Cuckoo for Nick Canepa: Subjective payroll analysis

Nick Canepa wrote a column about Phil Mickelson's role in the new Padres ownership group. And if you can imagine, I took umbrage with a small part:

Many San Diegans who voted for the building of Petco Park feel they were victims of a bait-and-switch by Padres ownership, believing Moores and management had not delivered on their promise of a solid, contending franchise. The Padres never said they were going to spend like the Yankees, but player payroll has been among the lowest in baseball for some time and the results haven’t always been pleasant.

In many ways I agree with the first part of this excerpt. Proposition 98 passed after the Padres' World Series appearance against the Yankees and then Moores packed it in until 2004. This (in)action was horribly unfair to Padres fans.

My issue is with Canepa's last sentence. It feels lazy. Canepa writes:

 ...player payroll has been among the lowest in baseball for some time...

When Canepa writes this I feel it's lazy because it is written in a way that says, "I don't really care to do any research."


Payroll has been the lowest for "sometime"? It's such a subjective frame of reference, what does that even mean? And what defines "lowest"? This is also subjective. Are we talking bottom half, third, or quarter of the league in payroll? With 30 teams in MLB, one could say that team number 15 is part of the lowest.

What do Padres fans know right now? We know that payroll has been brutally low since John Moores decided to put a mistress on the books. His subsequent divorce diminished the product on the field from 2009-2012. But the Moores divorce is not the entire story of payroll history in the East Village. PETCO Park existed from 2004-2008 and if my memory serves correctly I don't think that payroll was among the lowest in MLB at that time.

Let's define "lowest" payroll. It's completely subjective but I'm going to say that it is defined by being in the bottom 3rd of the league. So:

Teams 1-10 are the top third -- Well-to-do types.
Teams 11-20 are middle third -- Floating along, accidental like on the wind.
Teams 21-30 are the bottom third -- Living off revenue sharing.

I have yet to research this so I run the risk of making Nick Canepa look like he was correct but I think the exercise is valid regardless.

Let's take a  look at opening day payroll and where the Padres ranked amongst their competitors. (Here is a second source, and probably a more reliable one, which shows nearly identical dollar amounts).

2004 -- 18th place -- Middle Third -- $54, 639, 503
2005 -- 17th place -- Middle Third -- $62, 888, 192
2006 -- 17th place -- Middle Third -- $69, 896, 141
2007 -- 24th place -- Bottom Third -- $58, 110, 567
2008 -- 19th place -- Middle Third -- $73, 677, 616
2009 -- 29th place -- Bottom Third -- $42, 796, 700
2010 -- 29th place -- Bottom Third -- $37, 799, 300
2011 -- 28th place -- Bottom Third -- $45, 869, 140
2012 -- 30th place -- Bottom Third -- $55, 244, 700

So what does this information tell us?

During the PETCO Park era, payroll has fluctuated between the bottom middle third of MLB teams and the absolute bottom of the bottom third.

The first 5 years in PETCO Park (almost first 5 years . . . damn you 2007 for ruining my narrative!) the Padres were in the middle third of payroll. I believe this is where payroll should be*.

*A run of sustained success where attendance is thriving and people in San Diego actually care could allow the Padres to push the upper threshold of the middle third in payroll. Merely an opinion, thinking out loud.

We see that the dramatic shift in payroll occurs in 2009 at the time when John Moores began going through a divorce and sold the team on layaway to the Jeffrey Moorad group.

This all comes down to the use of subjective reasoning to shape narratives. Padres fans have the right to be perturbed at the team and for their thrifty ways in a new ball park but a newspaper's job is to provide adequate information to illuminate its readership.

I think Canepa fails here by using what I've termed "lazy" language. The type of language that says, "I don't care to do any research because it takes too long and god damn it, I have a narrative that I'm sticking too and for cripes sake this whole article is about Phil Mickelson, who is not Mike Schmidt, anyways! Geez! Don't you people have a sense of humor?"