To you, what is a reasonable payroll for the Rangers?

by rangersfan34 on Feb 21, 2007 3:20 PM CST Comment 12 comments

With today's ongoing debate about the Michael Young contract situation, I'm curious what everybody believes to be a fair salary range for the team as a whole? If I'm not mistaken, I think our 2007 payroll will be around $70 million, which seems pretty low to me, based on the new economics of baseball. If we extend Young into the $13 million range, we're around $80 million, and we'd possibly push up near $90 million if Teixeira signed for somewhere around $17-$20 million/year after 2007. With a few players coming "off the books" after this season, I still think we'd have enough flexibility to sign someone like Torii Hunter (and possibly another starting pitcher) next off season without breaking the bank. Am I out of my mind to think the Rangers should have a payroll in the $90-$100 million range, or is the consensus that we should remain more fiscally conservative? If we go the cheaper route, can the Rangers win before 2010?

In addition to your thoughts, please vote in the poll to the right...

Poll

What should the Rangers payroll be?

Under $60 million

1 votes

$60-70 million

0 votes

$70-80 million

1 votes

$80-90 million

7 votes

$90-100 million

15 votes

$100 million or more

5 votes

29 votes | Poll has closed

0 recs | Comment 12 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

for 2007

I'd say Hicks could go to as much as $90 million, but he'd probably lose money because attendance won't go up until the team starts winning. Even if the team wins this year, attendance won't go up until late in the season. If it ticks up strongly you might see the payroll go up for 2008.

With all the money coming to teams from mlb.com, the new direct tv deal (by itself not a lot, but could pay for a reliever or 1st year arb-eligible perhaps), that payroll should be at about $100 million for 2008. Not that Hicks cares a whit what I think...

by t ball on Feb 21, 2007 3:28 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I'd say...

$120 million. I don't know why, it's just a nice round number.

by hiafex on Feb 21, 2007 3:35 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Payroll

Payroll doesn't interest me as much as the overall player budget including our Latin American efforts and drafted players. Rather than fork over for a mediocre vet now, I'd rather us grab the best talent we can and stock the minor leagues, that is the only way we will ever have a consistent winner.

by pblack on Feb 21, 2007 3:42 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I'm not familiar with everyone's contracts

Who comes off the books after this year?

When all else fails, there's always delusion. - Conan O'Brien

by mtex on Feb 21, 2007 3:46 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Hmmm... good question.

I checked that hardball dollars site, but it doesn't look like it's been updated.

Off the top of my head, here's who I think comes off the books after this year:
Gagne, Lofton and Wilkerson.

I think that's it, unless you wanna count the minor league contract guys (Sosa, Chen, Hairston, ect.).

Our infield is set, so are Liard, Cruz and Botts. Our rotation is all under control for multiple years. Otsuka has a few years left.

Am I missing someone?

"One must scape to farthest north part of Togo to be safe from robot leaders."

by thedirkatron on Feb 21, 2007 3:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

If A-Rod Opts Out...

His liability will come off the books as well.

by Austin Ranger on Feb 21, 2007 6:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

payroll

one milllllion dollars!

but seriously, i think payroll should be a dynamic number that changes with the market. Like with all the crazy tv contracts and spending going on, i say 90mil is a good payroll.

But as was said above, i'd be fine if the payroll was lower and extra funds were diverted to latin america and other scouting.

Pimps be damned, it's harder out here for a Rangers fan!

by rentz on Feb 21, 2007 3:58 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

id be happy at 85 million

increasing a few mil a year.

thats fairly conservative, but at least a decent effort.

and of course since its not my money id be more than fine with hicks putting up a 300 million payroll for all i care.

by DSheppard on Feb 21, 2007 4:01 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I want Bill Gates to buy the team

and show a heretofore unseen laissez-faire attitude towards profit. Realistically, though, it seems to me that Hicks could afford a payroll in the $100 million range, if the quality of product on the field kept up with that level of spending.

by a bebop a rebop on Feb 21, 2007 5:02 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I think I would be happy if

Hicks would just sale the team to someone who can actually look for sources of revenue outside of how many tickets that are sold.

by shallrelicme on Feb 21, 2007 7:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

or

a guy who would spend money on the teams he already owns instead of going off and buying a premiere league team

Pimps be damned, it's harder out here for a Rangers fan!

by rentz on Feb 21, 2007 7:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Based on DFW

Hicks is no different from most owners in the league in that he wants to make a profit and have a consistently good team. Arrange those two how you want, but that's pretty much the goal. This means that you have to look at what their revenue is before you can say how much their payroll should be.

Buying him some forgiveness is that he lost a ton of money (problably more than $20-30 million a year) when he first bought the team and tried to buy his way to a championship. Unfortunately, we're still paying $7 million a year for A-Rod to be the Yankees best hitter. Also, there have only been a couple of big names in free agency since then and it's been hard to convince them to come here.

HOWEVER, there is some funny business going on here. From 2004-2006, the Rangers definetly made money. Even though their attendance has been constant (at a league average rate) for the past few years, ticket prices have gone up. Also, as far as local TV contracts are concerned, DFW recently moved up into the 5th spot for TV markets in the COUNTRY. There are 6 million people in the metroplex, and the Rangers have had better TV ratings than their attendance would indicate over the past couple years. (Some blame this on afternoon starts when it is too hot outside.) I don't have any of the exact numbers, but I think Hicks has made back the money he originally lost and will be ready to increase the payroll again over the next few years (Young/Tex extensions, A-Rod opting out?, probably a big name OF).

Here's something else to consider. The Angels payroll is over $100 million and the guys over at lookoutlanding.com recently commented about a local article saying that the Mariners salary for this year is $111 million ($20 million increase). The A's salary has even gone up to the $65-70 million range recently (probably from revenue sharing). There is simply no good reason for the Rangers to maintain a salary over a long period of time that is closer to that of Oakland than to that of Seattle and LAA. Obviously, spending money doesn't always means success. But it sure could help...

Ranger's 2008-2009 Average Salary: $99 million

by GhettoBear04 on Feb 21, 2007 9:23 PM CST reply actions 0 recs