[PARAM]

love mlb and my pittsburgh pirates but, shit, the payroll thing sure is tough to swallow for fans of small market teams, like me - 2019 mlb payrolls:

I hear ya. The Yankees have more money on IR than the Pirates do in payroll. And the Dodgers are just below that.

[snackdaddy]

Ever since the new ownership took over, the Dodgers have been winning. They haven't won a World Series yet but they're in the playoffs every year. Because they have the resources to spend for better players. Yankees and Redsox have been pretty good most years too.

The teams that can afford a higher payroll have an advantage. If a small market team finally ponies up and pays big money to a star player, what if he gets hurt? They're screwed because they can't afford depth. That is an area where large market teams have an advantage. They can survive it if a few key players spend time on the DL because their depth is usually better.

I wouldn't call the Giants a small market team. But they're not where LA and New York are. They have the 5th highest payroll with aging players. They're not going to sign quality players until some of these contracts come off the books. They don't have the resources LA and New York have. Which means they likely won't contend until then.

[PARAM]

The teams that can afford a higher payroll have an advantage. If a small market team finally ponies up and pays big money to a star player, what if he gets hurt?

Or they spend 335 million and the guy hits .235 with 9 homers and 31 rbi in 46 games. It is a pace for 32 homers and 109 rbi. Not bad. But 335 million is a lot of jack no matter what city you play in! Does it matter if more than half those rbi (16) came in 5 games and the other 15 came in 41 g? The Phillies are in first place so when he really gets going, they should really benefit.

They're screwed because they can't afford depth. That is an area where large market teams have an advantage. They can survive it if a few key players spend time on the DL because their depth is usually better.

I wouldn't call the Giants a small market team. But they're not where LA and New York are. They have the 5th highest payroll with aging players. They're not going to sign quality players until some of these contracts come off the books. They don't have the resources LA and New York have. Which means they likely won't contend until then.

LA and NY are the two most important places in sports. It's just that way. The Yankees don't always make the World Series but when they do, I prefer it's vs the Dodgers. Stay thirsty my friend.

[aeneas1]

how about the al west, the astros with (currently) the best record in baseball, in the only division where none of the other teams are (currently) over .500...

[dieterbrock]

Ever since the new ownership took over, the Dodgers have been winning. They haven't won a World Series yet but they're in the playoffs every year. Because they have the resources to spend for better players. Yankees and Redsox have been pretty good most years too.

The teams that can afford a higher payroll have an advantage. If a small market team finally ponies up and pays big money to a star player, what if he gets hurt? They're screwed because they can't afford depth. That is an area where large market teams have an advantage. They can survive it if a few key players spend time on the DL because their depth is usually better.

I wouldn't call the Giants a small market team. But they're not where LA and New York are. They have the 5th highest payroll with aging players. They're not going to sign quality players until some of these contracts come off the books. They don't have the resources LA and New York have. Which means they likely won't contend until then.

The Red Sox had 3 losing seasons in a 4 years period between 2012-2015 and still had one of the highest payrolls. Chicago Cubs have as much money as anyone, and yet they had been synonymous with losing until their crop of young players came thru.
St Louis Cardinals seemingly never have a top payroll but win every year
Spending doesn't guarantee success, just lets teams make bad financial decisions like Ellsbury, Miguel Cabrera, Albert Pujols etc...

[aeneas1]

world series winners dating back to the 2000 season (last 19 years):

- 6 (32%) top 5 payroll
- 10 (53%) top 10 payroll
- 15 (79%) top half of the league payroll
- 1 (5%) bottom third of the league payroll

world series teams (winners and losers) dating back to the 2000 season (last 19 years):

- 11 (29%) top 5 payroll
- 19 (50%) top 10 payroll
- 29 (76%) top half of the league payroll
- 6 (16%) bottom third of the league payroll

[snackdaddy]

world series winners dating back to the 2000 season (last 19 years):

- 6 (32%) top 5 payroll
- 10 (53%) top 10 payroll
- 15 (79%) top half of the league payroll
- 1 (5%) bottom third of the league payroll

world series teams (winners and losers) dating back to the 2000 season (last 19 years):

- 11 (29%) top 5 payroll
- 19 (50%) top 10 payroll
- 29 (76%) top half of the league payroll
- 6 (16%) bottom third of the league payroll

This shows you don't necessarily need to have the highest payroll, but its a lot harder if you're closer to the bottom than the top. Occasionally they put together a championship squad, but its really hard to sustain it if they can't pony up to keep their top players.

[aeneas1]

This shows you don't necessarily need to have the highest payroll, but its a lot harder if you're closer to the bottom than the top. Occasionally they put together a championship squad, but its really hard to sustain it if they can't pony up to keep their top players.

yep, nothing is guaranteed, that's why they play the games, but when over half of the world series winners in the last 20 years were top 10 payroll, vs just 1 from the bottom third of the league, you gotta think there's something to the payroll thing...

[dieterbrock]

yep, nothing is guaranteed, that's why they play the games, but when over half of the world series winners in the last 20 years were top 10 payroll, vs just 1 from the bottom third of the league, you gotta think there's something to the payroll thing...

Well, not exactly. The shame of baseball is that many of the small market teams don't build teams with intent to win. Look at the Marlins, KC etc. No intention to win. Even Houston, who has the $$, sand bagged for years to build up the team, then spent the $$ when they got good.

[snackdaddy]

I remember Kershaw saying he would work in the offseason to get his velocity back. Sure looked like he has not achieved that. I watched him last night and for the most part his fastball was around 90-92 mph. Big difference from 95-97 he was at before last year. But it seems like he's learning to be a different pitcher. Spotting his fastball. Mixing his pitches up a lot more. Looked pretty good last night. His slider and curve are still good. And when he missed most times it was low. You can't get hurt there.

Kershaw is no longer the dominant pitcher he used to be. But he can be a solid pitcher if he continues to mix his pitches and hit the spots. Greg Maddux was one of the best pitchers of the 90's and he was not a real hard thrower. You don't always need that great fastball.

Ryu has been good too. He's a 4 pitch pitcher but it seems like a lot more. So many different speeds on the same pitch makes it look like he's got 7 or 8 different pitches. Most times his fastball is around 90 but I've seen him throw an occasional fastball around 93-94 then throw the same pitch at 88. He does a good job keeping hitters off balance.

Dodgers off to a good start just past mid May. They've got some room for error. When they inevitable losing stretch comes, they can withstand it and still be at or near the top of their division before they right the ship. They say the important games are in September but these count just as much. And a good start allows you to stay in the chase all the way through the season.

Oh, and you're welcome PA. We beat the Rays for you.