Little Green Yoda
Member
You're always going to have diminishing returns when the superstars are getting $25M+ per year while pre-arb superstars in the making make less than a million per year. That in itself isn't the issue. The problem lies when a team starts spending frivolously because they think they can outspend any mistakes they make. It's one thing to have a safety net with a large payroll - testing that safety net time and time again is where you get yourself into trouble.I'm trying to decide if it's actually possible to intelligently spend 200M on a team.
I don't mean to suggest that money is worthless in baseball. Clearly it isn't. But at some point the returns become profoundly diminishing, and it seems to me that a team would be much better off not spending money and keeping their farm system intact than spending just because they're "supposed to" and buying up expensive, aging, injury prone all stars at the expense of their draft picks.
If I had to guess, it feels like being a mid-tier franchise is best right now, if run competently. Not enough money to be fast and loose with your drafting, but enough that you can keep a few stars if some blossom.
The poster child for high payrolls in baseball would be the Yankees - they reeled off 4 championships in 5 years during the late 90s and have been competitive every season in recent memory. It helps that the players they invested in have turned out well (Rivera, Jeter, Petitte, Sabathia, and pre-extension ARod). There's probably a couple stinkers in there that I'm not remembering though.