I was thinking about payroll versus performance, and the place of the Rangers over the past ten years.  For instance, the Rangers have the 9th lowest payroll in baseball (just over 68 million) and currently the worst record.  Realistically, that payroll will be considerably lower next season.

Realistically, much of this payroll could be gone next season.  For instance:

1.  Vicente Padilla - If he continues to pitch at an average to above average value, then there is little question that he will be traded before the deadline.  An average to above average pitcher for 12 million next season and with an option for 12 million in 2010 is a steal.  But, if the Rangers do not consider themselves to be in the race at the deadline and think that next season will also be a rebuilding year, then this would be the time to trade Padilla for the best package.

(68 million - 11 million = 57 million)

2.  Hank Blalock - I have little doubt that Blalock will be traded at the deadline if he hits and doesn't get hurt.  His contract is extremely cheap and his 6.2 million option for next season is a steal.

(57 million - 6 million = 51 million)

3.  Milton Bradley - Hopefully he'll be traded, but regardless he's gone next season and it's questionable whether the Rangers will refill his position through free agency.

(51 million - 5.25 million = 45.75 million)

If only the Rangers move these three players at the deadline, then suddenly the payroll has dropped to under 46 million dollars, and therefore would only be higher than two other teams, the Rays (44 million) and the Marlins (22 million).

Now, whenever you consider the very real possibility that this team could trade Kevin Millwood (if he continues to pitch at this level he will get plenty of offers), Frank Catalanotto, Joaquin Benoit, Marlon Byrd, Gerald Laird, etc. then this team's payroll could easily approach 30 million (probably 45 or million when pro-rated), and even with standard pay increases and the additional of second and third tier free agents, the team's payroll could still be around the 45 million mark next season. 

For a team that has a Forbes estimated value of $412 million, that's somewhat low.  Considering that the team had an estimated revenue of 172 million, and an operating income of 17.2 million, you have to wonder where the money went (I know, I know, it's currently being spent in Liverpool).

So how has payroll related to MLB standing for the Rangers this decade (a period over which they have been rather terrible)?

2000 - 61 million (10th in MLB) / 71-91 (12th in AL) / Attendance - 5th in AL
2001 - 88.5 million (7th in MLB) / 73-89 (10th in AL) / Attendance - 5th in AL
2002 - 105.3 million (3rd in MLB) / 78-84 (10th in AL) / Attendance - 6th in AL
2003 - 104.5 million (4th in MLB) / 71-91 (10th in AL) / Attendance - 7th in AL
2004 - 54.8 million (17th in MLB) / 89-73 (6th in AL) / Attendance - 6th in AL
2005 - 55.8 million (21st in MLB) / 79-83 (9th in AL) / Attendance - 6th in AL
2006 - 68.2 million (18th in MLB) / 80-82 (9th in AL) / Attendance - 7th in AL
2007 - 68.3 million (21st in MLB) / 75-87 (9th in AL) / Attendance - 8th in AL

What sticks out in these numbers?  First, despite payroll the team has consistently been around 9th or 10th overall in the AL.  Clearly though, attendance has slowly declined (2.3 million in 2007 as compared to over 2.6 million in 2000).  So far this season, the Rangers attendance has been 11th (out of 14) in the AL, and unless the team does something miraculous over the next few months you wouldn't expect those numbers to rise.

I think it's very possible that this team could not only be among the bottom three payrolls in the American league next season, but that they could also be among the bottom three in attendance.  Here's to 2011, right?