Best MLB Management

[DGS49]

Well, the results are in, folks, and the most prudently-run major league baseball team in 2013 was the Houston Astros. On the other end of the spectrum - the worst spendthrifts were the NY Yankees.

If you want to look at the most efficacious organization, it was clearly the Oakland Athletics (honorable mention to my beloved Pirates), and the most conspicuousy foolish team was th Chicago White Sox.

What am I talking about? Cost per win. It is the easiest way to measure the "smarts" of a team's management. Divide the team's total payroll by the numer of wins.

The pathetic Astros managed to win 51 games with a relatively microscopic payroll of twenty-seven million dollars (the Yanks had a single player who made that much). Thus, it cost them about $500 thousand for each win. The Yankees spent $230 Million to amass a mere 85 wins: Two Point Seven Million per win. Which GM deserves an award?

The Oakland A's were probably the best of the lot, accumulating 96 wins with a below-average payroll of Sixty-five Million, for an average cost per win of about Seven Hundred Thou. Well done! The GM most deserving of a kick in the ass (don't know his name) works for the ChiSox. He spent $124Million to bring home a lousy 63 wins.

Although I would dispute the assertion that "Money can't buy happiness," it is abundantly clear that money can't buy a championship. Teams with excess money tend to spend it stupidly, giving long-term, inflated contracts to players who may be good, but aren't likely to be worth the same money in the long term. Team owners are like Country Club members. They take pride in being able and willing to spend ridiculous amounts of money on toys. At the CC, those toys usually have wheels (Ferrari F-type Jag, etc), but for MLB owners, the toys have names like Pujols, Rodriguez, and Sabathia. And they depreciate just as fast as a fancy car.

 

[Synthaholic]

I think Cost Per Win is a stupid way to evaluate. Those Yankee wins are about much more than what they cost in salary. The increased attendance, concessions, merchandizing, TV deals, etc., are huge factors.

 

[DGS49]

You have chosen a very poor example. The Yankees revenue stream, given the 15 or so million people who are in the SMSA of the Bronx, is guaranteed, regardless of how well they play. It is the mid-market teams whose attendance and revenues fluctuate seriously with success, for whom this measure ($/win) is most important.

There is nothing preventing the Yankees from pursuing success without spending a King's Ransom on the likes of A-Rod, Jeter, and Sabathia. They would just have to be SMARTER, like the A's. The fact that their success is so inconsistently manifest brings much joy throughout the remainder of the U.S. baseball world.

I am not the only one whose favorite team is, whoever is playing against the Yanks that day.

 

[rightwinger]

Its all about the bottom line

As much as I hate the Yankees, they make a boatload of money

 

[Synthaholic]

Hating the Yankees is all well and good, if that's your thing, but you cannot argue with success. And I'm talking as an organization, not a winning baseball team.

The Cubs never have championship seasons, yet their organization is hugely successful. Cost per win means nothing to them when they sell out Wrigley every game.

 

[Leweman]

on the point that money can't by championships, I would bet that only a few times in the last 30 -40 years has a team that wasn't in the top 10 or so in payroll won it all I know last year he Red Sox payroll was around 160 million. That's up there. San Francisco the year before had a payroll well over a hundred million too.

 

[TruthSeeker56]

Well, the results are in, folks, and the most prudently-run major league baseball team in 2013 was the Houston Astros. On the other end of the spectrum - the worst spendthrifts were the NY Yankees.

If you want to look at the most efficacious organization, it was clearly the Oakland Athletics (honorable mention to my beloved Pirates), and the most conspicuousy foolish team was th Chicago White Sox.

What am I talking about? Cost per win. It is the easiest way to measure the "smarts" of a team's management. Divide the team's total payroll by the numer of wins.

The pathetic Astros managed to win 51 games with a relatively microscopic payroll of twenty-seven million dollars (the Yanks had a single player who made that much). Thus, it cost them about $500 thousand for each win. The Yankees spent $230 Million to amass a mere 85 wins: Two Point Seven Million per win. Which GM deserves an award?

The Oakland A's were probably the best of the lot, accumulating 96 wins with a below-average payroll of Sixty-five Million, for an average cost per win of about Seven Hundred Thou. Well done! The GM most deserving of a kick in the ass (don't know his name) works for the ChiSox. He spent $124Million to bring home a lousy 63 wins.

Although I would dispute the assertion that "Money can't buy happiness," it is abundantly clear that money can't buy a championship. Teams with excess money tend to spend it stupidly, giving long-term, inflated contracts to players who may be good, but aren't likely to be worth the same money in the long term. Team owners are like Country Club members. They take pride in being able and willing to spend ridiculous amounts of money on toys. At the CC, those toys usually have wheels (Ferrari F-type Jag, etc), but for MLB owners, the toys have names like Pujols, Rodriguez, and Sabathia. And they depreciate just as fast as a fancy car.

Unlike everybody else in here, I happen to find your "formula" interesting.
It doesn't matter how much money a team has to spend on free agent "superstar" players.
What matters is how a team develops it's young players via their farm system.
What matters is how a team is able to mix in veteran players with their young home-grown players.
Oakland is a perfect example of how to construct a contending team, year-in and year-out, with a reasonable payroll and management that has a "formula" for plugging in the right pieces in the right places. They made a friggin' MOVIE about Oakland's way of doing things!
Houston is putting together a good young team using the same formula.
Tampa Bay is an AMAZING story. They have been a top tier team for MANY years, and have done it ON THE CHEAP.
Minnesota has been doing it on the cheap for DECADES.
The Yankees are PROOF that buying championships rarely works in today's baseball world.
Even the Red Sox and their unexpected run to World Series victory last season was a complete surprise. The Red Sox proved that PITCHING wins championships, and they did it without ANY "superstar" hitters.
Just look at the Angels and their bloated payroll and no championships. And the Yankees, of course. And the Tigers. And the White Sox. And the Phillies.

 

[DGS49]

As a fan of a small market team (the Pirates), I find it near discouraging how much money the rich bastards spend on players who are only a bit above mediocre.

The Pirates needed a mid-lineup addition over the winter, but the price for even 90 rbi man was so astronomical that they couldn't afford one. They couldn't afford to keep either Justin Morneau or Marlon Byrd and let's face it, neither one of them will ever drive in 100 again.

The small market teams have to continually bring new talent in from the minors, because as soon as the players develop into "stars" they will be gone to free agency.

Which is why $/win is a good yardstick of how "smart" a team is.