Business Book Lovers

When a high payroll team does well, who do you give the most credit to? What about a low payroll team?

As a fan, do you give more credit to the managers and owners or to the players? (Answer the question for both high payroll and low payroll teams.) It's just a matter of personal opinion...no right or wrong answers.

Public Comments

1. Managers have to get credit in both situations. It doesn't matter the talent level you bring in, you need the 1 main guy who can lead and inspire them. I think on the lower payroll teams, you give credit to players for playing hard and their scouting for having the right youngsters to bring in. High payroll is more about the owner being willing to spend the money to bring in the higher talent.
2. I think it goes to the managers in either situation nowadays, heres why: High payroll teams tend to have more enigmatic players (like a Reggie Jackson or a Manny Ramirez or a Carlos Zambrano), so it can be challenging to the skipper to keep them focused on the team concept. Lower payroll teams are difficult for the manager because you may not quite have the same talent/power/speed up and down the lineup and consistent/dominating pitchers on the pitching staff, so you have to get the most positive production out of each player.
3. High Payroll credit is always given to the money..."Oh well they just bought a pennant!" But if it is low budget everyone thinks that the manager just did a fabulous job and the players are SO TALENTED...the scouting staff gets all the Kudos that anyone can give them and the organization is heralded is a great baseball breeding ground. Rather than saying what it is...which in both cases is...the right guys got together at the right time in their careers and it worked out.
4. I dont give that much credit to the NY Yankees for that reason. If you have the highest payroll of any team in any sport in the world, shouldnt you make the playoffs? How can small teams compete? They may do good during the season but fail in the playoffs cause lack of depth.
5. Managers and owners basically for both. With a high payroll, there is money that can be spent on known talent, regardless of age, price, etc. With a low payroll, the managers and owners have to be smarter about the picks, go for younger, less expensive players, but also ones expected to perform really well. Either payroll, there is a way to get really talented players. For example: HIGH: NYY (duh) ($200 million payroll) LOW: Cleveland Indians ($65 million payroll)
6. there are two types of low payroll teams: young talented ones whose players havent made a big enough name for themselves to get paid 10 mil a year ('03- '04 tigers) and low budget teams who buy mediokre players (rangers) teams like the tigers i give lots of respect to the owner for seeing an opportunity like that and taking it and i give respect to the players just for being good. teams like the rangers (when they win) i give lots of respect to the manager for working with what he has. there are also two types of high payroll teams: teams who started out with young, talented players and have kept them and started to pay them more money (1998 yankees and '08 tigers) and teams who went through a rough patch and tried to buy their way out of it ('06-'08 yankees) temas like the '98 andks and the '08 tigers i give a lot of respect in every aspect because theye are usually genuinely great teams. teams like the '08 yankees i give respect to the manager because they have a task to bring all the all stars (you know how i mean) that play for themselves together and get them to win as a team.
7. For any team to be able to win all the credit goes to the players who have to get out there and perform day after day.
8. Good question. Honestly with any team, you've gotta throw the credit everywhere. Almost every time there's a good team it's because there's a really good blend of youth (usually home-developed), veteran presence and good management. So if a high payroll team does well, I'd give credit to the GM and owner for bringing in some good players, probably the farm system since there's at least a few really young players contributing, and to the players. But most definitely most the credit should go to the players, they're the ones on the field everyday making it possible. Same thing for a low market team. The farm system definitely has to be appreciated, and usually the GM will bring a couple veterans in for some experience, so if the team's doing well they must have brought in some good guys. Lots of things have to go right for a good season to happen, and everyone who made it possible deserves credit in my opinion.
9. As a Red Sox fan, I have little respect for the Yankee's when they do well. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a bad sport, and I will praise a Yankee when one does well. But I'm not that impressed with their record due to the amount of money they have. On the other hand, I usually don't have a problem when the Red Sox do well, depsite how much money they have. I think money helps a team in that it attracts better players. But, the majority of players play their best in their late 20s--that is just a statistic. So a player might be great when they're 29, then go to a high payroll team and be awful. Overall, I respect the whole team when they do well. For instance, the Red Sox have great management and players. Some of their players, who aren't the best hitters, contribute to the team's success in a lot of other ways, and I appreciate them just as much.
10. Going back two years ago, Joe Girardi had the situation youre talking about. He had one of the lowest payrolls and the youngest teams in the NL but had them in contention until the last week of the season. He got all of the credit for that but lost his job because of contention with the owner. He also won Manager of the year NL. On a highe payroll team like yours and mine,(Boston and NY), the General Managers deserve a lot of the credit for putting the team together.