McAdam: Why the success of the Rays is unlikely to have a chilling affect on payrolls

The World Series matchup is set, and improbably, after the unpredictability of the 2020 season, the Series will actually feature the two teams which compiled the best records in their respective leagues -- the Tampa Bay Rays and the Los Angeles Dodgers.

There have been plenty of normal seasons in which that didn't happen. In fact, there was a stretch from 2002 through 2004 in which the wild-card winners (the Angels, Marlins, and, of course, Red Sox) won it all despite not finishing with the best record in their own divisions.

So, naturally, in a year in which nothing goes according to form, the two chalk winners end up facing one another in the World Series.

There are other similarities in play, too. Both franchises have Andrew Friedman in common. Friedman ran the Rays from 2006 through 2014 before taking over the Dodgers for 2015. Both teams once employed Manny Ramirez, too.

But mostly there are differences. The Dodgers can trace their lineage to the 19th century while the Rays are millennials, having recently turned 22.

And then there is the matter of payroll, where the teams occupy opposite ends of the financial spectrum. While exact end-of-the-year figures aren't available, Dodgers again spent north of $200 million on their 40-man roster -- as they have for seven of the last eight seasons.

Meanwhile the Rays are strictly bargain-basement types when it comes to spending. Their payroll is expected to finish in the area of $75 million -- or, about one-third what the Dodgers spent. While the Dodgers routinely spent near the top of the game, the Rays have never come close to $100 million on their 40-man rosters and only twice have topped $100 million when it comes to their competitive balance tax numbers.

Put more starkly, the Dodgers were third in CBT payroll...and the Rays were third from the bottom.



Despite their profligate spending, the Dodgers haven't won a title since 1988. Surely, their big payrolls have played a part in the team winning an astounding eight consecutive National League West division crowns. But it hasn't translated into any parades.

The Rays can claim to be a highly efficient bunch, utilizing MLB's 27th-ranked payroll to finish ahead of the top-spending New York Yankees. then, just for good measure, beating them again head-to-head in the ALDS.

All of which might have some fallout for the rest of the game.

In an era in which teams suffered nine-figure losses due to the pandemic, shortened season and no paying fans at games, most franchises will be looking to cut payroll -- at least somewhat. Already, many teams have made slashes to their baseball operations departments, laying off scouts and analysts as well as some minor league personnel.

Given the need to limit expenditures, could the success of the Rays this year convince owners -- in Boston and elsewhere -- that there's no need to be spending $200 million, or, even $150 million when the Rays just won a division and a pennant while spending only a portion of those sums?

The Red Sox, as is their habit, have not revealed what their budget will be for the offseason and the 2021 season. Team president Sam Kennedy dodged the inquiry late last month when he cited Sox ownership's track record and commitment to putting a competitive team on the field. Indeed, in every season since 2012, the Sox have been in the Top 7 in MLB payroll, including seven of those nine years in the Top 5 and twice recently (2018 and 2019) ranking No. 1.

Then again, that was then and this is now. Now is about cost-cutting, about an uncertain future, about conserving resources until normalcy returns.

But the Rays skinflintery has its limits. Yes, they enjoyed a magical season and bested teams with far bigger stars. But this year also marked the first time they had gotten out of the Division Series since 2009 -- the only other time in which they enjoyed much postseason success.

If the Rays could demonstrate that they be both cost-efficient and consistently go deep into the playoffs, their methods would inspire many more copycats.

They can't, of course, because their own history -- and that of their West Coast brethren, the Oakland A's -- demonstrates that such careful spenders have to pick their spots. Sure, they can reach October and occasionally knock off one of the better-funded teams.

But they can't do it every year, or even most years. Eventually, players age out, gain huge raises through salary arbitration and then leave as free agents -- if they're not traded beforehand, that is.

Likewise, at the other end of the equation, the Dodgers are proof that free-spending, if it's done properly, regularly affords you a chance to qualify for the postseason. What happens once you get there, as the Dodgers can no doubt attest, is down to health, the state of your pitching staff and, occasionally, just plum luck.

Each market is different. The Rays don't spend much because they also don't earn as much, annually ranking near the bottom of the league in attendance. If the Red Sox tried this as a permanent strategy, they would face an understandable outcry, given the expectations that come from playing in a market like Boston, to say nothing of the fact that the penny-pinching wouldn't square with some of the game's most expensive tickets.

All of which is to say that the current uncertainty won't see some teams -- perhaps the Red Sox among them -- reducing their payrolls for the immediate future. But doing so permanently, based on a few outliers, would, profit and loss statements aside, be bad business sense.