do you think MLB increased revenue sharing from 30% to 50%?

[nicksaviking]

1 hour ago, bean5302 said:

...why do you think MLB increased revenue sharing from 30% to 50%?

Do you realize how much more 50% of the Yankees revenue is compared to 50% of the lower teams?
 

But really, it hardly matters if the parity is real or artificial. Nothing will change until there are salary floors and caps. And that’s likely not happening until the lower tier clubs lose enough value to profit from flipping them and contraction is a threat to the MLBPA. Which probably isn’t far off considering the lower tier teams are making less and less from their local TV deals.

[SteveLV]

Anyone who thinks MLB is a level playing field is burying their head in the sand.

The major market teams have a HUGE advantage each and every year.  Sure they miss on some big FA signings, but then they just go sign someone else instead.

Being able to go get a Gerrit Cole for a total stud, Ace, without giving up any prospects is undeniably helpful to a team.  Signing an Ohtani without giving up any assets, same thing.  And wait until he starts pitching, too!

MLB is circling the toilet as a competitive league.  The gap between the Dodgers, Yanks and Mets of the world and the Pirates, Rockies and Rays is simply unfair.  It would be like playing under the NFL system and one team gets $400M in cap money to build their roster and another team in the same division gets $75M.  Sure, the underdog might win, but not in the long run, no frickin' way.

The only thing I can think of is to get a truly strong League President who decides to get MLB's house in order and negotiate a fair deal with MLBPA that gets more money in their collective pockets but spreads the money equitably so there is parity instead of massive disparity.

I am not watching a minute of the WS, could not care less which of these juggernauts beats the other one.

[nicksaviking]

3 minutes ago, SteveLV said:

 

The only thing I can think of is to get a truly strong League President who decides to get MLB's house in order and negotiate a fair deal with MLBPA that gets more money in their collective pockets but spreads the money equitably so there is parity instead of massive disparity.

Or a long tenured non major market owner to rally the same-positioned owners (who are the vast majority) to tell the big market owners that parity is happening whether they like it or not. If only there was such an ownership group…..,,,

[TheLeviathan]

6 hours ago, NYCTK said:

After some research...I don't buy these numbers. 

MLB shares 48% of local revenues, and then the national revenue as well. National broadcast revenue is about $60 million per team annually right now, so I have a hard time believing the share from local broadcast deals and other local revenue as designated from the 2022 CBA is only $35 million. 

I've seen a figure closer to $200 million in revenue sharing from other sources, which seems a lot closer to reality. Which, if accurate, would be something like 55%. 

 

Sharing 48% of 150 or 200M is still a massive advantage.  I don't understand what your point is?  It's clearly a different issue for baseball and the disparity is obviously stark. 

https://crossscreen.media/state-of-the-screens/local-tv-and-the-changing-economics-of-baseball/