clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

Does Big Payroll Equal Postseason Success More than Ever Before?

I like lists.  While open to analysis, they don't lie. Below is a list compiled by Buster Olney in a great column this morning about how the trend over the last several years where smaller market teams could compete with lower payrolls may be over. He cites the fact that nine different teams have won the World Series in the last 10 years.  The list below is the of the top ten payrolls in baseball:

  1. Yankees: $206 million
  2. Mets: $139 million
  3. Cubs: $138 million
  4. Tigers: $130 million
  5. Phillies: $128 million
  6. Red Sox: $123 million
  7. Angels: $117 million
  8. Dodgers: $109 million

Of those eight teams, seven would qualify for the postseason if the playoffs were to begin today. (The Cubs lead the NL Central by mere percentage points.) The Mets are the only team on this list that would not qualify.

Olney suggests that draft slot price recommendations may impact the decision of small market teams to pass over top talent for players they see as more "signable". Should the MLB adopt a format similar to the NBA in which a players contract is determined by where he is drafted and nothing else? While this may even the playing field for these small market teams, I think the MLBPA would fight to the death if the commissioner and owners tried to make this transition.

What do you guys think?