Modern-day Moneyball is not paying off as expected. It’s kind of refreshing, don’t you think?
We’re not talking about Paul DePodesta’s 2002 Oakland A’s. Those A’s were made famous by Michael Lewis book, “Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game,” which was published 23 years ago, and made even more famous by the movie “Moneyball,” released 15 years ago.
Those A’s, hamstrung by a miserly $40 million payroll but powered by new-fangled sabrematics, went 103-59, had a 20-game winning streak, and made the postseason. DePodesta, now the Rockies’ president of baseball operations, was the right-hand man to Oakland general manager Billy Beane. In the movie, DePodesta was loosely portrayed by Jonah Hill, playing a character named Peter Brand.
Rather, we’re talking about the current teams with mega-jackpot payrolls that fell flat in the first month of this season:
• The Mets, with a tax payroll of $382.9 million, have the majors’ second-biggest payroll, ranking only behind the Dodgers ($416.7 million, ). The Mets entered the weekend with a 10-21 record that includes a 12-game losing streak. Last weekend, the Mets were swept in New York by the “lowly” Rockies, as the New York media put it.
• The Phillies ($296,6 million, fourth), off to a dismal 12-19 start, fired manager Rob Thomson last Tuesday.
• The Blue Jays ($290.6 million, fifth), last season’s American League champions, entered the weekend 14-17.
• The Red Sox ($266.8 million, sixth) are 12-19 out of the gate. They fired Alex Cora and , the son of former Rockies manager Jim Tracy.
There has been plenty of teeth gnashing and finger-pointing in those big-city baseball markets. Meanwhile, the thrifty teams (re: cheap) like the Reds ($142.2 million, 19th, 20-11), Cardinals ($110.1 million, 26th, 18-13), and Rays ($108.9 million, 29th, 18-12) have played solid baseball.
The have-nots might not be able to sustain their success for a full season, but it’s nice to see that Major League Baseball’s tilted financial landscape doesn’t guarantee that the dysfunctional big spenders will always win. (The Dodgers don’t count.)
I was curious if Rockies veteran left-hander Kyle Freeland, the team’s player representative, would agree with my sentiments. When the Rockies ($134.4 million, 23rd, 14-18) took the Big Apple by storm last weekend, surely the Rockies used the $248.5 million gulf between the Mets and Rockies as an incentive. A chip on their shoulder, right?
Nope, Freeland told me, shooting me a quizzical look.
“Not at all,” he said. “This is Major League Baseball. Any given team can beat another team on a given day. We’re aware of the payrolls and the caliber of players those teams have, but we don’t think about it like that.”
Well, maybe not any given team. Last year’s 119-loss Rockies come to mind, but I got his point.
But I countered, telling Freeland that the media and the fans made a big deal of Colorado’s sweep in New York. Rockies fans have a chip on their shoulder when the team plays the big spenders. Do Rockies players? This time, Freeland flashed a wicked grin.
“That’s why they’re the fans, and we’re the players,” he said. “We understand that it doesn’t matter if their payroll is the highest in the league and ours is the lowest. We can still come in any day and beat them.”
Which brings us to a big-picture subject. The failure of teams like the Mets, Phillies, and Red Sox will only enforce the MLB Players Association’s rock-hard stance that baseball doesn’t need a salary cap. With a labor battle brewing when the collective bargaining agreement expires in December, the players can ask, “If money matters so much for the owners to press for a salary cap, why are so many of the rich teams so bad?”
