Jim Hendry is objectively a better GM than KW

[BT]

<!--quoteo(post=59287:date=Aug 21 2009, 12:20 PM:name=Sandberg)-->QUOTE (Sandberg @ Aug 21 2009, 12:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I must be missing something here. Let's take some fake but maybe close numbers. If the Sox have a $115 payroll, and $25 million of it is being paid by another team, then really they have a $90 million in commitments because they would not (or could not) pay the salary otherwise. If the Cubs have a $140 million payroll and are paying it all, then they have a $140 million in commitments.

The bottom line is how much money a team is paying to put it's team on the field. The "payroll" moniker seems like some stupid accounting trick and is pretty much irrelevant if you're looking for information that matters to a team.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


It depends on what point you are trying to argue. If you are arguing which ownership group is "more commuted" to putting money into the team, then who is paying what salaries is important. You can't say the Sox are paying 115 million if they are actually only covering 90.

However, if you are arguing how much talent (if you can judge talent by salary) the team is able to pay for, then the Sox would be paying for 115 million and the Cubs would be paying for 140. Who is paying what portion of the 115 million is irrelevant, as there is still 115 million in "talent" on the team.