Money Spent On Players in 2011, By Team

Frankly, I'm surprised that this long after the draft that this hasn't been done already.  I'm merely combining the draft bonus totals and the payroll totals of the MLB teams and adding them together (ESPN for salaries and BA for draft bonuses).  That way, we get the amount of money spent on ballplayers in 2011 by MLB teams without counting the small amount minor league players make outside of bonuses.  

1. Yankees $203,178, 860

2. Phillies $ 177,666, 181

3. Red Sox $ 171,236, 176

4. Angels $ 142,317, 124

5. Cubs $ 138,375, 213

6. White Sox $ 132,071, 839

7. Mets $ 126,929,811

8. Giants $124,050,333

9. Twins $ 118,639,300

10. Tigers $ 108,583,932

11. Dodgers $ 107,298,291

12. Cardinals $ 103,300,072

13. Mariners $96,196,100

14. Rangers $ 96,078,265 

15. Orioles $93,736,138

16. Brewers $ 93,006,633

17. Rockies $91,965,971

18. Braves $90,738,892

19. Reds $82,560,266

20. lAstros $75,514,800

21. Nationals $72,895,029

22. Blue Jays $72,614,300

23. Athletics $68,342,800

24.Diamondbacks $65,569,833

25. Pirates $62,635,700

26. Marlins $60,662,000

27. Indians$56,564,167       

28. Padres $56475640

29. Rays $53,415,071

30. Royals $49,778,400

As you can see, with the draft spending included, most things don't change.  The Yankees are still in a class of their own, and the Phillies (surprisingly to me in second, I assumed Red Sox) could take on half of what the Royals spent and still be in 2nd place.  The Cubs move ahead of their chicago brethren in money spent because the Cubs spent a decent chunk of change on the draft and the White Sox spent the least, (less than we spent on picks NOT named Cole or Bell).  In terms of "places" the Mariners jumped the most, up 5 from 18th in MLB payroll to 13th in this exercise.  The Braves dropped from 15th to 18th.  

What does this tell us about Pirates spending?  Well, they still are fairly low spenders at 25th out of 30, but as a %, the difference between them and the "mid tier spenders" decreases quite a bit.  On MLB payroll, we spent a little less than 54% what the Brewers, the 16th placed team spent, but in this exercise we spent a little more than 67% what the 16th placed team, still the Brewers, spent.

 Probably the most useful, (and hopeful) example listed on this chart is the Oakland A's.  With a payroll in MLB of $65,275,500, they have the kind of payroll that many fans have been yearning for for years.  The type of payroll that a lot of those same fans claim that the Pirates would never be willing to pay under public Cheap-O #1 Bob Nutting.  The fact is though, that in the amount of money spent on players this year, the Pirates spent only around $5.5 million less than the A's.   That means that if you treat the draft and MLB spending as part of one budget, (which the Pirates officially claim not to do, but for the sake of this exercise just to have fun we'll do it) then if the Pirates for some stupid reason decided to only spend as much as the A's on the draft, and still planned to spend the same amount of money overall on players, they would have fielded a team with a $59,568,400 payroll to spend the same amount of money as they did this season.   Now, I'd argue that it wouldn't have been smart to field such a payroll going into this season when it looked like we had no shot at contending, but the fact is that Bob Nutting has already shown he will spend that kind of money on players, and that is why so many of us here at Bucs Dugout believe that when the time comes to up payroll for a team that is a true contender, he very well may put up the money needed.

UPDATE: It has come to my attention via Mr. E that the Pirates have spent closer to $52 Million in payroll to go along with the 17 million in the draft, which combined with Latin American signings puts the Pirates over $70 million dollars spent on players this year.

This is the better link to Pirates spending on MLB payroll provided by Pirates Prospects

http://www.piratesprospects.com/2010/10/2011-pittsburgh-pirates-40-man-roster-and-payroll.html

Thankfully, because of the direction of my mistake in using ESPN for my financial numbers, my point isn't nullified but further underscored.