For years, many, many baseball watchers have relied on the USAToday MLB Salary Database to make comparisons across organizations and in year-to-year analysis, possible due to contract details posted all the way back to 1988.
As with any powerful tool, a thorough understanding of what you have and what you don’t is very important. As some Cardinals watchers know, the database assigns the salaries of all players on opening day rosters to their current team, no matter which club is actually paying the freight.
In the past, this created an odd year-to-year skew when players like Larry Walker and Roger Cedeno were acquired. Though the Cardinals were not responsible for most of the two’s salaries, the database assigned their entire commitment to St. Louis.
In 2010, this will likely again arise due to Julio Lugo’s $9 million salary being paid by Boston. We will need to check later, but I expect the Cardinals’ reported 2010 payroll to appear to be inflated by $9 million as a result.
When the database was first presented for 2009 this past spring, there was a discrepancy in the reporting of Troy Glaus’ individual salary (pictured). It was understated by about $11 million, which artificially dropped the Cardinals total payroll to $77 million.
While Glaus’ individual line item was quickly corrected, the folks from USAToday apparently forgot to update the Cardinals’ team total. As a result, St. Louis’ supposed $77,605,109 payroll placed them 17th of the 32 MLB teams.
I knew about this problem, but had incorrectly assumed it had been fixed months ago. Not so.
I was reading a Baseball Prospectus article just this week about player injuries and there was that $77 million payroll figure for St. Louis! I knew right away without even looking from where the author had picked up that total. No telling how many others have been using this incorrect data to draw potentially faulty conclusions.
I decided I would take it upon myself to right this wrong.
Fortunately, in Arizona just ten days ago, I had met Steve Gardner, a fine writer from USAToday, an all-around good guy and a Cardinals fan from way back. I contacted Steve on Monday, explaining the problem, and by Tuesday, the database had been updated with the correct total.
The Cardinals are now properly ranked 13th with a 2009 opening day payroll of $88,528,409. Of course, this was a consistent point in time that preceded the big trades of the summer for Mark DeRosa and Matt Holliday.
Thanks to Steve and USAToday!
Brian, great detective work. You’re a natural!
Kind of a peripheral issue, but still something I wonder about whenever I see articles about MLB payrolls:
It’s hard for me to justify attaching much significance. In addition to the excellent point you raised about players who are being paid by their previous teams, the numbers don’t reflect in-season personnel moves in either direction. Teams don’t just add salaries, as you noted. They also shed them if the team isn’t in contention. And some players have much of their compensation tied up in performance bonuses, which is also left out.
In addition to all that, there’s no accounting for how much teams pay their managers and coaches. When Torre and TLR get paid millions more than most of their counterparts, and have the leverage to demand highly paid coaching staffs, we’re looking at the equivalent of a mid-range free agent.
An accurate opening-day payroll assessment would probably give us a glimpse of how teams see themselves going into the season — you figure teams with the highest payrolls expect to be in contention — but the current numbers don’t even seem useful in that very limited context.
Welcome, Lou! I was wondering where you have been lately…
You make some strong points, but it is only natural to look for something quick and dirty to make comparisons.
However in some past discussions, I have seen it badly misused. Folks with an agenda bent on attacking ownership purposely continued to make payroll comparisons off the Cardinals’ 2005 base that included Walker and Cedeno. Despite being shown the reason for the discrepancy, they used it over and over to “prove” ownership was cheap because it appeared the payroll was going down. People like that don’t respond to reason, while others too gullible or too busy to take the time to understand just accept it as gospel. Drives me nuts…
Here in 2009, the Cardinals made good on their “keeping some powder dry” pledge and added considerable salary during the season. After what happened during 2008 (nothing), I was skeptical. But this time they came through. As you note, the database history will never reflect those moves.
Here is another very recent article looking at marginal wins vs. payroll, using the USAToday salary database, of course. The view is that the rich teams are getting better results from their spending. It is most interesting reading, though one year does not establish a trend in my opinion.
“Moneyball: Dead, Alive, or on Life Support?”
Hi Lou.
Tthere is a thread over at the Scout message board about “old” posters that we would like to see come back. I can’t remember your screen name but I was thinking of you when I read that thread. We could use your input over there.
Thanks Diz — I appreciate the compliment. I was Bokonon over there for a while, and then for some reason I had to re-register under a different name, so I became Bokonon2.
I hardly ever post on sports message boards. I like the blog format, where there’s a single subject and you can give it some thought before you weigh in. I’ve been reading this one for months, and really enjoy the quality of Brian’s posts and the readers’ responses. Message boards, it seems to me, encourage a different level of discourse. It’s remarkable to see a thread get three or four responses without anyone being called an idiot or a Nazi. I get enough yelling and name-calling from my kids; I don’t need it on the Internet.
I’m sure the Scout board is better than most, but IIRC, at the time I stopped reading and posting, there were a couple of posters who couldn’t let go of their hatred of DeWitt and La Russa, as well as an entrenched resistance to statistical analysis. So if the thread was about David Eckstein, say, the conversation would get stuck on “he’s a gamer,” “DeWitt’s too cheap to win,” “but he hit .309!” or my favorite, “He throws funny.” For some weird reason, I remember a poster putting that into every thread.
Not that I was contributing anything special. I just lost interest.
Considering the topic of payroll grooming. All teams are acting standoffish about high profile players. That is to be expected. Todays Strauss/Mo interview goes much farther than that. It is meaningless to waste your breathe talking about your interests and then not offering a number to your own players. Any number at all. We need Smoltz as a possible closer. He would likely except a incentive laden contract………………..why not be fair. You are not hyping DeRosa by making a legit 2yr offer………or Holiday having some reason to come down on Boras. These statements, in my experience here, are just intended to suggest that we will move on these guys if the market gives them to us. Which it won’t. I would say that we are back on BD’s plan to stabilize payroll under 80 million. Be honest, their true intension is thought to be more important than accidentally having some guy except your offer as opposed to maybe looking cheap or disinterested by suggesting they take peanuts. Boras, along with many sports writers see St Louis differently than we hope. Would Smoltz take arbitration? DeRosa? They will surely risk it on Holiday. They are posturing now behind their bold mid season maneuver. Doesn’t seem wise to me. Dollar on a dime says they are going to keep “barrels” of dry powder this year, on the premise that they will do the same again this summer.
That’s a load of wisdom Westy. Hosing down Holliday with cash addresses what we think will be the need with what we hope will solve it. With all our young potential magicians we don’t really know what we’ll need next July. It would suck to blow it all on a guy now, have him do so-so, have a young stud rookie doing just as well, have other unforeseen pressing needs and see just what the Doctor ordered standing there at the curb showing leg.
I agree 100 percent with the Cardinals stance on Holliday. Whatever they offer will simply become the meets minimum for other clubs to beat. To think Boras would accept the first offer from the Cardinals, whatever the terms, would be incredibly naive. If the market doesn’t come back to the Cardinals, they won’t sign Holliday, is my expectation. As long as they don’t waste the entire winter with Holliday, passing up other players that could also help the 2010 team, I am ok with their approach.
It’s like all the boys standing around not wanting to be the first to ask the cute girl to dance, and trying to act nonchalant about it. The twist is that she’s let it be known the first will get shot down, but we know for certain she won’t go home alone.
I would ask her to do more than that BB!
If you offer Holiday 5/80. His wife, who just deliver 6 weeks early, might step on some toes. If the market stays complicated and the Yankees get him for 6/100, or even 6/90, where were we? All talk. I’m saying this to make a point. We never intended to keep Holiday. Why say he is still your priority, even into January, and then make excuses about why you missed all the other opportunities. Offer Smoltz something. He strikes people out.
Day after day, I’ve been reading about a new large market team that states that they aren’t looking to sign Matt Holliday and that the Cardinals may end up as the best suitor. You take that sort of thing with a grain of salt, of course, but there may be less competition than first expected for his services.
I’m fully with WC regarding Smoltz. Sign him to something reasonable. Install him as closer and move him into the rotation if absolutely needed.
Hi Nut, he said he liked it here. Make him an offer. His class makes us better, especially in the pen. Give him a latter to climb. I don’t think Holiday is worth more than 16 yearly. But he is worth that. Offer it to him. 5/80 6/96. Offer Smoltz 3 million as a base. Give him a line on 10 with a great season. If thats what we believe…..say so. Offer DeRosa 2/12. Nothing to be embarrassed by there.
I love Smoltzie, he is a warrior.
Hoping on DeRo’s return as well but Colby mentioned something about snowballs and hell so it may not be promising.
I’m surprised by the lack of interest in Glaus, judging by the thundering silence. He’s had trouble staying healthy, but so have lots of guys. I can understand the Cards indifference, but not the apparent total lack of interest by anyone.
He has expensive taste BB. Their are teams that need a 3 bagger. He will probably have to take an incentive based deal starting around 4.
RC, DeRosa is a the truest sign of change. The meaningless announcement of Freese having the inside track had only one purpose.
The Albert, Tony, MO, BDW and Albert management team might think that MM can be the DD of batting coaches, and follow the same strategy. Stand aside while the rich kids fight over the lookers, then find somebody with good bone structure and hope the plastic surgery is a success.
The Cards went after Holliday the way they went after Rolen. They wanted an impact veteran to be a core player and would offer a strong deal financially on the eve of free agency. Scott took the deal. Holliday was a friend of McGwire’s and Schumacker. The Cards hope he will accept their offer. The person in charge of making this decision is Matt Holliday. Players are responsible for their agents, not the other way around.
The Cards might try to be the top of the market for Pujols, but few other players. DeWitt made it known he would not be high bidder on Holliday. If it only becomes about money, we say thanks for the memories and move on. If Holliday does not sign by tomorrow, he will not be returning, but will be serving the Union’s efforts to pump up the salary scale by looking for a top of the market deal.
Holliday will be one of the financial pace-setters this winter. He will probably sign by mid December or earlier, helping define the market for smaller fry.
I think Mo said flat out he wouldn’t be making an offer to Holliday during the exclusive period. Does that mean we will not get any draft choices if he signs elsewhere, or can we make an offer later on and be eligible? With several A&B FA’s, seems like we are going to pass on several high picks. I know this was looked at a while back on TCNB.
bb, if you are a Scout.com/The Cardinal Nation subscriber, you can read a detailed article with my predictions on which players I think will be offered arbitration, which will not and why.
In Holliday’s case, the Cardinals have until 12/1 to offer him arbitration, which he will certainly turn down by the 12/7 due date. Then, they will get two picks if he signs elsewhere. If he signs before 12/1 (unlikely), the Cards will get two picks just as if they later offered arbitration.
What the offer of arbitration means is that the Cardinals are making a firm, one-year offer to Holliday. If he accepts, he is considered signed. The only open question is how much he would make. If they cannot agree on that by February, each side would present to an arbitration panel. The arbitrators would decide on one of the two submitted amounts for his one-year contract.
Having said all that, it is very, very rare for a veteran free agent to go that route and for Holliday, I would say there is almost zero odds of it happening.