Do The Large Markets Have An Unfair Advantage?

The New York Yankees organization has become the poster child for the never-ending deep pocket spending large market teams. Almost every year the “Evil Yankee Empire” spends more money on several large contracts then the GNP of some small countries. And, inevitably, once this happens, you can hear the loud groans reverberate across the baseball landscape.

The average baseball fan assumes that it is the ability of the large markets to sign big money free agents that basically unbalances baseball. But free agency has only been around since 1975, so that doesn’t readily explain the previous years the large markets (especially the Yankees) dominated. If anything, the Yankees have slowed down since free agency began, having won “only” 7 championships in 36 years.

The 3 largest market teams have actually been pretty successful at keeping a great core group of players intact that initially come up through their system. The Yankees have had Derek Jeter, Mariano Rivera, Jorge Posada, Andy Pettitte, Bernie Willams and even Phil Hughes. The Phillies have had Chase Utley, Ryan Howard, Cole Hamels, Ryan Madson and Jimmy Rollins. The Red Sox have had Dustin Pedroia, Kevin Youkilis, Jonathan Papelbon, Jon Lester and Jacoby Ellsbury.

Some people would use the winners of the World Series as an example of this large market unfair advantage, but how do you explain nine different champions in the past eleven years? Wouldn’t the largest markets be repeat winners more than that?

Other people would blindly say that the playoffs are filled only with teams that can afford the higher payrolls (IE large market teams). This years’ world series was actually a clash of the 11^th highest payroll versus the 13^th highest (see list below). Also, two teams from the bottom ten payroll bracket made it to the playoffs, the Arizona Diamondbacks at 25^th and the Rays at 29^th. This is the same number of teams from the top ten payroll bracket (Yanks & Phils). I won’t even mention the number three payroll team from 2011 (coincidentally also the number two payroll team from 2010) not making the playoffs two straight years!

2011 Team payroll figures provided by USA Today:

TEAM Name	TOTAL PAYROLL
Top Ten Payrolls
New York Yankees	$ 202,689,028
Philadelphia Phillies	$ 172,976,379
Boston Red Sox	$ 161,762,475
Los Angeles Angels	$ 138,543,166
Chicago White Sox	$ 127,789,000
Chicago Cubs	$ 125,047,329
New York Mets	$ 118,847,309
San Francisco Giants	$ 118,198,333
Minnesota Twins	$ 112,737,000
Detroit Tigers	$ 105,700,231
Middle Ten Payrolls
St. Louis Cardinals	$ 105,433,572
Los Angeles Dodgers	$ 104,188,999
Texas Rangers	$ 92,299,264
Colorado Rockies	$ 88,148,071
Atlanta Braves	$ 87,002,692
Seattle Mariners	$ 86,524,600
Milwaukee Brewers	$ 85,497,333
Baltimore Orioles	$ 85,304,038
Cincinnati Reds	$ 75,947,134
Houston Astros	$ 70,694,000
Bottom Ten Payrolls
Oakland Athletics	$ 66,536,500
Washington Nationals	$ 63,856,928
Toronto Blue Jays	$ 62,567,800
Florida Marlins	$ 56,944,000
Arizona Diamondbacks	$ 53,639,833
Cleveland Indians	$ 49,190,566
San Diego Padres	$ 45,869,140
Pittsburgh Pirates	$ 45,047,000
Tampa Bay Rays	$ 41,053,571
Kansas City Royals	$ 36,126,000

Let’s look at the bottom of the payroll list for a moment. The Pirates have not been in the playoffs for years and have had top draft picks for quite some time now. Another team that had just as many top draft picks along with them has become a perennial division/playoff contender since 2008. I am referring to the Tampa Rays. Why the difference between the two organizations? Drafting players is all about evaluating talent. Tampa obviously can while Pittsburgh would seem to have problems doing so. The Pirates also regularly seem to throw money away to mediocre free agents who add nothing to their core team. If an organization can’t evaluate talent in the draft, talent in the minors and talent in the majors, why would the amount of money they have to spend change the outcome? Having more money would only mean your failures are costing more (just ask the New York Mets about the truth of that statement).

For most organizations in baseball, the team goes through a cycle of not being truly competitive for 3-4 years and then ramping up to be competitive for 2-3 years. It coincides with the development of their home grown talent and then that talent breaking up. If anything, I think that since the larger markets are capable of keeping a great core of players intact longer, that is where the true advantage lies. Then the large market teams can target and add free agents to that core group as needed. Small markets have to be more nimble and creative since their core group breaks up and they usually only have a window of opportunity to win.

So to wrap it up, yes I think the larger market teams do have an advantage, just not one where you would have initially thought.