I did an evaluation of how much the Royals spend on players relative to revenues and in comparison to other teams. Is it enough? Should they spend more?
I did an evaluation of how much the Royals spend on players relative to revenues and in comparison to other teams. Is it enough? Should they spend more?
11 comments
High payroll means nothing if it’s on a bunch of bad contracts. The Mets are the prime example. On the other hand, the Dodgers spend a ton, the guys are actually good, and they make hand over fist in profits.
I’d rather them be transactional and get value. The dollar amount means nothing to me as a fan.
Ownership comparatively speakIng spends well on payroll; about 51% or so of revenue I believe. Would be nice to bump that up to 55-60 ish just to get guys like Garcia and some of our SP on a longer contract…and Estévez
$3
Hey, the idea of treating Forbes revenue estimate as fact is silly.
Most money spent I would hope is invested in locking up our own younger guys as opposed to free agency. Whatever the market price is for a current Royals player, that we overspend a bit for an extra year(s). So I guess what I’m saying is that if KC has a Top 5 or Top 10 payroll, I prefer it is because we have a lot of good homegrown talent on long-term deals. Not because we added $60-70 million on some free agent pitchers and a bat.
I say this because I’m old and remember Bret Saberhagen being traded. Carlos Beltran. Great Royals that you could build around, just leave and be awesome elsewhere. David Cone. Jermaine Dye. Greinke. Watching the Cain/Hosmer/Moustakas/Gordon/Salvy core just float away a couple years after a ring, was… something.
Enough to gets the team needs. Outfield needs help and you can never have enough arms.
$500 million
There seriously needs to be a better way to small market teams to generate even comparable revenue to big markets
Double the current payroll.
