The Teams With the Most Committed Money, By Year
All of the numbers that I’m about to dive into are subject to change — they will change mightily, and rapidly, as the proverbial baseball stove reaches nearer to its sizzling apex. Still, I was curious to know: which of baseball’s teams have committed the most money from this point forward?
Some baseball teams have access to vast resources — vast even when compared to other Major League teams — but none has access to infinite sums. The teams who have committed the most money from this point forward are the most likely to make advances towards premier free agents, or the most likely to lucratively extend their own young talents: these are the teams with money to spend. And yet, paradoxically, these same teams are in some ways the least likely to make the same advances: the outsized financial commitments they giddily made in the past could be the very thing that forces a team into conservative stewardship from here on out. The further we advance into the future, the more the severity of certain long-term contracts becomes apparent. That ink might as well be cast in concrete.
Tabulations courtesy of spotrac. Arbitration figures are not included because they are ultimately unknowable, and rookie contracts are not included because they are too small to be bothered with amidst this mighty storm of money.
2015: Los Angeles Dodgers — $200.5M
| Player | Cap Figure |
|---|---|
| Clayton Kershaw | $32.5M |
| Zack Greinke | $25.0M |
| Adrian Gonzalez | $21.8M |
| Carl Crawford | $21.3M |
| Matt Kemp | $21.2M |
| Andre Ethier | $18.0M |
| Dan Haren | $10.0M |
| Brian Wilson | $9.0M |
| Brandon League | $8.5M |
| Juan Uribe | $7.5M |
| Alexander Guerrero | $6.5M |
| Yasiel Puig | $6.2M |
| J.P. Howell | $5.5M |
| Hyun-Jin Ryu | $4.8M |
| Joel Peralta | $2.5M |
Also-Rans: New York Yankees, $171.7M / Los Angeles Angels, $143.2M / Boston Red Sox, $130.3M
Most Prudent: Houston Astros, $18.8M
Suddenly it becomes clear why the Dodgers have hired renowned small-market minds Andrew Friedman and Farhan Zaidi: in all of their forthcoming transactions, the Dodgers must actually act like a small-market team. The Washington Nationals, who possess the tenth-largest stack of committed money, at $96.9M, don’t owe even half of the Dodgers’ awe-inspiring payroll. Even the second-place Yankees are trailing by the length of an ultramax free agent. Unless the Dodgers are primed to ramp up baseball’s talent markets to exponentially higher price, they no longer have the luxury to “outspend” their mistakes.
2016: New York Yankees – $170.7M
| Player | Cap Figure |
|---|---|
| C.C. Sabathia | $25.0M |
| Mark Teixeira | $23.1M |
| Masahiro Tanaka | $22.0M |
| Jacoby Ellsbury | $21.1M |
| Alex Rodriguez | $21.0M |
| Brian McCann | $17.0M |
| Carlos Beltran | $15.0M |
| Brett Gardner | $13.5M |
| Martin Prado | $11.0M |
| Brendan Ryan | $2.0M |
Also-Rans: Los Angeles Dodgers, $165.5M / Los Angeles Angels, $128.1M / Detroit Tigers, $119.8M
Most Prudent: Miami Marlins, $9.0M
Behold the decaying colossus. All of the albatrosses who weighed down the Yankees in their ultimately unsuccessful pursuit of the 2014 playoffs will still be around in 2016. The Yankees missed the playoffs in each of the last two seasons, the first time that’s happened since 1992 and 1993. While it’s felt like an aberration to not see the Yankees there, the above table shows that it will take some imaginative work to prevent it from becoming a trend.
2017: Los Angeles Dodgers – $168.0M
| Player | Cap Figure |
|---|---|
| Clayton Kershaw | $35.5M |
| Zack Greinke | $25.0M |
| Adrian Gonzalez | $22.3M |
| Carl Crawford | $21.8M |
| Matt Kemp | $21.7M |
| Andre Ethier | $18.0M |
| Yasiel Puig | $8.2M |
| Hyun-Jun Ryu | $7.8M |
| Alexander Gurrero | $7.5M |
| Joel Peralta | $2.5M (club option) |
Also-Rans: Detroit Tigers, $106.8M / Texas Rangers, $99.1M / New York Yankees, $93.6M
Most Prudent: Houston Astros, $6.6M
While the Yankees slide into comparative salary relief, the Dodgers soar up to about 160% of the second-most-committed team’s salary. Even if the Dodgers just trotted out these nine men, this would have been the seventh-highest-paid team of 2014. Recent playoff contestants the Pittsburgh Pirates ($29.2M) and the Oakland A’s ($14.2M) enter amongst the ranks of the five most prudent teams.
2018: Los Angeles Dodgers – $140.2M
| Player | Cap Figure |
|---|---|
| Clayton Kershaw | $35.5M |
| Zack Greinke | $26.0M |
| Adrian Gonzalez | $22.3M |
| Matt Kemp | $21.7M |
| Andre Ethier | $17.5M (club option) |
| Yasiel Puig | $9.2M |
| Hyun-Jin Ryu | $7.8M |
Also-Rans: Detroit Tigers, $107.0M / Texas Rangers, $90.0M / Boston Red Sox, $82.2M
Most Prudent: Oakland A’s, $4.3M
This is the last time we see either of these two too-decadent teams, promise. Also keep in mind that the Dodgers will likely enter the arbitration process with Puig, as is discussed by Dave Cameron in his 2014 Trade Value Rankings — so the money that would be saved by declining Ethier’s option can assumed to be headed Puig’s way instead. What is striking me now is that the Texas Rangers are really in a precarious position. While the Dodgers and Yankees are spending perhaps a skosh more than they have to in order to field their above-average-but-not-elite teams, the Rangers have committed to the core of a last-place team deep, deep into the future.
2019 and 2020: Texas Rangers – $67.7M, $69.2M
| Player | 2019 Cap Figure | 2020 Cap Figure |
|---|---|---|
| Prince Fielder | $24.0M | $24.0M |
| Shin-Soo Choo | $21.0M | $21.0M |
| Elvis Andrus | $15.2M | $15.2M |
| Martin Perez | $7.5M | $9.0M |
2019 Also-Rans: Boston Red Sox, $67.4M / Los Angeles Angels, $62.0M / New York Yankees, $58.1M
2020 Also-Rans: Los Angeles Angels, $63.0M / Cincinnati Reds, $55.7M / Detroit Tigers, $52.0M
By signing Hanley Ramirez and Pablo Sandoval this week, the Red Sox are so close to the Rangers in 2019 committed salary that the distinction is surely washed away at income tax time. But mostly it would appear that the Rangers’ offseason from 2013-14 is singular in its catastrophe. The Dodgers and the Yankees have been well outpaced, and the Angels only rank so high because they will finally be compensating Mike Trout at a “fair” rate for his legendary production. By 2020, seven teams — including the Philadelphia Phillies and the Toronto Blue Jays — are on the books for $0.00.
2021: TIE – Detroit Tigers and Los Angeles Angels – $30.0M
| Player | Cap Figure |
|---|---|
| Miguel Cabrera | $30.0M |
| Albert Pujols | $30.0M |
Also-Rans: Miami Marlins, $29.0M / Cincinnati Reds, $25.0M / Seattle Mariners, $24.0M
These contracts should strike fear into your bones. The sheer length of the Pujols contract begins to become something other than an academic exercise. This is massive. Even Trout will be a free agent at this point, no doubt signing for billions of GalactaBucks in this brave baseball future. There are only 16 players under contract for this season, and none of them to the same team. Most interesting: with $13M owed first baseman Jon Singleton, the Astros have more money committed in 2021 than they do in 2017.
2022: Detroit Tigers – $32.0M
| Player | Cap Figure |
|---|---|
| Miguel Cabrera | $32.0M |
We are down to only six players under contract, now: Cabrera, Giancarlo Stanton, Joey Votto, Robinson Cano, Buster Posey, and Elvis Andrus. Snarky analysts send hologram recordings of themselves dancing while saying “Neener-neener! Told you so!” to dismayed Detroit executives.
2023: TIE – Detroit Tigers and Miami Marlins – $32.0M
| Player | Cap Figure |
|---|---|
| Miguel Cabrera | $32.0M |
| Giancarlo Stanton | $32.0M |
And now the ultimate moral of our story begins to reveal itself: the contract agreed to by Stanton and the Marlins is truly a behemoth. Of course this pronouncement must be tempered with the opt-out clause that exists in the contract at a date well before this one — but let’s use our imaginations for a second and believe that the Marlins will give Stanton reason to opt in. Posey enters the free-agent market before this season at age 35, seven World Series rings in his vault, and we are down to five players under contract.
2024-2028: Miami Marlins – $25.0M-$32.0M
| Player | 2024 Cap Figure | 2025 Cap Figure | 2026 Cap Figure | 2027 Cap Figure | 2028 Cap Figure |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Giancarlo Stanton | $32.0M | $32.0M | $29.0M | $25.0M | $25.0M |
Andrus (age 35) and Cano (age 41) enter the free agent market before the 2024 season, leaving Votto ($20M), Cabrera ($30M), and Stanton. Before 2025, Votto (age 41) enters the free agent market after a season of .350 OBP in which he swings his bat on fifty total occasions. And finally, at the conclusion of the 2025 season, Cabrera (age 42) enters the free agent market after eight consecutive seasons (starting in 2018) in which he earns at least $30M. For comparison: the most-compensated baseball player of all-times, Alex Rodriguez, has only earned over $30M for three of his twenty Major League seasons. (Assuming neither signs another contract, A-Rod would still walk away with the most career salary, $527.9M to $433.1M.)
And for the 2026, 2027, and 2028 seasons, the Marlins don’t just owe the most salary of any team — they owe the only salary of any team. Considering their current status as the very most prudent team of 2016, this is a worst-to-first tale that is not yet heartwarming.
Miles Wray contributes sports commentary to McSweeney's Internet Tendency, Ploughshares, The Classical and Hardwood Paroxysm. Follow him on Twitter @mileswray or email him here.
“Considering their current status as the very most prudent team of 2016, this is a worst-to-first tale that is not yet heartwarming.”
+1
I’m not sure we should automatically equate “lowest committed payroll” to “most prudent.” Having some payroll committed to excellent players who would be very much in their prime is in many cases a more prudent move than having committed almost nothing.
This is a very important point. Simply ‘not spending money’ cannot necessarily be considered a virtue in itself.
Prudent: careful in providing for the future (from dictionary.com, 2nd definition)
I think it fits and is not automatically virtuous.
Dictionary definitions do not cover the connotations a word, and the connotation of prudence is universally understood to be wisdom.
Except that’s not what it means.
Oxford: Acting with or showing care and thought for the future.
Being prudent is frequently wise, but it is most definitely not the same thing. You can show care or thought for the future without actual knowledge or good judgement.
Also it’s quite dangerous get into universal connotations, since we obviously disagree and I’d bet a few other would too (even perhaps the author of the article, since you take issue with his choice of words).
Well, 2015 is the future, as is every season of baseball after it. If the benefit of retaining a player’s services in Year X outweighs the cost of paying him more than he’s worth in year X + Y, then extending him a contract is prudent by either definition. Then at some point, you pass on to a contract that overpays the player, but at that point, there’s a legal obligation to continue to pay, so prudence doesn’t come into it.
“Prudent: careful in providing for the future (from dictionary.com, 2nd definition)”
Even using that exact definition, that doesn’t mean spending the least money is the most careful.
This is obviously a hyperbolic example, but if a team miraculously had Kershaw, Sale, Kluber, Trout, Stanton, and McCutchen all signed for 2015 at a combined price of $30M, would we really consider that to be less “prudent” than Houston having committed only $18.8M to a roster that is bound not to be competitive in any way?
The point is we have to evaluate the VALUE in the money that has been spent to determine qualitatively who has been most careful in providing for the future. We could have taken that value analysis out of the discussion by simply using a label like “Least Committed” instead of “Most Prudent.”
Deelron falls into that most annoying category of internet poster. Pedantic AND wrong.
Not having any good players under contract is not “acting with or showing care and thought for the future.”
I’m glad I wasn’t the only one thinking this.
I think the award name should change depending on the team. Oakland? We can stick with “most prudent”. For the Astros? How about “lousy cheapskates”. That seems to better reflect the general sentiment among media outlets, no?
the stros are simply in rebuild full force, and need to be on a shoestring with pretty much no local media money coming in.
They locked up singelton, have years of control for most of their best players, and have amassed a good handful of prospects to build around in the future. They are smart to know that you build stars, and sign the stopgaps around them when ready. Signing stars is silly, but signing mid rotation arms or guys that hit 2nd or 5th or later is not. Lots of mid rotation arms take 10m for a few years, or #5 hitters like morse sign for about the same. Keep exposure down by having your core signed for a reasonable price.
After 2028, the Mets take over as most-committed team. Maybe Bobby Bonilla will finally put up some decent numbers by then.
Bobby Bonilla’s deal will still be paying him in 2035.
That’s still amazing to consider.
Yanks at less than a 100 in 2017, scary thought, maybe they really should reset the luxury tax while they’re at it.
Much has been said about their impending demise, but a 3rd and 2nd place finishes and whatever comes for two years isn’t exactly hell on earth.
Pretty bad when 2nd or 3rd place and not making the playoffs is the best you can do with that much money.
would like to see the annual lists for all teams. too lazy to actually look them all up!
If Greinke’s 2015 is anything like his 2013-14, he’ll be pretty certain to opt out.
utterly depressing to think of a 35 year old Elvis Andrus entering FA
“And now the ultimate moral of our story begins to reveal itself: the contract agreed to by Stanton and the Marlins is truly a behemoth. Of course this pronouncement must be tempered with the opt-out clause…”
On the contrary: the opt-out clause makes it even more of a behemoth. With a standard contract, the team takes the risk of the player declining but they get the potential reward of keeping his services if he stays really good. The opt-out is just like a player option: the team still takes the risk of the player declining, but if he stays really good then they can only keep him if they pay him even more money.
I disagree.
Opt-outs are good for the team.
Opt-outs reduce the overall commitment in 2 ways.
First, the amount of the contract. Perhaps a 10-$200 deal becomes 10-$175 with an opt-out. That’s better.
Second, the length of the contract. Teams don’t particularly want to commit to players for 10 years. Getting a All-Star level player with less than a huge commitment is better.
With opt outs
if the player is injured/under-performing the team gets him for less than they would have without the opt-out.
If the player isn’t the team gets the player on a shorter deal and gets another chance to reevaluate the contract at a later date.
win-win for the teams as well as the player.
If I were signing a player to a long-term contract I’d include multiple opt-outs – usually hoping the player takes it at some point.
The one down side is that it makes future planning/commitments more unpredictable.
I see your point, however, I think the specific details of the contract and opt-out must be known before saying its a good thing for the team.
I don’t believe the Stanton opt-out as structured really helps Miami at all. Yes, the lower salaries in the first half of the contract help them with payroll flexibility now, but the deal is so heavily backloaded (about $220 million of the last 7 years) that he’s going to have to morph into the second coming of Hank Aaron in order to opt out. Now sure, if that happens, everybody wins, but in the more likely event that his career takes the path of Ken Griffey Jr (ie he suffers through injury and decline in his 30s) this deal will be a millstone around the neck of the franchise.
I would have rather seen something like a 9 year deal with an opt out after 5 years. The opt out on a contract structured this way has the potential to be suicide for the franchise.
And so the point I forgot to make was this. If the opt out gets the team a “discount” of some sort, then yes, it makes sense. But that’s not what Miami got.
You have to acknowledge the value of a player over time also.. This deal is backloaded.. 20m or 30m today isn’t equal to that value in 5 or 10 years.
Id love to see a comparison of dollars/war vs dollars/inflation.. At the current rate it’s bloated but who knows… Has there been a boon in the past to compare to..
Hmm…Stanton’s available in 2029?
Can I sign him right now for $600 million for the 2029-2033 seasons?