Graph of the day

DMZ · November 20, 2006 at 7:08 pm · Filed Under Mariners 

Mariners total payroll and rank among MLB teams since the Baseball Club of Seattle purchased the club in mid-1992 (so 1993 on), revised because people are dumb

M's payroll and rank

Note that rank is of 28 from 1993-1998, and of 30 from 1998 on.


31 Responses to “Graph of the day”

  1. James T on November 20th, 2006 8:22 pm

    How have the rankings of Mariner payroll and Mariner revenues compared in the last six years?

  2. Mike Hargrove's Cameltoe on November 20th, 2006 8:31 pm

    I’d like to see the attendance graphed over the past six years as well.


  3. Typical Idiot Fan on November 20th, 2006 8:49 pm

    I don’t have much of a problem with the amount of money the Mariners organization has spent on roster personnel. It’s WHO they spend their money on that bothers me.

  4. warner28 on November 20th, 2006 8:52 pm

    It is dumb when you have a payroll that stagnates.

    You cannot expect the same results when you are spending the same amount as 3-5 years ago.

    You need to make at least slight raises, the payroll should be nearing 110 million at this point (if the team was serious about winning).

  5. Matthew Carruth on November 20th, 2006 9:05 pm

    The Ms spend enough on payroll to compete. They don’t spend it anywhere near wisely enough and at the same time do not have enough arb-eligible stars.

  6. bigred on November 20th, 2006 9:46 pm

    I don’t care what the M’s bottom line looks like. I just want them to win.
    I don’t think rank in payroll has as much to do with winning as having the right people in the front office making the right decisions.
    It’s pretty clear we don’t have that right now.

  7. TomC on November 20th, 2006 10:00 pm

    I agree with #3 and #5 that the Mariners spend enough. It’s WHICH players they are spending on that irritates me.

    Let us compare two recent infields.

    In 2004 the Mariners spent $7.7 Million on John Olerud (1B), $8 Million on Bret Boone (2B), $3.15 Million on Rich Aurilia (SS), and $2.567 million on Scott Spiezio (3B). Total Payroll = $21.4 Million

    St. Louis that year spent $7 Million on Albert Pujols (1B), $300K on Tony Womack (2B), $7.25 Million on Edgar Renteria (SS), and $8.625 Million on Scott Rolen (3B). Total Payroll = $23.17 Million

    St. Louis spent essentially the same amount of money and got a far better infield – one that would help them win the NL pennant. Seattle got an infield that would lead them to a 63-99 record and the AL West cellar.

    If they are going spend their free agent money on guys like Spezio, Aurilia and Carl Everett the Mariners will never have enough payroll. Judge them on results (wins), not effort (money spent).

  8. Newby on November 20th, 2006 10:08 pm

    thats a pretty silly comparison. stl has pujols at an amazing discount right now.

  9. Mike Hargrove's Cameltoe on November 20th, 2006 10:12 pm

    $300K on Tony Womack (2B)

    And worth every penny, I might add.

  10. TomC on November 20th, 2006 10:18 pm

    #8 – that’s precisely the point – you look for good young talent (such as Lopez and Betancourt) and build around it. You do not throw money at so-so veteran players on the wrong side of 30.

    The Mariners’ problem isn’t money – it’s competent leadership.

  11. Ed Tsantamount on November 20th, 2006 10:24 pm

    What’s wrong with Speizio? He’s just got another World Series ring. Aureilia? He hit .300 this year. Mariner’s might just want to bring them back for another try.

  12. drw on November 20th, 2006 10:25 pm

    Tom C said:
    You do not throw money at so-so veteran players on the wrong side of 30.

    Like Speizio (age 34 — 2 years older than when we signed him — St. Louis just signed for 2 years at 4.5 million)?
    Like Jim Edmonds (age 36 — just signed by St. Louis for $19.5 million for 2 years)?

    Why were the Cardinals so smart two years ago and so dumb now?
    Or more to the point — why was it dumb for the Ms to sign Speizio two years ago, and smart for them to do so now?

  13. Typical Idiot Fan on November 20th, 2006 10:32 pm

    Mike Hargrove’s Cameltoe

    I don’t normally bitch about someone’s name, but what the hell is this?

  14. Mere Tantalisers on November 20th, 2006 11:27 pm

    11 – please, you’re joking, right? Yes, clearly.

    12 – I understand that Spez was signed as a back up player, not a regular. Maybe 2mil is too much for that. But the Cards’ IF is still Rolen, Eck, Belliard, and Pujols, which is half good.
    As for Edmonds, he seems to be aging pretty gracefully in spite of all the injuries. 10/yr may be a little much for a guy his age, but it looks a little more reasonable with every contract signed this winter.

  15. John D. on November 21st, 2006 12:27 am

    PAYROLL/REVENUE (See # 1, # 2,& # 3) – [Supposedly, revenue is a function of attendance.] How about a graph with four lines: M Payroll, M Revenue, MLB Payroll, MLB Revenue. The Cynics among us think that the Ms will far oustrip MLB’s difference between Payroll and Revenue.

  16. joser on November 21st, 2006 1:12 am

    #13 TIF: that nick has been around for months, and has posted in threads I’m sure you’ve seen. Not sure why you’re only noticing it now. I suspect it’s either the same guy who was Bobby Valentine’s Porn Mustache, or someone paying tribute to that nick (and since I haven’t seen BVPM around lately — like Superman and Clark Kent in the same room — I’m prepared to conclude it’s the former).

  17. David* on November 21st, 2006 1:38 am

    i gess i m dum cuz i still dont no which line is which massa

  18. CCW on November 21st, 2006 6:50 am

    Except for the last 3 years, which could just be a blip, this graph looks just about right (or at least consistent). Salaries have increased at about the same rate as salaries across the league have increased. League rank has fluxuated between 7 and 20, never too high and never too low. That’s a team that, front office decisions being equal, ought to be competitive the majority of the time, which was true until about 2003. The question is whether the last 3 years are significant. My guess is that those three years are due in part to damage done by the Gillick regime, and in part to the competence of front offices around the league improving while the competence of the M’s front office stayed the same.

    Bottom line: you can’t blame salaries for the Ms’ recent problems – you pretty much have to look at the front office, particularly if things don’t turn around in the next year or two.

  19. Paul B on November 21st, 2006 6:53 am

    I’m going to guess that payrolls tend to be somewhat higher in the AL, due to the DH. If true, the M’s would be in a higher percentile of total salary in all of the majors than the percentile of just the AL.

  20. 88fingerslukee on November 21st, 2006 7:34 am

    I’m guessing that payrolls tend to be higher in the AL due to the Yankees.

  21. msb on November 21st, 2006 8:31 am

    #13, 16– just because its been around, doesn’t mean we have to like it.

  22. 88fingerslukee on November 21st, 2006 8:42 am

    Are you guys REALLY that offended by the handle? Get over it.

  23. Phoenician Todd on November 21st, 2006 9:05 am

    You don’t have to be offended to dislike something.

  24. Evan on November 21st, 2006 9:08 am

    I’m guessing that payrolls tend to be higher in the AL due to the Yankees.

    That’s probably more accurate.

  25. Evan on November 21st, 2006 9:16 am

    You don’t have to be offended to dislike something.

    Man, this pumpkin pie offends me. This is offensive pie.

  26. 88fingerslukee on November 21st, 2006 9:35 am

    ah yes, semantics. booyah

  27. msb on November 21st, 2006 9:38 am

    #22– well, just to be pedantic about it all … per the comment guidelines: “Fake names are fine. Offensive names and assuming the names of public figures is not, and will get your posts and account deleted.”

  28. Uncle Ted on November 21st, 2006 9:43 am

    Not really, there’s a huge conceptual difference between finding something to be in bad aesthetic taste, offensive, and merely disagreeable. I take the claims here to be the first on the list.

  29. msb on November 21st, 2006 9:50 am

    #28– reminds me of Justice Stewart’s (in)famous definition of pornography, back in ’64 🙂

    “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material
    … but I know it when I see it.”

  30. Uncle Ted on November 21st, 2006 9:56 am

    I wasn’t talking about the qualities of the object, I was talking about the judgments made of said object. I leave the necessary and sufficient conditions for an appropriate judgment of each of those three to someone else who cares about such things.

  31. msb on November 21st, 2006 10:15 am

    those graphs are sure nice looking, though!

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.