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

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.

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.

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. 

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... 😎

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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%. 

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.

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.  

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. 

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. 

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.

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.

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.