The Dodgers have ended the Yankees 15 year run as the team with the highest payroll.
The Associated Press obtained information from management and player sources and include salaries and pro-rated shares of signing bonuses for players on the 25-man active roster, disabled lists and restricted list as March 25, plus players teams have committed to putting on their rosters. In some cases, parts of salaries deferred without interest are discounted to reflect present-day values. Adjustments have been made for cash transactions in trades, signing bonuses that are responsibility of club that agreed to contract, option buyouts and termination pay for released players.
Team
Payroll
1. LA Dodgers $235,295,219
2. N.Y. Yankees $203,812,506
3. Philadelphia $180,052,723
4. Boston $162,817,411
5. Detroit $162,228,527
6. LA Angels $155,692,000
7. San Francisco $154,185,878
8. Texas $136,036,172
9. Washington $134,704,437
10. Toronto $132,628,700
11. Arizona $112,688,666
12. Cincinnati $112,390,772
13. St. Louis $111,020,360
14. Atlanta $110,897,341
15. Baltimore $107,406,623
16. Milwaukee $103,844,806
17. Colorado $95,832,071
18. Seattle $92,081,943
19. Royals $92,034,345
20. Chicago White Sox $91,159,254
21. San Diego $90,094,196
22. N.Y. Mets $89,051,758
23. Chicago Cubs $89,007,857
24. Minnesota $85,776,500
25. Oakland $83,401,400
26. Cleveland $82,534,800
27. Pittsburgh $78,111,667
28. Tampa Bay $77,062,891
29. Miami $47,565,400
30. Houston $44,544,174
Houston has actually added $20 million to its payroll from last season. The Astros were criticized for taking league "competitive balance" money and not spending it fully on players. New ownership had griped about the true finances of the club, including a weak cable network deal, as part of not spending money on players.
You can see the division of team power. The Top 10 spenders are usually considered "big market clubs" in large metropolitan areas with a large fan base and large local broadcast contracts. The traditional big city teams were New York, Boston, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Philadelphia. Small market teams were the expansion types in small cities such as Kansas City, Pittsburgh, Oakland, Minnesota and Cleveland where smart scouting and player development were more important than signing expensive free agents. The rest of the teams spending between 10 and 20th place were considered "mid market" teams.
The Cubs were considered a big market team while the White Sox were considered a mid-market team based upon attendance and wealth of ownership groups. The White Sox were more conservative in their payroll approach than the Cubs (especially under Tribune ownership). But how have times changed.
The White Sox have added several free agents and new players this off season. Its payroll is 20th in the majors. The New York Mets, whose ownership was dangling in a financial mess due to the Madoff scandal, had to pare back expenses to land at Number 22 on the list. Then, for most observers, the Cubs at Number 23 is surprising to find the team in the small market faction of major league baseball.
We have previously discussed the reasons for the Cubs penny pinching. Management decided to implode the team, tank for several years in order to get high draft choices and rebuild the farm system with young prospects. As a result, the major league team is awful. And why spend money on good players when the team will not win a divisional race for years to come. Hence, the annual yard sale of veteran players at the trade deadline.
The Cubs under Ricketts have a small market mindset: the team must be self-sufficient. It will not get additional capital to spend from family members or investors. As attendance drops, income drops then expenses must drop - - - and payroll is the biggest chunk. It is also important to note that the payroll "savings" projected over the Ricketts first five years of ownership will be between $158 to $200 million, which is the way the family plans to finance their huge Wrigleyville real estate developments. While other small market teams wrangled local governments to pay for sweetheart new stadiums, the Cubs failed to get any public funding.
Cub fans may be annoyed to see the lowly Royals four slots ahead of the Cubs in spending, or a mixed-up franchise like the Orioles eight spaces ahead, spending 20 percent more than the Cubs.
