If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(mlb payrolls)   The amazing interactive MLB payroll graphic contains enough information to keep even the most fact obsessed fan happy for hours (1998-2024 inclusive)   (mrphilroth.com) divider line 25
    More: Spiffy, Major League Baseball, stalks, payrolls  
•       •       •

1838 clicks; posted to Sports » on 27 Dec 2013 at 9:58 AM (42 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



25 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-12-27 10:29:10 AM  
Cool find subby. Looks like the Twins and Sawks have some decisions to make.
 
2013-12-27 10:51:48 AM  
Any time you look at salaries for MLB players, you have to realize how totally farked up they are.  Why should Mike Trout, one of the very best players in baseball with a long career of likely success ahead of him be making half a million a year while washed-up retreads are making $20 million plus?
 
2013-12-27 10:54:01 AM  

meanmutton: Any time you look at salaries for MLB players, you have to realize how totally farked up they are.  Why should Mike Trout, one of the very best players in baseball with a long career of likely success ahead of him be making half a million a year while washed-up retreads are making $20 million plus?


Really dumb General Managers.

/thank god for Billy Beane
//your Tigers got a good one too
 
2013-12-27 10:57:52 AM  
Cubs had the third-highest payroll in 2009 and 2010. By 2013 they ranked 24th.
 
2013-12-27 11:00:06 AM  
@Modmins:  Link got farked and is now:

http://mrphilroth.com/2013/12/22/mlb-payrolls-updated/">http://mrphi lroth.com/2013/12/22/mlb-payrolls-updated/
 
2013-12-27 11:07:48 AM  
The Tigers are paying Sanchez how much? And what the hell Houston??
 
2013-12-27 11:09:19 AM  

meanmutton: Any time you look at salaries for MLB players, you have to realize how totally farked up they are.  Why should Mike Trout, one of the very best players in baseball with a long career of likely success ahead of him be making half a million a year while washed-up retreads are making $20 million plus?


The system really favors veteran players over the young phenoms. Teams control their players for the 1st 3 years of the MLB career, basically (with the clock starting with the player's 1st day on a 40-man roster) so there's no incentive to pay someone like Trout the big bucks until he's arbitration eligible.
 
2013-12-27 11:09:25 AM  

Yakk: The Tigers are paying Sanchez how much? And what the hell Houston??


Houston's tanking for draft picks and the higher slot money that goes with them. Yes, baseball has tanking now.
 
2013-12-27 11:15:32 AM  
Author here. It'd been up since Sunday and no one mentioned the broken link. Thanks for the heads up.
 
2013-12-27 11:20:21 AM  

Gosling: Cubs had the third-highest payroll in 2009 and 2010. By 2013 they ranked 24th.


And will remain there until Theo gets desperate, pays up the nose for a bunch of veteran talent in 2017 or 2018 to "Win it all"...and the gets fired after an injury plagued 78 win season.
 
2013-12-27 11:24:41 AM  

meanmutton: Any time you look at salaries for MLB players, you have to realize how totally farked up they are.  Why should Mike Trout, one of the very best players in baseball with a long career of likely success ahead of him be making half a million a year while washed-up retreads are making $20 million plus?


The MLBPA is mostly veterans, why would they care about screwing over future rookies while putting together a CBA? They need to get theirs.
 
2013-12-27 11:26:52 AM  

meanmutton: Any time you look at salaries for MLB players, you have to realize how totally farked up they are.  Why should Mike Trout, one of the very best players in baseball with a long career of likely success ahead of him be making half a million a year while washed-up retreads are making $20 million plus?


Some GMs pay for future potential (re: smart GMs), others pay for history with no regard to inevitable declining returns (re: Mariners).
 
2013-12-27 11:31:07 AM  

aphlipp: Author here. It'd been up since Sunday and no one mentioned the broken link. Thanks for the heads up.


Thanks for this, we're having fun with it on AthleticsNation.
 
2013-12-27 11:41:25 AM  

desertgeek: meanmutton: Any time you look at salaries for MLB players, you have to realize how totally farked up they are.  Why should Mike Trout, one of the very best players in baseball with a long career of likely success ahead of him be making half a million a year while washed-up retreads are making $20 million plus?

The system really favors veteran players over the young phenoms. Teams control their players for the 1st 3 years of the MLB career, basically (with the clock starting with the player's 1st day on a 40-man roster) so there's no incentive to pay someone like Trout the big bucks until he's arbitration eligible.


Technically, teams control their players for the first 6 years of their career.  It's just that they're on rookie contracts for the first three years and then are eligible for arbitration for three years after that.  So Trout won't be eligible for his fat free agent contract until after the 2017 season.  They could pay him the big books before then, or they could just go year-to-year and hope that the owner-friendly arbitration system keeps his cost below market value (which it likely will).  It really is insane.
 
2013-12-27 11:56:15 AM  

rugman11: Technically, teams control their players for the first 6 years of their career.  It's just that they're on rookie contracts for the first three years and then are eligible for arbitration for three years after that.  So Trout won't be eligible for his fat free agent contract until after the 2017 season.  They could pay him the big books before then, or they could just go year-to-year and hope that the owner-friendly arbitration system keeps his cost below market value (which it likely will).  It really is insane.


Well, truth be told; once you get into arbitration, it's out of the teams' hands. Unless the team and the player work out a deal before a hearing, the arbitrator just has to pick between the team's proposal and the player's. That's no guarantee of the team paying what they want to pay.

I think that's why you see some teams buying out a player's arbitration years with contract extensions after a player's 2nd season (that's been the M.O. in Arizona for a few years now). It cuts out the arbitration BS (which is something AZ has tried to avoid ever since their 1st MLB season) and provides certainty in their payroll budget.

If I'm the Angels, with a GM who came from the Dbacks before going to LA; I'm trying to get a deal with Trout now and avoid trouble later.
 
2013-12-27 11:58:33 AM  
The NFL and NBA had the whole big money rookie thing for a while. Surprise, the veteran players and teams hated it so now there's a rookie wage scale.
 
2013-12-27 12:27:53 PM  
All players should make minimum wage. Except for ARod. He gets nothing. Fark that guy.
 
2013-12-27 03:19:07 PM  

desertgeek: rugman11: Technically, teams control their players for the first 6 years of their career.  It's just that they're on rookie contracts for the first three years and then are eligible for arbitration for three years after that.  So Trout won't be eligible for his fat free agent contract until after the 2017 season.  They could pay him the big books before then, or they could just go year-to-year and hope that the owner-friendly arbitration system keeps his cost below market value (which it likely will).  It really is insane.

Well, truth be told; once you get into arbitration, it's out of the teams' hands. Unless the team and the player work out a deal before a hearing, the arbitrator just has to pick between the team's proposal and the player's. That's no guarantee of the team paying what they want to pay.

I think that's why you see some teams buying out a player's arbitration years with contract extensions after a player's 2nd season (that's been the M.O. in Arizona for a few years now). It cuts out the arbitration BS (which is something AZ has tried to avoid ever since their 1st MLB season) and provides certainty in their payroll budget.

If I'm the Angels, with a GM who came from the Dbacks before going to LA; I'm trying to get a deal with Trout now and avoid trouble later.


Players seem to get way less in arbitration than they would on the open market.
 
2013-12-27 05:25:31 PM  

aphlipp: Author here. It'd been up since Sunday and no one mentioned the broken link. Thanks for the heads up.


You put that graph together?
 
2013-12-27 06:05:32 PM  
Do the A's really only have 5 players under contract for next season?? Or does it not reflect players currently on "first" contracts?
 
2013-12-27 06:58:27 PM  

meanmutton: desertgeek: rugman11: Technically, teams control their players for the first 6 years of their career.  It's just that they're on rookie contracts for the first three years and then are eligible for arbitration for three years after that.  So Trout won't be eligible for his fat free agent contract until after the 2017 season.  They could pay him the big books before then, or they could just go year-to-year and hope that the owner-friendly arbitration system keeps his cost below market value (which it likely will).  It really is insane.

Well, truth be told; once you get into arbitration, it's out of the teams' hands. Unless the team and the player work out a deal before a hearing, the arbitrator just has to pick between the team's proposal and the player's. That's no guarantee of the team paying what they want to pay.

I think that's why you see some teams buying out a player's arbitration years with contract extensions after a player's 2nd season (that's been the M.O. in Arizona for a few years now). It cuts out the arbitration BS (which is something AZ has tried to avoid ever since their 1st MLB season) and provides certainty in their payroll budget.

If I'm the Angels, with a GM who came from the Dbacks before going to LA; I'm trying to get a deal with Trout now and avoid trouble later.

Players seem to get way less in arbitration than they would on the open market.


And that is exactly the way Bud Selig and his owner buddies want it. But at least the salary the player ends up with is more than what they *were* getting, and more than what the cheapskate bastard owners wanted to pay them. Unless you are the owner of the Houston Astros, in which case you are already paying the equivalent of the price of a peanut-butter and jelly sandwich and a glass of milk to damn near everyone on your roster, and all arbitration will do is, at worst, double your already-pathetic payroll to barely above the levels of the next-worse cheapskate owner, Jeffy Loria in Miami (who, out of the kindness of his heart, is paying his players enough to be able to afford *two* sandwiches and a *second* glass of milk).
 
2013-12-27 09:40:12 PM  

meanmutton: Any time you look at salaries for MLB players, you have to realize how totally farked up they are.  Why should Mike Trout, one of the very best players in baseball with a long career of likely success ahead of him be making half a million a year while washed-up retreads are making $20 million plus?


Time played, isn't trout gonna get a huge raise next year?

And this really shows Oakland isn't paying pennies like people think, hell their salaries are close to $90-100M.
 
2013-12-27 11:55:46 PM  

steamingpile: meanmutton: Any time you look at salaries for MLB players, you have to realize how totally farked up they are.  Why should Mike Trout, one of the very best players in baseball with a long career of likely success ahead of him be making half a million a year while washed-up retreads are making $20 million plus?

Time played, isn't trout gonna get a huge raise next year?

And this really shows Oakland isn't paying pennies like people think, hell their salaries are close to $90-100M.


Not pennies, but they're right among the bottom of the teams that aren't actively scamming MLB / their host cities (Houston, Miami).
 
2013-12-28 06:04:25 AM  
In 2012 the average player salary:

NBA: $5.15 million
MLB: $3.2   million
NHL: $2.4   million
NFL: $1.9   million

The minimum MLB salary (which is what every player gets for their first three years) is currently $480,000
This does not include the signing bonus (if any). Additionally all travel expenses are paid for by the club, first class air travel, first class accommodations, including a daily meal and tip allowance ($92.50 per day in 2012). Food on flights is first class and is not deducted from the daily meal and tip allowance.

Clearly the lowly rookies can afford a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, since they are making $1315/day every single day of the year. And the sunflower seeds are free.
 
2013-12-28 08:47:32 PM  

Dafatone: steamingpile: meanmutton: Any time you look at salaries for MLB players, you have to realize how totally farked up they are.  Why should Mike Trout, one of the very best players in baseball with a long career of likely success ahead of him be making half a million a year while washed-up retreads are making $20 million plus?

Time played, isn't trout gonna get a huge raise next year?

And this really shows Oakland isn't paying pennies like people think, hell their salaries are close to $90-100M.

Not pennies, but they're right among the bottom of the teams that aren't actively scamming MLB / their host cities (Houston, Miami).


Yes they are, putting a sub par product on the field and asking for a new stadium to be paid for by taxes.

That's worse than scamming, never really a threat to win it all but give us a new palatial ballpark, now!
 
Displayed 25 of 25 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report