Payroll

wasn’t the Cardinals’ All-Star bid and hosting contingent on Ballpark Village being at least 1/2 way finished or something like that? I thought I remembered a whole article on that. Of course, with tough times economically lately, this could have all changed since I heard anything.

Thanks

But the reality is that I just don’t see what the stellar options were. I think it’s fairly obvious that there weren’t many good options on the FA market for starting pitching. Quality pitchers like Burnett got insane money. The Cardinals obviously targeted Lohse as a B-tier option, though the contract clearly backfired on them. The Randy Wolfs of the world are unappealing. The injury risks (Smoltz, Sheets, Penny) were an option, but can we afford them at the rates the Red Sox were willing to pay?

In terms of position players, I don’t really know who we missed out on that wouldn’t have cost us our first-round draft pick. Hudson looks appealing at the dollar amount, but the Cardinals obviously place a lot of value on their pick, and I don’t disagree with that. There were bargains to be had on players like Dunn who play in positions where we’re already overcrowded. We fixed the horrendous Villone/Flores duo for cheap, which should help quite a bit.

We made a generous offer to Fuentes, but got outbid. I like Fuentes, but would we be willing to go 3/30 for him (which is what he’ll get if he’s healthy/effective enough to trigger the “games finished” option)? I’d have loved to get Wood for the price he signed for, but I wonder if he would have played here. And I’d still like Durham, for what that’s worth, but he’s been explicit about not wanting to take a team-friendly contract.

Am I annoyed that payroll is down? Yeah, I am. But frankly I just don’t see where we should’ve been spending it that provided a “sure thing” or even a pretty good risk. In a stellar market for outfielders, we were trying to trade one away. We needed a real shortstop and got one. The 2B situation was poorly handled, but what’s the knockout solution on the FA market that doesn’t cost us our first-rounder? We needed bullpen help, especially from the left side, and got it. We needed starting pitching, but the good ones were too expensive and the bad ones were, well, also too expensive, or just wasteful.

I’m not happy about the offseason, but I’m not mad about it either, because I just don’t see who that “impact” guy would’ve been. If you have ideas, I’m certainly all ears.

2) it means that they were neatly pocketing some significant cash when they were selling 3.4M tickets, making the playoffs and holding payroll at the same levels for the last 4 years.

If you read Strauss’ article it says that the Cards realized an operating profit of 23-25 million before paying 17 million in debt service. That means that they “pocketed” about 6-8 million. I don’t think that is a ridiculous amount at all. Should they not realize a profit in their business? If they are pocketing 6-8 million per year I think that is perfectly reasonable.

Furthermore, I think the Cards are hoarding young players for two reasons. 1) They have to resign Albert in the next couple of years and therefore they have to have a significant amount of cost controlled players. 2) Young players will become the currency of the new MLB as the recession forces some significant changes to the operating models of some teams.

First I don’t get your conclusions:

This is damaging evidence in two fashions: 1) it means that the Cardinals went cheap this summer becaise of this fear and 2) it means that they were neatly pocketing some significant cash when they were selling 3.4M tickets, making the playoffs and holding payroll at the same levels for the last 4 years.

The article doesn’t demonstrate this at all. Another explanation is simpler. You may have noticed we’re in a credit crisis and getting extra liquidity isn’t easy. I’m guessing the organization’s “worst-case scenario” is more about guaranteeing sufficient funds to pay for the team (and stadium debt). That’s a legitimate fear that many journalists have been reporting for all teams.

I’m also confused about fan “outrage.” It’s either too hot or too cold. Weren’t we also outraged at LaRussa’s refusal to develop young talent? Now we have much younger players on our roster and we our outraged over smaller contracts (which doesn’t necessarily indicate smaller talent). But of course, that indicates younger talent is starting. Anyways, who would you have spent the money on? (Ben Sheets!) Would you be OK if that meant sending down Motte, Rasmus, or Perez?

I wish we could complain about actual baseball and not finances. I can’t wait for Albert to run through an Oquendo stop sign such that we can have baseball arguments.

but for whatever reason haven’t done what it would take to make them a more realistic contender. I know most projections peg them for 83 wins, maybe I’m being overly optimistic, but I think they are more in line for 85-87 wins if things break right. One or two good moves could probably put them at 90, but for whatever reason they haven’t made those moves.

What could they have done? I don’t know, but it’s not like the White Sox gave up a ton to get Javier Vazquez. I think they could have signed Kenshin Kawakami or Koji Uehara and not broken the bank. Ray Durham is practically begging for a job and proved last season he’s still a viable player. As someone who normally sides w/the FO, there were some moves that may not have been seen as earth shattering that may have helped. Then again, I don’t know what happens behind closed doors, or maybe this extra $8M is their "dry powder: and they move Wallace for an ace a la the Brewers last season. I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt until then, but if this trend continues there is reason to be alarmed.

This is damaging evidence in two fashions… 2) it means that they were neatly pocketing some significant cash when they were selling 3.4M tickets, making the playoffs and holding payroll at the same levels for the last 4 years.

Nobody saw this economic situation coming 9 month ago, much less 2-4 years ago (in which we made our playoff runs & world series). Baseball club owners are going to pocket cash. It is a business. The point of a business is to remain profitable through good times and bad.

It sucks when we don’t get huge free agent signings all the time, but I don’t think we should ever expect it. The Yanks and Sox do it a lot and they get a lot of media coverage, so fans everywhere always expect huge signings. That’s not how it’s going to work post-Jockety. I guarentee that when Lunhow was hired, the promise he brought with him was not that he would improve the farm system and help with statistical info, but that by doing those things he would make the club more money. More profit. He would help grow more stars internally who are cheaper and cost controlled, specifically so the front office wouldn’t have to spend as much on free agents. And so far the experiment is working out for him and for the owners. The owners are making money (or at this point, not losing money in a bad economy), and the Cardinals still have a winning record.

Despite our difference of opinion, i think this is a great fanpost. Putting good thought into a subject instead of just linking to it. Thanks.

but can’t find too many words to disagree. I feel that if they are being frugal so that they can re-sign Pujols, then it’s all worth it. I will have to wait and see how that is handled before I get pissed off at the ownership. the ballpark village thing is pretty ridiculous though, especially since Busch II wasn’t that dilapidated… now it just seems like it was unnecessary without the village.

they’ve been setting this up for a long time. anyone who doesn’t drink the kool-aid isn’t surprised. i’m not mad, i’m just aggravated at the spin. we fans are not stupid, well most of us are not. and i hate being talked down to & treated like we are stupid. and the FO does that way too much. if they would cut out on the spin, i think the FO would stop talking so much heat from the media & fans.

Pursuing Fuentes struck many as contradictory to the team’s buttoned-down payroll. However, club sources insist a successful pursuit of Fuentes probably would have necessitated a salary dump involving outfielder Rick Ankiel or Ryan Ludwick.

Terrible way of running a business, much less a team. Take valuable commodities and dump them because you bought something less valuable for more money?

I thought he was talking about the trade of Anthony last deadline. I almost fell off my chair. So many Reyeses, so little time.

I thought the article said that they took the excess money and put it back into the team. Payroll is only one way to use the money. Other possibilities:

1. building up the farm system
2. taking the hit on increased insurance cost for employees
3. increase advertising budget
4. build up scouting in another market (like the Japanese market)
5. Other things we are not privy to

since it means we didn’t sign Brian Fuentes.

If they held a Marlins style fire sale, that’d be one thing. This is a total non-issue to me.

paraphrase:

“If you give us money and buy tickets, we will have more money to spend during the season. If not, we will have to sell a player or two.”

/paraphrase

“By the time we get to late June, early July we’ll have a better idea of the economy and where we are. We try to have our payroll parallel with revenue.” If things go better they can adjust accordingly. If things go worse (economy, attendance) then it could go the other way. But he hopes to be able to make a move if they need it.

If the 2009 Cardinals are better than the 2008 Cardinals, does any of this even matter? I know it’s Strauss’ job to sell papers and get hits, but in my eyes this team is significantly better than last years. Why should I care how much money they spent to do it?

http://www.vivaelbirdos.com/2008/8/20/597418/payroll-reduced-in-09#comments

that we as Cardinals fans really think we have anything to complain about. Without hesitation I would say there is ONE fanbase in baseball that would NOT trade their teams current position, history, and players for what we have today. We have easily the best history after the Yankees, the best player in baseball, and will be in the hunt for the playoffs this year and a likely favorite in the years to come as our division weakens.

The Cubs are a win-now team and are a season or two away from total disaster, the Astros missed their chance, the Brewers aren’t the same team they were two years ago and their cheap/young players are becoming arbitration eligible now, the Pirates are the Pirates and the Reds are the only other team in the division I see as dangerous in two-four years.

In the last year We have lost Macy’s; The Chrysler plant; Grantie city Steel; more job losses at Boeing; The A.G. Edwards building no longer says, “A.G. Edwards” on it; my Company has dropped close to a million in payroll around the area; Charter is going broke; Rueters is laying off a ton.

 And last but not least AB is no longer AB. InBev’s first order of business was to lay off 1,500 people. Their second was to revoke the yearly contracts with local advertisment companies.(AB used only local advertisment companies.) Who knows how much money that is leaving the area.

The Cardinals are going to lose a lot of AD dollars with InBev in charge now. The Jobs in St. Louis don’t look like they are coming back anytime soon. Be happy the team has a payroll right now.

My fiancee lost her job a few months ago and hasn’t found anything. I’ll be lucky to make it two a game this year vs. the 7 I went to last.

I think there’s one more thing we may want to consider- the Cubbies spending spree the last couple of years and how it relates to the Cards spending, and other teams in the Central for that matter.

The Cubs have gone all-in to win. That being the case, Cards ownership might be seeing that and essentially “letting them have their chance.” I don’t mean this in a altruistic sense, but rather the climate and cost/benefit possibilities (financially as well as win-losses).

Clearly, for the first time in my life, the Cubs have committed to big money FA’s. It’s also clear that the Cubs could have done that at any point over the last 25 years, at least. Further, I think we can all admit that the Cards can’t win a spending war with the Cubs.

I have little to no problems with DeWitt. As someone else stated above, the Cubs are going to be in some pretty bad shape at some point in the next few seasons.

I think DeWitt and Co. are being wise to not engage the Cubs in spending sprees. I believe that their actions (or lack of actions) is going to leave this franchise in good shape, both financially and in wins-losses.

So, your basic premise, and certainly Strauss’, is that the Cardinals should have continued to spend on payroll as though there were no financial concerns? Or, are you under the belief that the Cardinals’ executives should have been able to predict the depths of the current economic climate when virtually no other corporate executives have? Do you have a crystal ball that indicates to you what the corporate dollars in St. Louis are going to do in terms of advertising budget, sponsored events, and luxury box purchases?

Despite the best information I have read, there is still no definitive end in sight to the current economic downturn. Many workers in this country are continuing to face the uncertainty of future layoffs, reductions in hours, and other reductions in compensation (myself included). So, if you think I’m going to get my panties in a bunch because a baseball organization is suffering the same constraints due to the current market uncertainty, then you are barking up the wrong tree.

The fact is, the team started the offseason (resigning Lohse, pursuing Rodriguez, and pursuing Fuentes) as though the market was going to continue at the level it had the last few years. Then, the economy took a dump, the government turned over significantly in both personnel and philosophy, and corporations have become the ultimate scapegoats for all the country’s woes. Consequently, the Cardinals, and seemingly all of baseball, tightened the purse strings.

In addition, the team is changing its philosophy on how to run an organization. Five years ago, the Cardinals could still compete with the big teams in terms of spending. Since then, the absurd spending sprees conducted by the Red Sox and Yankees, in addition to the significant escalation of spending from the Cubs, the Mariners, the Mets, the Angels, the Dodgers, and the Giants has changed the economic environment in baseball. The Cardinals were always a mid-market team, but fortunately for them, many of the large market teams didn’t spend that way. Imagine the “significant cash” the Cubs were pocketing before their recent payroll surge. This was an unsustainable strategy for the Cardinals to maintain.

Despite all of the gloom-and-doom, it would be absurd for any of us to sit here today and claim this team is uncapable of competing for a division title. They were able to compete for a division title last year despite significant injuries and questions in the lineup, the rotation, and the bullpen. All of those areas have been upgraded to at least some extent; the team has apparently regained their ace in the rotation, they have upgraded the left side of the bullpen, they have a much better situation with the options for closing games, and they have the potential for an offensive upgrade with the return of Duncan and Greene at SS. They are also much closer to having a sustainable, continuous pipeline of talent coming through the farm teams which will position them to better weather the economic climate I would expect to persist through the 2010 season, as well. This was all done with the hypocritical dissent of local writers like Miklasz (who lauds the St. Louis Blues for a similar change in organizational philosophy) trying to whip the local fan base into a frenzy against the front office.

I don’t understand your point about Kennedy, either, as it undermines the basic premise of your argument. Perhaps, if you had said that they have failed to fill a significant question mark at 2B due to payroll constraints, then you would have maintained the integrity of your argument. As it is, releasing Kennedy was an horrible move from a payroll perspective, and it was based solely on what the field management believed was the best baseball decision.

I have serious doubts that they have done the right thing at 2B. I think that is the one spot on the field I would have liked to see addressed, and if Kennedy was not going to be the option then they should have brought somebody else in. That said, there were not significant opportunities for this team to blow its wad on players during the offseason, as you seem to suggest by focusing so strongly on what the team’s payroll is. The problem with payroll is that it is simply a number. Many have made the point on here that it is unreasonable to expect to contend while scrimping on payroll; however, I would like to know what the magic dollar figure or payroll ranking it is that buys a team a World Series? If you can’t come up with one, then why don’t we focus our criticisms (constructively, I hope) on what we are actually missing on the field. I couldn’t care less how much profit this team makes, at the end of the day. I don’t watch them for their budget sheets. I watch baseball because I enjoy the action on the field, and I will admit that I enjoy the product a lot more with young players that have untapped potential. I love to see a winning team, and I hope every year for the team to take a title; however, I can enjoy watching baseball without expecting the team to be a favorite every year.

Think back to 2004-2005. When a Cardinals fan was asked who their favorite player is, the answer would be 1 of 3 people, and there wasn’t a clear favorite: Rolen, Edmonds or Pujols. That was something special.

Did you ever think the Cardinals were overspending in previous years in order to keep those players? Do you think the FO felt obligated to lock up Edmonds, Rolen and Pujols? What would have happened if the Cardinals decided that those players were too costly? Do you think Pujols would have signed his previous extension? Would you still be a fan now? The Cardinals put together one of the best cores of any team in baseball and knew that if they kept those 3 players, they would be competitive. As those players aged/injuries set in, the contracts became very expensive and change needed to be made. I honestly believe that the FO kept that core together because of what it meant to the fan base and the success of the team.

I can see another core being built in St. Louis, and when their time comes, I can see the FO opening up the pocketbook to make those players the franchise, Rasmus, Wallace, and Pujols. But I’m tired of hearing people complain that the FO is not spending money just to spend money.

I’m thankful that Fuentes isn’t a Cardinal (I believe bullpen arms should never make more than 5 million/year). I’m glad we didn’t bring Holliday in and have more of a logjammed OF (how ridiculous do the Nationals look with their 6 outfielders). Those are 2 moves where spending doesn’t create a major impact. Upgrading the rotation, getting a 2B, and improving SS would have been the moves to make. The FO took care of SS with Greene. I would have liked the FO to acquire Vazquez from Chicago (really wanted to see how good Vazquez could be under Duncan), but there weren’t any legitimate upgrades at 2B that didn’t have question marks or the players weren’t available (Hudson’s wrist and type A status, cabrera’s type A status, Ellis re-signed, Kelly Johnson “overvalued” by Braves).

Complaining about the payroll before the season begins is pointless. If the Cardinals are 5 games under .500 and this team doesn’t appear to be a winner and the FO does nothing next year, complain. But I would much rather have a team with a lower payroll that outperforms expectations than to have a high payroll team that tanks (ie: seattle mariners 100+ payroll, 100+ losses).