This is derived from several sources:
http://www.bizofbaseball.com/docs/FinalPayrollbyYear_MLB.pdf
http://baltimore.orioles.mlb.com/bal/histo...ear_results.jsp
http://espn.go.com/mlb/teams/salaries?team=bal (source of 2009 payroll numbers)

O's payroll by year / wins / and $ per win:
2009 $61,885,566 / 64 / $966, 961
2008 $78,888,250 / 68 / $1,160,121
2007 $95,269,977 / 69 / $1,380,724
2006 $76,138,206 / 70 / $1,087,688
2005 $81,041,711 / 74 / $1,095,158
2004 $56,811,459 / 78 / $728,352
2003 $75,502,154 / 71 / $1,063,410
2002 $56,504,685 / 67 / $843,353

By this measure, the 2004 O's were the least expensive per win and the 2007 Orioles with their extended stars Jay Gibbons and Melvin Mora were the most expensive.

O's payroll by attendance / $ per fan in the stands:

2009 1,907,163 / $32.45
2008 1,950,077 / $40.45
2007 2,164,822 / $44.08
2006 2,153,139 / $35.36
2005 2,624,804 / $30.88
2004 2,744,014 / $20.70
2003 2,454,523 / $30.76
2002 2,682,439 / $21.06

Once again, the annus mirabilis 2004 wins by this measure and the annus horibilis 2007 loses by almost a $4 margin. Interesting that 2002 comes in so cheaply on both accounts.

I wonder how these years' payrolls would compare to total team income?

"annus horibilis"
I can't get past that.

I don't even want to get near it.

The most shocking stat to me there is that the Os paid $95 million in 2007.

Much less relive it. The 2007 season was a forgettable dud like so many we've had recently.

Sorry for the incorrect spelling. It should be annus horribilis.

There's a citation for everything these days, isn't there? http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/annus-horribilis.html

Agreed. I guess later I'll see into which drains all that salary was poured. $12 M for Tejada, $ Too much for Jay Gibbons, $ Too much for Melmo, $ arbitration for Bedard (worth it) and Cabrera (not!).

To put it in context, in 2009, $95 million would have been 13th in the league in spending, just behind the Chicago White Sox. That would have also put them confortably ahead of the next club, the San Francisco Giants, which spent nearly $83 million.

http://baseball.about.com/od/newsrumors/a/09teamsalaries.htm

I think the history and the evidence shows that the ownership and management is comfortable spending in the area of $100 million on payroll. There are only 9 clubs that spent $100 million or more, and they are the usual suspects: New York (both), Boston, Cubs, Detroit, Angels, Phillies, Astros, and Dodgers.

I am not buying any of the talk that Baltimore is a small market club.

I've never bought that. In 1998 the O's had the highest payroll in history (at that time). And the money we threw at Konerko (it was him right?), Vlad, Tejada, Texiera has never made sense for a "small market team"

Here are the top 25 Metro Areas for 2008:

It looks like about 20 of the 30 MLB locations are better off than Baltimore. Being in the top 25 is not "small market" but it is relative to other MLB franchises.
Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_metropolitan_product

Jack,

The "big market" reasoning usually goes something like this: The Orioles had sole possession of the Baltimore-Washington market for 30 years. There are many die-hard Orioles fans in DC, Northern Virginia, and points South who did not suddenly change allegiances to become Expos fans. The Nationals' incursion therefore did not drastically reduce the Orioles' share of the Washington market, and the Orioles are still a big-market team. Or something like that.

I think you're right Sluggo. With Baltimore being in the top 25 based on GMP the area is certainly not "small" market

I was curious about the methodology for determining "market." The GMP seems to be useful in terms of area/regional economic potential/production and not just broadcast "market" which has a lot to do with the wealth of a franchise. That is why Angelos got the sweetheart MASN cable deal in exchange for a "yes" vote for the Nationals' franchise.

For that matter, I think the term "small market" is used interchangeably with "limited capital." I don't think there is a necessary correlation there.