- Joined
- Aug 1, 2011
- Messages
- 54,525
Yes, but we can make educated guesses. And that guess for me is he won't go past the luxury tax threshold.
Welcome to Detroit Sports Forum!
By joining our community, you'll be able to connect with fellow fans that live and breathe Detroit sports just like you!
-
If you are no longer able to access your account since our recent switch from vBulletin to XenForo, you may need to reset your password via email. If you no longer have access to the email attached to your account, please fill out our contact form and we will assist you ASAP. Thanks for your continued support of DSF.
Tiger Payroll Purgatory
- Thread starter jdeb
- Start date
Yes, but we can make educated guesses. And that guess for me is he won't go past the luxury tax threshold.
Thumb
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2011
- Messages
- 18,962
Or being able to tell when a team is losing money, and that an increase in spending really gets nothing in return.
We can not contend next year. no matter how much we spend, this is a fact people get used to it.
Last edited:
kingofdetroit57
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2011
- Messages
- 3,937
Agreed, I think he spends but stays under the luxury tax limit.
The Tigers just shed about 70 million dollars by letting Scherzer, Price and fielder go. Those are the players that it took to compete. If they don't want to spend then they will not win. You can point at all of the houstons and KC's that you want, but the fact of the matter is that those teams haven't won anything. Neither has Oakland or Minnesota.
Big payrolls with superstar players win championships. Look at the Giants, Cardinals, Giants, Yankees, Red Sox all in the top 1/3 of payroll. If you want to beat the big boys then you have to buy the players that the big boys are going to buy. If you want lose to the big boys in the playoffs every year, then you can do some billy bean ball. All of the nerds will cheer lead for you, but you ain't gonna win with saberBS.
Big payrolls with superstar players win championships. Look at the Giants, Cardinals, Giants, Yankees, Red Sox all in the top 1/3 of payroll. If you want to beat the big boys then you have to buy the players that the big boys are going to buy. If you want lose to the big boys in the playoffs every year, then you can do some billy bean ball. All of the nerds will cheer lead for you, but you ain't gonna win with saberBS.
Thumb
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2011
- Messages
- 18,962
Either has Detroit.
Oakland 3 times lost to us in the playoffs, twice it went to the final game. KC has been as close to winning a WS as we have, actually I take that back; they were closer. Detroit in 2 World Series won a total of 1 game. KC, in a single WS won 3 games and forced a game 7, losing by a single run.
The point you are trying to make is meaningless, it is possible to win, and have success in the playoffs with a smaller payroll, and having a really big one does not guarantee any success either.
Giants, Red Sox, and Cardinals all had/have great farm systems to supplement their spending. When Yankees were last winning their titles a decade ago they were doing it with a great farm system and home grown players.
The key to winning isnt just write blank checks. Tigers have been doing that and thats why they have no rings.
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2011
- Messages
- 54,525
I'd like a good farm system but I think the lack of world series rings is because they're 1-7 in the world series.
Rebbiv
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2011
- Messages
- 6,304
First, Price and Fielder weren't let go, they were traded. And neither were on the team at the same time. But I think we get it.
Until the trade deadline, DET was on track to having their highest payroll ever and most likely having to pay the luxury tax. Where did that get them? They were 50-53 and 4th in the AL Central on July 31st.
If spending money does it, why hasn't the Yankees won since 2009 and the Dodgers are sure spending money and not winning as of yet.
World Series Winner Home Grown Talent
2014 SFG = 5 of the 8 positions, 4 SPs, 1 Closer = 10 of the 14 key positions were home grown
2013 BOS = 3 of the 8 positions, 3 SPs, = 6 of the 14 key positions
2012 SFG = 4 of the 8 positions, 4 SPs = 8 of the 14 key positions
2011 STL = 4 of the 8 positions, 1 SP, 1 Closer = 6 of the 14 key positions
2010 SFG = 3 of the 8 positions, 4 SPs, 1 Closer = 8 of the 14 key positions
2009 NYY = 3 of the 8 positions, 2 SPs, 1 Closer = 6 of the 14 key positions
2008 PHI = 5 of the 8 positions, 4 SPs = 9 of the 14 key positions
2007 BOS = 2 of the 8 positions, 2 SPs, 1 Closer = 5 of the 14 key positions
2006 STL = 3 of the 8 positions, 1 SP = 4 of the 14 key positions
2005 CHW = 2 of the 8 positions, 1 SP = 3 of the 14 key positions
Average = 6.5 of the 14 key positions in the last 10 years as home grown
Average = 8.0 of the 14 key positions in the last 5 years as home grown
In the last 10 years, only Juan Encarnacion was signed or drafted by DET and played on a World Series winner at one of the key 14 positions. 2006 STL.
DET through the years
2015 = 2 of the 8 positions, 1 SP = 3 of the 14 key positions
2014 = 2 of the 8 positions, 2 SP = 4 of the 14 key positions
2013 = 2 of the 8 positions, 2 SP = 4 of the 14 key positions
2012 = 3 of the 8 positions, 3 SP = 6 of the 14 key positions (LOST IN WORLD SERIES)
2011 = 3 of the 8 positions, 2 SP = 5 of the 14 key positions
2010 = 3 of the 8 positions, 2 SP = 5 of the 14 key positions
2009 = 3 of the 8 positions, 2 SP, 1 Closer = 6 of the 14 key positions
2008 = 1 of the 8 positions, 1 SP = 2 of the 14 key positions (3 if you include Inge)
2007 = 2 of the 8 positions, 2 SP = 4 of the 14 key positions
2006 = 2 of the 8 positions, 1 SP = 3 of the 14 key positions
2005 = 2 of the 8 positions, 1 SP, 1 Closer = 4 of the 14 key positions
There is nothing wrong, when you are close, to fill in your roster with money. But there has to be at least 5-6 of the 14 key positions as home grown, otherwise it will be hard to sustain. CHW got there in 2005 with 3 home grown, and where have they been since?
Long term success is a balance of drafting well, developing what you got and going out a getting that Free Agent that fills the void or making a significant trade. DD didn't draft well. He had trouble developing players. He had deep pockets he could use to spend on free agents and top tier players he got through trades.
tomdalton22
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2011
- Messages
- 24,852
Are you counting minor league players that were traded for but still came up through the team's minor league system?
Rebbiv
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2011
- Messages
- 6,304
You talking Infante and/or Santiago? No, just those that remained with the team/teams.
tomdalton22
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2011
- Messages
- 24,852
no, just in general for all teams. Just curious if a team trades for a minor league player and he comes up through the minors...a guy that only plays for one major league team. A guy like Austin Jackson comes to mind for the Tigers. I know guys like him are not "home grown" but they fill the same need.
Rebbiv
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2011
- Messages
- 6,304
Austin Jackson played in the minors for New York, but was immediately made the starting CFer once he was traded for. He spent no time in the Tigers system. Same with Jeremy Bonderman, Zach Miner, etc, etc.
Yes, teams like TBR trade their veteran's for cost controlled minor leaguers and they do well by that. But they also develop their own talent.
Through the DD years, DET has not generated players that have excelled at the MLB level, even for other teams. Verlander and Granderson are about the only ones that excelled immediately. Andrew Miller did after he was converted to a reliever. Am I missing anyone? Maybe Porcello. But he was rushed and it took a couple of years.
Rebbiv
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2011
- Messages
- 6,304
http://www.blessyouboys.com/2015/10/8/9467825/detroit-tigers-payroll-mlb-cost-per-win
http://www.gammonsdaily.com/2015-mlb-cost-per-win/
Their payroll finished the season lower than projected on Opening Day, and would have ranked third in cost per win had they not cut some $12.2 million at the trade deadline.
The 10 playoff teams in 2015 each saw payroll increase during the season, as they took on salary to bolster their playoff runs.
http://www.gammonsdaily.com/2015-mlb-cost-per-win/
Their payroll finished the season lower than projected on Opening Day, and would have ranked third in cost per win had they not cut some $12.2 million at the trade deadline.
The 10 playoff teams in 2015 each saw payroll increase during the season, as they took on salary to bolster their playoff runs.
You missed my point, which isn't surprising since people love to argue about nothing on this board. Look at you, a supposed Tiger fan, yet you attack the Tigers just to make a meaningless point to create an argument.
My point is that the last team to win with a low payroll was the 2003 Florida Marlins with Pudge/Cabrera. That is over a decade ago. When did the Tigers lose to a low budget team in the world series? KC isn't going to win this year and neither is Houston. Want to bet?
I don't know how great the farm system was on the Red Sox. They had a few players, but most of the team was bought. Their core was bought just like the Tigers. Without Manny, Shilling, Pedro, Poppy what would they have won? Those are all 30 million dollar players today. The new Sox have some home grown players but they are not what won it for them.
Last edited:
Thumb
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2011
- Messages
- 18,962
First off, I didn't attack the Tigers, what I posted was fact. Just because I disagree with you does not make me any less of a fan, and you have no right to question whether anyone is a fan or not.
Second, I didn't miss the point, because you had no point. You made some half-assed jab at metric stats and called people nerds.
Third, your crystal ball is cool loan it to me okay? KC is not going to win and neither is Houston, then lets not even play the games. Lets just ask you who's going to win and give them the trophy.
And lastly, just because the last low payroll team to win was in 2003 does not mean one cannot win, just that it's been since 2003 since it happened. You also point out how the teams that have won were in the top 1/3 of the payroll, but what you don't point out is that some of them were closer to the middle then to the top. In 2006 the Cards were 88M, the Tigers at middle of the pack, were 82M, The Yankees were 194M. BTW the Cards in 2006 were the middle 1/3 not the top 1/3.
Your argument about those teams being in the top 1/3 of payroll is misleading, since sometimes the difference between being in the top 1/3 and the middle 1/3 is less then a million bucks. Same with bottom 1/3 and middle 1/3. The Rockies were in the middle 1/3 in 2015 with a payroll of $102,006,130, while the Mets were in the bottom 1/3 with a payroll of $101,409,244. A net difference of 596,886. League minimum is 500,000.
I'm not arguing over nothing, and neither is anyone else who replied to your post. Were simply replying back because your point has more holes in it than the thing I use to drain my spaghetti.
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2011
- Messages
- 54,525
Happens all the time. You can't disagree with anything, any sport or you're labeled a hater/not a fan. Can't pick on a player .. nothing. Like we have to be 100% positive about everything.
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2011
- Messages
- 190,243
http://www.mlive.com/tigers/index.ssf/2015/11/a_look_at_where_detroit_tigers.html#incart_river_index
A look at where payroll stands for Detroit Tigers for 2016 season following most recent moves.
Mlive
A look at where payroll stands for Detroit Tigers for 2016 season following most recent moves.
Mlive
Grammar Nazi it up, that also doesn't do what you might think it does.
Second, the array of logical fallacies within your reply is impressive: what does my sloppy grammar have to do with the misuse of that "definition"; of course, ad hominem, what does my error have to do with my critique? Nothing; the sloppy grammar and the misused definition are not the same kind of thing; the notion that one cannot be in error and simultaneously point out error by another; and of course the best is the false authority that you are the judge somehow when you are not.
You'll excuse me if I take your mic drop by Ben Chang as the quotation from a fool it is.
Second, the array of logical fallacies within your reply is impressive: what does my sloppy grammar have to do with the misuse of that "definition"; of course, ad hominem, what does my error have to do with my critique? Nothing; the sloppy grammar and the misused definition are not the same kind of thing; the notion that one cannot be in error and simultaneously point out error by another; and of course the best is the false authority that you are the judge somehow when you are not.
You'll excuse me if I take your mic drop by Ben Chang as the quotation from a fool it is.
Rebbiv
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2011
- Messages
- 6,304
So you are firehim? I thought we couldn't have multiple IDs. Hmmmm
Affiliates
