From 1999 to 2000 (the playoff run begins)payroll jumped 33% - $8 million to $32 million. Interesting, their 1999 payroll for 25 man roster at season start is very similar to Rays for 2007 ($24.15 mil). Of course the majors minimum then was $200k, versus '07's $380k. They held steady (+ 1.7 mil) in '01, then up 20% to 40 mil in '02, then up 20% to 50 mil in '03. (Interesting how percents play - 8 mil is 33%, 3 years later $10 mil is only 20. Figures lie, liars figure?) Not the math of a team with guys at the minimum, which was $300k in '03, or their low man in the '02 season at $202k, one Carlos Pena!

You are correct, they did take action. And those actions largely did not work. The holdovers plus the shifted Stokes had mostly horrific seasons - except Salas. Reyes was a decent re-acquisition (he finished '06 rehabbing in Durham), Glover was mediocre, Ryu a non-factor, Dohmann contributed in 2nd 1/2 after not making the team in spring. Fossum bombed before and after shifting roles. And forgotten above holdover Switzer was hurt or plain ineffective in the lefty role most think is important, particularly in the AL East. They did try to adjust midseason, with their big (in relative salary)acquistion of Wheeler, who performed worse in Tampa than he had in a mediocre season for Houston. And don't forget, he was acquired by trading a somewhat higher paid Wigginton.

There could be alternative explanations for the organization's motivation for each action. But the simple fact is that every acquistion was a low risk one financially. Perhaps they couldn't get the alternatives despite trying. Perhaps they feel they can acquire pen keys when really needed (Reyes is certainly no long term solution).

The contrary point is what's wrong with spending some, even a little too much, to improve now and hopefully in the future. The Baltimore approach has been overused, but had the Rays thrown the same dollars at the 2 most sensible if somewhat pricey acquisitions (Bradford and Walker - Baez was off the charts lunacy, and the cheap Williamson didn't pan out) who clearly didn't care about immediate contention the cellar may well have been avoided and things would be looking just that much more up today. Put 2 80 appearance guys with sub 3.50 ERA's in front of Reyes in your pen, and subtract them from Baltimore's, at a price that would have left the payroll still well below '06, well that 70 win plateau might well have been reached. Now that would have made for 1 great day in the park.  

Will that change when the young core comes together? Perhaps. But statements like 20% payroll increases for 2008 - stated so as to magnify what's in fact a miniscule dollar amount - don't bode well for the coming season. Checks don't say "+20%" - they have a dollar amount.

El Grande's point about revenue sharing - a drum I've beaten too much here - is huge. Yes, they opened a Latin academy - it was paid for by revenue sharing captured at the expense of other teams. The DRO gets no credit in my book for it, even though it's a solid if belated strategic decision. And still leaves near $20 million this year alone not clearly dedicated to "improving the quality of the team on the field" as mandated by the Collective Bargaining agreement. No one here ever responds to this issue.

The simple fact is that in this sense, Murray Chass is right. Major League baseball would be healthier financially without the cash drain of the 2 Florida franchises. You're not the only guilty parties, but a strong argument can be made that you're the worst offenders in recent years. I believe teams must be allowed to take your development approach - it is a sound strategy for long term competitiveness. I just don't believe the other franchises should have to subsidize that choice.