This piece does not necessarily reflect the official opinions or attitudes of the Timbers Army or 107 Independent Supporters Trust

Earlier today MLS released salary figures for all 20 MLS sides. Now, if you've heard Portland Timbers owner Merritt Paulson talk on the subject of salaries, you've heard him say that these numbers aren't the complete picture - but until MLS decides to be a bit more transparent on total compensation we'll have to take whatever data we can get as being gospel.

Additionally, Merritt has also repeatedly praised Timbers GM, Gavin Wilkinson, for his ability to work within the convoluted rules structure of MLS to pull together amazing deals. Again, until we see proof of those rules, we'll have to take his word for it.

When I saw these numbers I was curious if there was any parallel between spending and results. And, yes I realize we're less than a third of the way through the season. And, I also realize that some teams have had key (high priced) players battling injuries early in the season (I think we ALL realize this here in PDX).

But, that doesn't stop me from drawing ridiculous conclusions from the numbers.

The chart above shows the amount each team (reportedly) spent on salaries, as well as their points per game through this morning.

The third column is how many points per game they earn for every million they spend in salary (otherwise known in technical terms as "Bang for your Buck"). You can see something right away - the big spending teams are all at the bottom of the list using this metric. Both $eattle and NYRB are posting very respectable PPG numbers (1.9 and 1.7 respectively), but they are vastly overpaying for those results when compared to DC United and FC Dallas. Those teams get roughly 4x the value for their dollar vs $$FC and NYRB. But, hey, at least they're not NYFC and Toronto who have two of the three highest payrolls, and rank dead last in my Bang for your Buck metric.

The fourth column represents how much a team spends relative to the league average ($7.9M) Toronto spends about 2.6x the average on the high end, while Colorado spends less than half the league average. It appears, Colorado seems to be getting exactly what they paid for.

The final column looks at how a teams "Bang for the Buck" metric plays against the league average (.227 points per $M spent). This is really just a way to easily see how efficient teams are with their spending. NYCFC is only about 19% efficient whereas DC United and FC Dallas are killing the efficiency game.

So, where does that leave the might PTFC (besides in 9th place). Our team spends about 75% of the league average. So, it sounds like there is at least some truth to complaints the we're not willing to open up the pocketbook. Merritt has said recently that if the right opportunity came along, Gavin could spend the money. Clearly that hasn't happened yet. As for efficiency/Bang for the Buck, They are near the bottom 3rd of the league (12th out of 20 teams with an efficiency rating of 88%).

So, clearly you can't draw any sort of conclusion with respect to spending and results. Teams like DCU are competing with $$FC, while NYCFC, with the 3rd highest payroll have the worst PPG. One conclusion someone could reach, however, is that overspending doesn't really buy you all that much - the top 6 spending teams are also the lowest in terms of Bang for your Buck.