# # #
There have, at times, been conversations about raising the salary cap. You know what I mean, right? Release the pressure? Open things up a bit? Maybe soak up the excess cash out there in a different way?
This article isn’t about that.
I mean, to be honest, I’m not sure how moving the cap would make things better or worse, but I admit I find more compelling arguments for staying the course. So, no, I’m not going to talk about any movement. Nor am I going to dwell on folks at the top of the cap—which a lot of people say is where you’ll find the movers and shakers—this, of course, despite the fact that last year’s Landis winner’s payroll was “only” $102M (defeating YS9’s $111.5M) and the year before Las Vegas won on a payroll of only $90.7M (beating an even more austere Louisville at $74.8M). In 2039, Jacksonville at $103.7M beat Calgary’s $94M in the Landis. A year before that, Edmonton’s $94M payroll beat Vegas’s behemoth $111M staff.
(Aside: All of these values are “after bonuses” numbers, hence can be over the $110M salary cap)
The bottom line is that the correlation between a team’s use of payroll, while interesting, does not seem to be particularly compelling as a reason to pick a winner when it comes to the Landis.
Add to this, the cases of Montreal, Twin Cities, and Wichita this year.
Which, of course, is the purpose of this feature.
Here is the required chart: I created it by tabulating each team’s variance from average payroll (which is $87.8M) as I write this—pre-bonuses, of course. I then listed those values by standings rank—in other words, Division Leader at the top.
So, yes, look at Montreal (whose payroll is really $51M under the average). Look at Twin Cities. At Wichita.
Admittedly, it’s only mid-May, so the rankings could well be suffering from sample size, but recent conversation around the league suggests a sense that Montreal and Twin Cities’s starts are possibly an indicator of something real, while the jury is still out for Wichita. Take that for whatever it’s worth. Regardless, all three of these teams are running massively sub-average payrolls, and all three are playing winning baseball. (To give an idea of the magnitude of the payroll deficit these guys are running, if you take them out of the league, the BBA average payroll would jump $5M/team, from $87M to $92M.)
If one of these teams will keep the Anti-Payroll pedal to the metal for the whole season and walks into the post season, well … folks might just think that GM was really sick and they won’t follow him. But if two of them do it, well, maybe they’ll think those two were just an interesting pair, and still just let ‘m pass on by. But if all three of them do it…well…can you imagine, three teams walking into the post season singing a tune with this kind of Anti-Payroll sentiment, and ten walking out? Well, friends, if three teams manage the trick, then they may think it's a movement. And that's what it would be, the Montreal, Twin Cities, Aviators Anti-Payroll Movement!
Hmm…okay…sorry about that.
For just a moment I felt the need to sing along.
Kinda.
With feeling.
Anyway, where was I? I dunno what this will mean in the end. You can make up your own damned mind, though a few questions hit me:
- How much of this is fueled but these guys drafting in that but 2037-2039 time period? If a lot, is this approach sustainable over the seasons?
- Are these three teams true candidates for long runs?
- Assuming their payrolls rise in 2043 and beyond, how much will be in Free Agents and how much will be to keep their kids in the organization?
- What will three teams with this kind of cash to throw around do in the draft and International Free Agent markets?
Of further note, Charm City is also running a fairly large deficit relative to the league, and while they have struggled to start the season, they were a bit of a media darling in some corners to be a team that, led by the sublime Wilson Andrade, might make big waves in the Atlantic.
So, what does that mean?
If Wichita fades like the pundits think they might, and Charm City rises into its place, does that change the conversation?
I don’t have the answers to any of these questions, but I’m looking at the situation, and I’m intrigued.
