There are five teams in the Major Leagues that have payrolls of $100 million or more. They are the New York Yankees ($198 million), the Boston Red Sox ($120 million), the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim ($103 million), the Chicago White Sox ($102 million) and the New York Mets ($100 million). Look at these five teams. What has happened to these teams this year? You have a loss in the first round of the playoffs (Yankees) and a pending loss in the second round of the playoffs (Mets). The other three teams lost their divisions and didn't make the playoffs. Thats pathetic for $100 million plus payroll teams.
     Lets look at who did make the playoffs: Los Angeles Dodgers ($99 million), St. Louis Cardinals ($86 million), San Diego Padres ($68 million), Detroit Tigers ($82 million), Oakland Athletics ($62 million) and the Minnesota Twins ($63 million). Big difference, right? So why don't the teams that do have big payrolls win and the teams that are under $100 million (though the Dodgers are fairly close to $100 million) win? Well, to put it simply, spending. The teams with big checkbooks spend thriftly buying all the best offense they can. The teams with lower payrolls spend wisely and buy up the cheap offense to go along with their personal big bopper creating a balanced lineup and quality pitchers to put in the rotation and the bullpen. What? I didn't say pitching for the big spenders? Maybe for a reason? Yeah, for a reason. Look at the Mets, the Yankees, Red Sox and Angels. They have no pitching staff. Only the White Sox have pitching, and they have a lot of it. The Yankees have two pitchers that collect Social Security after every start (Mike Mussina and Randy Johnson) as do the Mets (Tom Glavine). Then, they fill their bullpen with over priced and washed up pitchers, the same with the back of their rotation. Pedro Martinez was good in 2004 and hasn't been since. Maybe these teams that spend money on offense need to buy some quality pitching.
     I got into an argue with my brother a few months ago. I kept telling him the American League is a pointless league because they buy up all the talent they can and don't care about their spending. He told me the National League does the same. Then I spat into his face with this comment: Name 5 teams, other than the Mets, that have enormus payrolls. He had no answer. Then he came up with this: Take out the top spender and lowest spender in each league and see what the average payroll is (so the number isn't skewed by the Yankees or the Florida Marlins). So, I'll do it now. Here is the average payroll for the American League (excluding the Yankees and Tampa Bay Devil Rays) and the National League (excluding the Mets and Marlins):
American League Average Payroll 2006: $78,056,695 million
National League Average Payroll 2006: $73,708,125 million
     Now, at first look you say, "haha, you were wrong! There is only a $5 million difference!" Well, that may be true. I would respond with, "How many teams are in the AL? The NL?" True baseball fans would know this right away. There are 14 teams in the AL and 16 in the NL. Then, you figure I took off two teams from both leagues, that leaves 12 in the AL and 14 in the NL. Thats right, the AL has a higher average payroll without the Yankees and three other teams.
     Knowing all of this, you can now understand why the NL loses in the All-Star game and in the World Series. You also know that the AL is stacked with teams that want to win so badly, they'll spend as much as they can to do it (and the Marlins were in the Wild Card chase till a late fade with a $15 million payroll. Food for thought there). Enjoy this new found knowledge!
*All numbers for payrolls were rounded up to the nearest million except in figuring the average. The numbers were taken from Espn.com. Thank you ESPN for the information!*