About Me

My photo

Nice guy.  Have some blogs.  Do baseball research.

Friday, November 8, 2013

Team Salary Cap 2003-2013, Part 2.

Money can't buy you love.  Just ask the Beatles or the Yankees.  The Yankees can't get no satisfaction.

Thursday, November 7, 2013  Team Salary Cap 2003-2013.

The New York Yankees were over the cap in every season and had the highest percent over every season except 2013 when the Dodgers did.  No wonder the Steinbrenner Kids want to get under the cap in 2014...

The New York Yankees have paid 91.51% of all luxury tax collected by MLB.
____________________________________________

Click this link to view detailed data.  Below is a money matrix.  Teams are in order of player payroll.  The previous post shows the extent to which teams were above or below the soft cap, which varied over the years.  Except in 2013 when the Dodgers edged them out, the Yankees out spent the second highest paying team by a wide margin.

20032004200520062007200820092010201120122013
1NYYNYYNYYNYYNYYNYYNYYNYYNYYNYYLAD1
2NYMBOSBOSBOSBOSDETNYMBOSPHILADNYY2
3ATLNYMNYMANANYMNYMCHCCHCBOSPHIBOS3
4LADANAPHICHWANABOSBOSPHINYMANADET4
5TEXPHIANANYMCHWCHWDETNYMANADETPHI5
6BOSLADSTLHOULADCHCANADETCHCTEXSFG6
7SEACHCSFGLADSEAANAPHICHWCHWCHWTEX7
8STLATLSEACHCCHCLADHOUANASFGSFGTOR8
9SFGSTLCHCATLDETSEALADSFGMINSTLANA9
10ARISFGATLSFGBALATLCHWMINDETBOSSTL10
11CHCSEALADSTLSTLSTLSEALADSTLFLAWSN11
12ANAHOUHOUPHISFGPHIATLSTLLADMINCIN12
13BALARICHWSEAPHITORSTLHOUATLMILBAL13
14HOUCOLBALDETHOUHOUSFGSEATEXNYMPIT14
15PHICHWDETBALATLMILCLECOLCOLWSNATL15
16COLOAKSDPTORTORCLETORATLBALATLKCR16
17CINSDPARISDPOAKSFGMILBALMILTORCLE17
18MINTEXCINTEXMINCINTEXMILSEACHCMIL18
19PITMINFLAMINMILSDPCOLCINCINCINCHW19
20WSNBALMINWSNTEXCOLCINKCRHOUCLEARI20
21TORTORTEXOAKCINTEXKCRTBDOAKSEASEA21
22CHWKCROAKCINKCRBALARIWSNWSNBALCOL22
23OAKCINWSNARICLEARIBALTORTORCOLTBD23
24FLADETCOLMILSDPKCRMINARIFLAPITOAK24
25DETFLATORCLECOLMINTBDCLEARIARINYM25
26CLEWSNCLEKCRARIWSNOAKOAKCLETBDSDP26
27SDPCLEMILPITPITPITWSNFLASDPKCRMIN27
28MILPITPITCOLWSNOAKPITTEXPITOAKCHC28
29KCRTBDKCRTBDFLATBDSDPSDPTBDSDPFLA29
30TBDMILTBDFLATBDFLAFLAPITKCRHOUHOU30

Finalists BOLD; Champion border also enhanced.
Other tournament teams: Italics; wild cards in 2012 and 2013 red Italics.

In the eleven season with the soft cap the Yankees made the finals twice, losing to Florida in 2003 and beating Philadelphia in 2009.

The Boston Red Sox were 3-0 in the finals: second in spending in 2004 and 2007 and third in 2013 but second in the American Conference.  Overall Boston had these spending ranks: 6,2,2,2,2,4,4,2,3,10,3.  Not exactly in a position to be too critical of the Yankees.

Ranks of the tournament winners: 24,2,13,11,2,12,1,9,11,8,3.  Only two above 8th biggest spender.

Florida (now Miami) in 2003 had the lowest rank of any of the 11 champions: 24.  Other finalists in the bottom half of the 30 teams:
Colorado 25 in 2007
Tampa 29 in 2008
Texas 28 in 2010.

This supports the random nature of the original ill conceived tournament format, another mess from Major Baseball League commissioner Allen Huber "Bud" Selig.  It includes deciding home field/rule advantage in the finals by the winning conference in the All Star game.  The tournament should be significantly less random with the new format, which I'm sure was inadvertent, not by any design of Selig.

After making the tournament for the first time in 2008 and reaching the finals Tampa has made the tournament each year since except 2009 and 2012.  Here are its spending ranks 2008 through 2013: 29,25,22,29,26,23.

The Mets were third in spending and first in the National Conference in 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008. Mets were second in 2003 and 2009, 5th in 2010, 4th in 2011.  Then the Bernie Madoff ponzi scheme scandal broke and the Mets finances were undermined but bailed out by Selig.

Obviously, better teams will tend to have better players who will generally be paid more than lesser players.  However, the Yankees seem to be paying much more but not getting their money's worth.  A subsequent post will examine dollars spent per ticket sold and per win.

No comments: