Where Would the Jays Payroll Spending Limit Would Be Today Without the Marlins Trade?

[nutz003]

The Marlins trade with the Jays is a highly debated topic. I am just curious on people's thoughts on what they think the Blue Jays spending limit would be on payroll today if that deal never happened.

I think it was in the $80 millions at that point, and the deal caused ownership to open the pocket books to a $ amount they hadn't previously reached, one can assume, because they thought the deal made them an instant contender, which pushed payroll up to around $130 million. $50 million is a very substantial increase.

 

Would we be anywhere near that range without the trade?

[TheHurl]

The Marlins trade with the Jays is a highly debated topic. I am just curious on people's thoughts on what they think the Blue Jays spending limit would be on payroll today if that deal never happened.

I think it was in the $80 millions at that point, and the deal caused ownership to open the pocket books to a $ amount they hadn't previously reached, one can assume, because they thought the deal made them an instant contender, which pushed payroll up to around $130 million. $50 million is a very substantial increase.

 

Would we be anywhere near that range without the trade?

 

The rumour is that the Jays were given free license to spend in 2011 and chose not to. I'm guessing that if they didn't spend it by now and were still getting poor results that AA would be fired. Kind of funny that he did spend and to this point it hasn't worked, but he still has a job (the team increasing it's value probably is a good reason for that).

[Mikeleelop]

I don't see a cause effect here?

[AdamGreenwood]

The Marlins trade with the Jays is a highly debated topic. I am just curious on people's thoughts on what they think the Blue Jays spending limit would be on payroll today if that deal never happened.

I think it was in the $80 millions at that point, and the deal caused ownership to open the pocket books to a $ amount they hadn't previously reached, one can assume, because they thought the deal made them an instant contender, which pushed payroll up to around $130 million. $50 million is a very substantial increase.

 

Would we be anywhere near that range without the trade?

 

It's obvious you work for the government.

In government, you get a year-end-budget. If you don't spend it by the end of the year, they assume you don't need it, and decrease it for the following year.

So each year, in November and December, government departments heads go out and spend a boatload of money on the stupidest s*** they can find, in order to claim they can't possibly afford a budget reduction.

 

You're using the same logic here. You think that somehow by blowing $40 million a year, on Buehrle and Reyes, we've improved the situation by showing Rogers how dependent we are on a big payroll.

It's horribly flawed logic. Rogers is a corporation. Attendance and profit are what drive the payroll - not previous expenses.

[nutz003]

I am just wondering without the trade would payroll have been allowed to go as high as it has. Did the trade precipitate the an even higher increase in payroll than would have been allowed otherwise, given that ownership must have felt they had a shot at, at least making the playoffs and possibly more.

The cause is the trade allowing greater spending (salaries of players in the deal, Dickey whom the likely wouldn't have traded for without the deal, Cabrera) which put their payroll in uncharted territory for the Jays in terms of spending.

The effect being the fact that they are working with a $140 million payroll today, instead of an $80 million, $100 million or even $110 million dollar payroll. Would they be in the position that they are now, which is to have a $120 million payroll and to continue to add upwards of $20 million in additional players.

[nutz003]

It's obvious you work for the government.

In government, you get a year-end-budget. If you don't spend it by the end of the year, they assume you don't need it, and decrease it for the following year.

So each year, in November and December, government departments heads go out and spend a boatload of money on the stupidest s*** they can find, in order to claim they can't possibly afford a budget reduction.

 

You're using the same logic here. You think that somehow by blowing $40 million a year, on Buehrle and Reyes, we've improved the situation by showing Rogers how dependent we are on a big payroll.

It's horribly flawed logic. Rogers is a corporation. Attendance and profit are what drive the payroll - not previous expenses.

 

What do you think increased the attendence and profit that year? The hype created by the aquisitions, more people in the seats to see a team that was remade, jersey sales of new players, etc. You don't think this was part of the reason they allowed such a dramatic increase to occur? They had to have figured it would payoff for them.

[Mikeleelop]

I think your logic is flawed. You assume that if the trade was not made that no other payroll would be added

[nutz003]

No I think other payroll would have been added, but not an extra $50 million in payroll. My guess is that today it would probably be in the $110 million range, not $140 million.

[JFD]

I ated the purple berries

[nutz003]

Where do you think the payroll limit would be at today without the trade?

[JFD]

Where do you think the payroll limit would be at today without the trade?

 

it tastes like burning

[Jimcanuck]

It's obvious you work for the government.

In government, you get a year-end-budget. If you don't spend it by the end of the year, they assume you don't need it, and decrease it for the following year.

So each year, in November and December, government departments heads go out and spend a boatload of money on the stupidest s*** they can find, in order to claim they can't possibly afford a budget reduction.

 

You're using the same logic here. You think that somehow by blowing $40 million a year, on Buehrle and Reyes, we've improved the situation by showing Rogers how dependent we are on a big payroll.

It's horribly flawed logic. Rogers is a corporation. Attendance and profit are what drive the payroll - not previous expenses.

 

It's obvious you don't work for the govt. If there is surplus funds available, it either is unspent or used to purchase necessary items in advance. For example, if 6 large concrete culverts are to be replaced in 2015, and there is surplus funds available, the culverts will be purchased in advance and the contractor installing them picks them up from a yard.

 

Don't spout about things you don't know about.

[ElNik2013]

It would depend on what direction the team was headed (i.e. if they were rebuilding or trying to contend).

 

I think your assumption is wrong. AA went into that off season knowing that upper management expected him to make moves to sell tickets, interest and higher tv ratings instead of going into 2013 expected to lose 90-100 games.

 

Basically, you have it backwards.

[Jimcanuck]

Fact is, not many would be complaining about the Marlins trade had Josh Johnson worked out and Bonifacio been half decent

 

Risk/reward