The highest number of teams to pay the competitive balance tax in a single season is six, which occurred in 2016 and 2022. It’s possible that 2023 could be a record-breaking season in that regard, as Roster Resource currently has six teams already over the $233MM base threshold, while the Dodgers are a rounding error away from the line and another handful of teams not too far off.
These numbers are still unofficial, especially considering the arbitration salaries are mostly still estimates. Teams can also change their status by making trades throughout the year, either adding or subtracting from their ledger, but consider this a rough snapshot of where things currently stand.
Top Tier – CBT Above $293MM
The Mets are not just beyond the top CBT tier, they’re on another planet. Owner Steve Cohen has shown that he doesn’t care too much about what it costs to put a competitive team together, with their payroll currently projected for $376MM and a CBT figure of $390MM. They are currently slated to pay over $116MM in taxes alone, which is more than the total 2023 payroll of 11 teams.
CBT Between $273MM and $293MM
The Yankees are alone in this tier, but are just barely under the top threshold. Roster Resource currently has their CBT figure at $291.8MM, giving them very little room for further additions without going over. If they stay above the $273MM line, both the Yankees and Mets will see their top pick in the 2024 draft moved back by 10 spots. Both the Mets and Dodgers were more than $40MM above the base threshold in 2022, meaning their top draft picks will be moved back in the upcoming draft.
CBT Between $253MM and $273MM
The Padres are the only club in this section, with their CBT number currently pegged at $267MM. Since they paid the tax in 2021 and 2022, they are set to be third-time payors in 2023. That means they are currently slated for a 62% tax on spending over the $253MM line and will continue to do so for any further additions. Jumping over the $273MM line would lead to a huge spike to a 95% rate, as well as their top 2024 draft pick being pushed back 10 slots.
CBT Between $233MM and $253MM
The Phillies, Braves and Blue Jays are currently in this group, with the Phils ahead of the other two at $251MM. The Phillies also paid the tax in 2022, setting them up to be a second-time payor. That means they are currently set to be taxed at a 30% rate, with that rate jumping to 42% for spending that goes over the $253MM line.
Both the Braves and Blue Jays would be paying the tax for the first time in their respective histories, putting them each in line for a 20% tax rate on spending over the line. The Jays are only a hair over right now, with Roster Resource calculating their number at $233.2MM, with Atlanta at $240MM.
Just Under The $233MM Threshold
The Dodgers are currently calculated for a CBT figure of $232.9MM, just barely under the lowest line. It’s been rumored they would like to limbo under the line in order to reset their status, since that would allow them to go into 2024 as a “first-time” payor. Doing so will be a challenge at this point unless they move something off their books.
A few other teams are within range of the Dodgers and could have to start thinking about the tax line if they make another significant signing or trade. The Rangers and Angels are each at $220MM, the Cubs at $214MM, the Red Sox $212MM, Astros at $209MM, Giants at $208MM and White Sox at $205MM.
Surprised to see the Mets on this list
Same here, I remember the days when the Mets wouldn’t even sniff a top 5 payroll. Even if they did it was so bad that a LOL got attached to it.
@Cohens_Wallet: Mo Vaughn, anyone?
@rct
Geesh, I remember it like yesterday. Somber days for sure. These days we get to enjoy being the “Evil Empire” lol
Have you guys been living under a rock? Mets had the highest payroll in 2022. This is the second off-season in a row that they’ve been spending like a drunken sailor. And they’ve also been fairly close to the CBT threshold for a couple of years before that.
Much like their current roster? LOL!
So how much of that do the A’s get and how much of it do they spend?
Too much, and almost none, respectively.
Yes and the Rays marlins, pirates,ect. Well at least the Rays win despite cheap owner
The Mets are targeting Otani or Soto . This coming season in trade or in free agency
Soto won’t be a FA until after the 2024 season.
That’s the if he isn’t extended by then which I think there is a good chance.
Simm, A good chance? Obviously SD would want that, but I wouldn’t be so sure that Soto will be easily convinced to sign, unless it’s the biggest contract in MLB history. Why would Soto bypass free-agency seeing what guys like Judge got and what teams were offering Correa? It would have to exceed the Lindor, and Betts extensions for him to agree. Extending Soto is much easier said than done.
Soto would be foolish not to see what he could get in free agency.
If the padres were willing to offer judge at his age over 400m there is no no reason to think they wouldn’t give Soto 500m. Will they idk, would he accept idk. Still think there is at least a decent chance of it happening. The padres know he turned down over 400m from the nats and yet still traded a lot for him and have said many times they hope to extend him. I’m sure they know extending him will cost a ton and he may like enough in San Diego to sign for a ton rather than risking having an off year heading into free agency. It’s the benefit of having him now because you are the only team that can negotiate with him.
Again, of course SD would want to extend him. But it takes both sides. Being the only team that can negotiate isn’t that much of a benefit. He knows there will be huge offers in free-agency. His agent will keep him apprised to what kind of offers he can expect.
And why offer $500M before he’s a FA, when they might re-sign him for less once he does? Maybe the best offer from another team is $450M.
It is possible that SD makes an offer that exceeds all the estimates of what he’ll get, and maybe he’ll accept. But as I said before, it is not at all going to be easy. I’d give them a 50% chance at best at extending him.
Soto will go to free agent and then still might sign with San Diego but I bought it. Soto’s agent is Scott Boris so he will want 500 million so I would take the field rather than padres.
I’d consider a 50% chance as a pretty good chance. I’m not sure it’s even that high but it’s certainly higher than I’d put on any one team in free agency.
Well I said 50% at best. And that’s only because Preller is just crazy enough to do something like a huge overpay. But, if I were betting, like Larry48 says, I’d take the field.
@larry48 no team is giving Soto 500 million dollars. He would need to hit like how he did in 2021 to even have a shot at 400 million. Great hitter that had his version of a “down year” last year who grades very poorly defensively. Soto is closer to a DH than he is an outfielder, especially long term. His big advantage is that he is young but I dont see him getting paid more than 360 million. The Nationals offered over 400 million to try and keep him with the franchise and he declined, biggest mistake of his life
Compare Judge last year to Soto. Still good paying Soto Judge $. Soto ain’t done sheet since he’s been in SD. Check the #s.
He was only there 2 months!. Base it on that is really stupid
Unless Soto performs better this year for the Padres you can get they won’t be signing him as a FA
soto is a 240 hitter.why is everybody looking at him like a star?somebody please school me.
judge hit 62 home runs and 300 +avg soto is not in the same catagory,lol.
soto is not worth 500 million,lol.however if the padres owners are that stupid,then even better for the rest of baseball,lol.
lfg,you got it right when you said hes poor defensively.hes a good dh,not great.the nationals robbed the padres for that deal last year.
First off, BA alone is not a good indication of value. His career OBP is .424 and his SLG is .526. Who cares if you have a low BA if you’re getting on base otherwise, and pounding the ball when you hit it?
Secondly where do you get his BA was .240? He has a .287 BA for his career. His time in SD will not be taken seriously by executives looking to sign him when he becomes a FA. It’s not only a small sample lacking much in info, but it’s quite common for performance to dip after a guy is traded. Getting used to a new team isn’t easy. New teammates, different park, new city, new division, facing different pitchers, not to mention uprooting your life from one place to the next seems to always negatively affect performance
More illustrative is his career .950 OPS and 157 ERA+. Only 23 players in the history of baseball have a career OPS higher. Only 6 of those 23 are not in the HoF. Barry Bonds, Mike Trout, Manny Ramirez, Mark McGwire, Aaron Judge, and Todd Helton. His 157 ERA+ also ranks him 23rd overall. You may not see it, but he is a star on a HoF trajectory.
If the Mets do somehow sign Ohtani, even with there money it will be a long shot. Also, that 3 year plan of there’s to get back under the tax line will never happen. That’s $50m more per year, and the crazy thing is, he would cost the Mets $100m per year for 1 player. CRAZY!
The 3 year plan is out the window if the Correa signing goes through. No way they get under the tax with 3 long-term deals, arbitration and possible extensions to McNeil and Alonso. I think Cohen’s future plans are just to spend like a drunken sailor every season.
The Mets will be under $200 million in 2025 even with Correa. Of course, that assumes that everyone they sign to replace FA lost is being paid the minimum or close.
Lol, I think you’re right on the drunken sailor thing.
The $50M CBT is not for one player, it gets allocated pro-rata over all players on the 40-man roster. It’s the total payroll that goes causes the team to go over the threshold not just the last player signed.
They won’t be under the CBT tax if they want to keep Alonso and McNeil while having any starting pitchers (that under $200M you reference is with Scherzer, Verlander, and Quintana gone. Who is going to pitch? The Mets farm has very few legit pitching prospects). They will be way over the tax in 2025 as well.
Pachoo;
So they’ll do what they do now……
They’ll pay teh tax, lose the draft picks, and pay whatever they have to in order to acquire name free agents. The tax is just the cost of doing business to them (and others).
Plugnplay? There is a different their there.
its not our money,so who cares?
Don’t be silly. Cohen is targeting both.
Trust me. Whoever buys the Angels will pay Shohei $50 million a season on a 12-year contract totalling $600 million, which makes him almost the value of the Miami Marlins by himself.
If you add Shohei’s endorsements he will be paid Lionel Messi/Patrick Mahomes money. Maybe he gets more. When you sign Shohei you’re picking up an All-star Hitter and Pitcher who also happens to occupy one roster spot.
If the Angels pick up Kim, they can safely begin to print World Series Tickets in Anaheim.
the angels will not be printing world series tickets any time soon.i would give the pirates,marlins,or the royals better hopes than the angels,lol.
Calm down killer. They not even available
I think paying Bobby Bonilla put them over the limit.
at least the Mets are TRYING to win. it is a DISGRACE that the Red Sox are even close to the 233 cap given their offseason. Bloom has NO clue what he is doing !!
Cool
This just proves that the luxury tax means nothing because it has no teeth. If it did, teams would try to avoid it instead of shrugging at it.
@Reds
It does mean something. It means your Reds will be getting a nice lump sum of cash that should be spent on good players instead of a new yacht.
If you knew anything about small markets, you would know with the revenue disparity in baseball that operating expenses are more than just player salaries.
I’m sure your local TV contract in the big city probably covers your teams salaries by itself. 20 or so teams in baseball are not so lucky.
@Reds
I won’t pretende to know all the rules but I do know that your statement would be accurate if Cohen owned SNY. But he doesn’t so there goes that. I’ll also say that as a business owner myself I wouldn’t be buying a business if I couldn’t even come close to my competition. The Reds owner chose to buy the team, therefore he should be taking on the responsibility of spending. We all know they make money, either spend or sell. The fans deserve better!
14 teams are in this article alone with payrolls over $200mm, so I’m not sure 20 or so is close to accurate. And every team should be putting what they get from the revenue sharing of the national tv deals plus their own tv deals to their rosters, which the lowest was around $100mm, with out ever selling a ticket or a hot dog.
Should they spend more than they do right now? Absolutely. Will they ever be able to do what the guys with the payrolls over 200M do? No way on God’s green earth.
I like how the large market folks talk as if they have seen the small market teams books and know how much they get from what revenue sharing there is.
I believe the two COVID years were forgotten, for example. Small markets tend to put more in player development and scouting as well as that is the only shot they have to get a 3-4 year window if the stars happen to align before their guys leave for big money.
Look at attendance figures for small market teams. Baseball is dying in small markets because for half the league their fans know they have no shot at the playoffs most years unless a miracle happens. Why do you think they expanded the playoffs otherwise? MLB, whose offices are in New York, BTW, ignores all this while the NFL, NBA and NHL, who have a more equal playing field outside of just plain bad management, get more popular.
It’s not brain surgery and even the big markets know it but as long as they get theirs, they don’t care if the game is dying.
Before you scoff, just ask yourself, how many kids do you see playing or watching the game compared to when you were young?
teams like the Reds and Pirates don’t have the luxury of large television viewers which means the revenue is putrid compared to teams like the Mets or the Phillies
So the revenue they receive from the luxury tax is indeed spent on players salaries
It’s not like I’m acting like I’ve seen their books but I did read plenty of articles about this being a big hang up in the last cba. That the revenue sharing that is given before a season is meant for the rosters but has been going to “scouts” and other frivolous things, was supposed to be cleaned up after last years negotiations. The minimum a team gets was around $100mm, how many teams rosters are well below that? Don’t be mad at me, I just wanna see awesome players stay in their organizations and can’t see it happening while a chunk of billionaire owners claim poor but repurpose this money for themselves via “player development”.
Nba, nhl, and nfl head offices are in NYC too btw.
I don’t see this as a bad thing for future generations considering those big markets have the biggest fan bases usually and I don’t think a kid seeing Soto get half a bill in the future will deter them from playing considering they can play this game concussion free for the most part.
Miracles happen every year in Tampa Bay, just need smarter people in your front office
Not from 2014 through 2017 they didn’t.
@Reds: I believe what will eventually have to happen, is baseball will have to contract in order for true competition to come back. Franchises may have to combine and play a schedule which would split games between two cities. And I realize this could be a headache when a ‘team’ from that category would make the playoffs.
But I realize what you are saying is true. Kids aren’t playing or as interested in the game, as kids were years ago. I believe the biggest reason for that, is because of the enormous price of attending a game in person.
@TheMan3: You are wrong. A huge chunk of the revenue sharing gained by the Reds and Pirates goes directly into the owner’s pockets and stays there. In 2018, it was estimated that each team received $118 million in revenue sharing, and another $91million from national (MLB national TV deals) revenue sharing. That’s evem before CBT penalties were distributed. They’re estimates, of course, but even if they’re off by 25%, that’s a lot of money not being spent by small market teams.
baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Revenue_sharing
Reds and Pirates could easily have payrolls double what they’ve been and still turn a profit. But they won’t because the owners are cheap and the team has fans who are willing to carry water for them.
And they have plateaued…I watch almost every Rays game, and yes they are a heckuva good team. But what separates them from winning a WS rather than just making the playoffs every year? I’ll let you consider the answer yourself. If you watched their ugly series with Cleveland last year, you know of what I speak.
Cohen is so rich he can just pay the Mets salaries and not make a penny from anything related to it and still be a multi-billionaire. For years.
Now, given he is a multi-billionaire it is safe to say he does like making money so I suspect his plan is to either buy out SNY or sell the Mets TV rights elsewhere the second he can. Plus I’m certain he has people finding new ways to suck cash from fans.
Rct, no you are wrong. 100% wrong.
Reds and every other team in baseball bring in a floor of 150 million before collecting gate sales. Add gate sales and reds are sitting at 151 million. The owners are billionaires too. So it’s not a financial thing w reds. It’s just a loser culture franchise. Like Detroit lions or pirates. I’m not a hater. That’s my team
The Padres are a small market team who got a dream owner. Seidler wants to win, not use the Padres to become richer.
4th best winning % in baseball since 2008. Sounds good to me
Wallet-I salute your name as it is appropriate.
No matter what pittance the Reds get and however they spend it the emergence of the Uber owners such as yours who want to buy championships are a perfect example of the pitiful state that Major League Baseball has become.
Even middle market teams like the Braves and Cardinals are going to have a very difficult time even competing with the top six wealthiest ones.
It is has become a true travesty with the emergence of the arrogance in baseball.
@ Mendoza
You will never know how much I understand your words. The problem is the Mets were a “big market” team that not only refused to compete with large market teams, when they did the level of incompetence from the past owners made it imposible to succeed.
I lived in NJ as a Mets fan and got to watch the Yankees from 96 to God knows when spend like no one else mattered. Somehow now the Mets do it and its “baseball in it’s worst state” time.
It’s tough when the little guy gets squeezed out but this is América, it’s happening in literally everything. Times change, people change, things change. All we can do is adapt or get left behind. Sounds harsh but reality sometimes is harsh.
There are 735 billionaires in this country that can replace any MLB owner not willing to spend, I’d say that’s where we should start. Get the leaches out that suck their teams dry, replace them with more invested owners that are not just solely in it to make some money.
Those 735 billionaires did not become billionaires by losing money. Get real.
@Reds
You are so lost in your anger You can’t even see straight any more. With that I respectfully disagree.
I’ll leave it at that. Nice chat.
Wallet-I appreciate the classy response. If it wasn’t Cohen it would have been someone else.
I have nothing against the Mets.
I personally think that money has taken over the sport,and this country,but the problem is all of the good players want to go to the rich teams and leave the other teams behind.
We’ve seen owners spend through the roof before but not at this magnitude.Mike Ilitch and Arte Moreno come to mind from the past.
And,yes,there are a whole lot more fans of the large market teams than the small market ones.
But I think that a system could be started where the small market teams automatically get say three times as many draft picks than the large market teams,and if they do not succeed,it is on them.
It would serve to even the playing field much better.
Small market fans have been angry for years at this and the inaction of MLB to address it. That’s why attendance is down in those cities.
In NYC a small percentage of people will go to a game and 40k still show up. In smaller markets, it is usually a regional draw that fills the stadium. Who wants to make that effort the way the odds are stacked against their teams now?
Enjoy your 12 team league eventually. It will happen sooner than you think. I’ll leave it at that.
Great post. For people who complain about Cohen, what Steve has done is lay bare how cheap OTHER owners have been with their clubs. Year after year they rake in hundreds of millions *and* watch the value of their clubs increase…all while claiming that they are “small market”. They are almost all billionaires, so they really can afford to spend, but they would rather be middle of the road and rake in $$$ before eventually cashing out billions when they sell.
Any long-time met fan (30+ years for me) knows the shell game that the Wilpons played, so while in the biggest media market, the Mets were very much a mid-tier team…at best before Cohen gained controlling interest. Their TV deal….very mediocre, and even worse when you see that SNY is still owned by the Wilpons and NOT Cohen. Regional sports networks are in an interesting spot, as some will still flourish, but some may definitely struggle sooner than later because baseball viewership and overall interest is shrinking.
As for future spending with Cohen, expect it to continue until their minor league system catches up in 3-4 years. They want to be the Dodgers of the East, but that will take a number of years, and Cohen said he wanted a championship within 5 years. One of the biggest pluses about Cohen (according to Met fans) is that he is A REAL FAN. He loves the team and he wants them to be successful. The “Cohen Tax” is pocket change for him; he has bought art for $100m+ and that just sits in a random room in a random house somewhere. He actually wants to win, so if that means having a $500m+ payroll for a few years….so be it.
The other thing that few are talking about…if/when he can get a land development deal for a casino for the land around CitiField…then his net worth hits another stratosphere. He could self-fund Cohen Stadium to replace Citi, build out multi-use space w. high-end retail and casino space, and add a few hundred million to the payroll and not blink. I don’t think he’ll go there, it just depends if the Mets can win a championship within his 5yr timeline.
Cohen changed the rules the teams play by and the union better not bring up collusion. There have always been spenders like the Yankees and Sox and more recently the Dodgers but the Mets and Padres current spending is not based on traditional revenue streams and expenses. I’ve recently been critical of Boston’s ownership but imagine being a fan of the Royals, A’s or Rays? There has to be a hard cap and floor so that all teams can compete. This is insane. It’s a good thing my wife and I are beyond the years of having a child as good seats are likely to cost “our next born”.
Player payroll and ticket prices are only very loosely correlated. Tickets are a supply and demand item.
The Rays compete every year. And the Giardians also. It can be done on a low budget, but it’s much easier if you can simply spend your way out of a bad signing.
Guardians wouldn’t be competitive if they weren’t in that division. Rays are the only counter example, and we’ll see if they can hold out much longer. I have my doubts.
Those teams are good examples of ones who do better than most small markets that everyone use but they have down years too. 2014-17 the Rays had down years as they had to reload. Cleveland had a down year recently in 2021. So they are not immune either.
The Rays have the 4th best winning % in baseball since 2008.how much longer do they have to ” hold out” for your aproval?
They compete. How often have they won? And what is a major difference between those who win and those who go to the playoffs every year?
Well certain tiers certainly mean something. Only one team is going over that top tier.
Seamaholic, you make a good point on the Rays. They can only tread water for so much longer in that division for sure, before they go into the abyss.
Also true, there are 10 lucky small market teams thou, cause they all get to play each other in the Central Divisions. You feel bad for the others.
No he is wrong look at the Rays winning % the last 15 years and get back to me
Mr-As good as the Rays have been for 15 years how many World Championships have they won?The Guardians?The fact of the matter is only one small market team has won one in 30 years.
Those teams cannot afford the chance of paying a superstar for ten years at the ridiculous current rates.
The only chance that they have is to develop superstars in their minor league system and have them all grow at one time because they will be leaving soon thereafter.
MLB needs to radically change if there is any chance of competitiveness.
The players are feeding at the same trough as especially the large market owners are.
The 2nd most valuable team in MLB is on this list as being under the luxury tax threshold (on purpose) in order to reset after having the highest payroll in baseball each of the last three seasons. So it does kinda matter to some.
@Reds, I’m reasonably confident all 30 teams “would try to avoid it”, but Stevie wants to win really bad, the Yankees had to sign their new captain and when you have 3 guys making $110M it’s tough to keep out of the tax water, the Pads have an incessant need to get ahead of the Dodgers, the Phillies can almost taste a championship, the Braves want to prove to the world that being the champions of extensions will win more than one championship, and the Blue Jays are just making sure Canada is represented at the tax table. They all couldn’t help themselves, they are teams addicted to winning and would rather pay tax and win than go home in October. The past 10 WS champs have all been in the top 12 in payroll. These 6 tax payers are just making sure they have a shot at a title.
There is another potential penalty for exceeding the first luxury tax threshold ($233M this year).
“Beginning in the 2017-18 offseason, any team that is over the luxury tax threshold and signs a Major League free agent that has rejected a qualifying offer will lose $1 million from their international signing pool in the following signing period. A team that is not over the luxury tax would only forfeit $500,000 of its signing pool in the subsequent period.”
mlb.com/glossary/transactions/international-amateu…
This is already being enforced, as is the rule that a teams first draft pick is moved back 10 spots if they exceed the CBT threshold by more than $40M. In this upcoming draft, the Mets and Dodgers first pick are ten spots lower.
Basically, until the next CBA, the Mets first draft pick will be ten spots lower than it would have been.
I think that penalty will need significant increases in the future. I’d rather see those who cross the final line lose their first round pick and a lot of International Free Agent cap space too. That’d help competitive balance more, as then the richest teams couldn’t just buy back kids via those other methods.
Good thing the Mets stayed away from anyone attached to a qualifying offer.
All depends on *how* crazy rich you are whether it’s a shrug or the third rail. Cohen is apparently just head and shoulders richer than the others and this is his idea of the cost of doing business.
The thing is Cohen does not look at the Mets like it is a business. I don’t think he cares if the team loses money. He grew up a Mets fan, he has always been passionate about the team. The Mets are his toy. He is passionate about seeing his toy win.
Some of the owners are more concerned with the bottom line than winning. The thing is winning helps the bottom line. Not just in the year you win (playoffs and world series generate lots of revenue) but in future years because winning spurs ticket sales in the years that follow.
Build a winner and they will come.
Unless you are in Tampa Bay it seems.
He has other plans with casinos and developing the area around citi field. He has moves and countermoves that most of us are unaware of. He will make his money even if the Mets are his toy.
The Dodgers are proof the luxury tax has some influence. The Mets are proof that the influence is not uniform. Thank
Holy Mets
So, I googled this because I was interested where the tax money goes.Of the remaining sum, 50% of the remaining proceeds collected for each Contract Year, with accrued interest, will be used to fund player compensation as described in the MLB Players Benefits Plan Agreements and the other 50% shall be distributed to clubs that did not exceed the Base Tax Threshold in that Contract Year.
That where their needs to be a floor ! If teams don’t spend 100/125 mil in payroll they don’t get their split of $
Whew, I was nervous my Tigers would be up against that CBT threshold. (That was sarcasm for the sarcasm impaired)
The Tigers are near the top of the list of teams being the worst at spending money, if that is any comfort.
IRS jealous that Cohen paying more taxes to MLB than to them.
IQ-which just goes to prove that this is a serious national problem that MLB reflects.
^ Gold!
Lots of Mets and Yankees haters. We’ll keep on Hating. NY runs both leagues. Boooogaa
Brokies. Ha
icantstandyous;
Yes, I sit by my TV every October waiting to see the Yankees and Mets in the World Series. Unfortunately, there’s something wrong with my reception.
Anyway, for those in the NYC area that grew up with Participation Trophies in school, the sportswriters are working on an Offseason Trophy for each league.
They used to play the Mayor’s Trophy game.
When was the last time either team won the world series? Im guessing before you were born as you sound like a child
You know it’s a yankee fan pretending like they are on the same level as Mets.
Just a mere 90 mil short lol
The Astros having $24M to spare is impressive
@2020. That’s because the Astros drafted and developed most of their core. People can hate on them all they want and they aren’t my favorite teams but I do recognize that.
Trash cans and buzzers are cheap.
These jokes are obsolete and pointless now.
So is their 2017 championship
Trash cans were the 2017 Astros. Nip buzzers were the 2017 Yanks. Get your purported facts straight, please.
Oh yeah Adam, not true. They just won again and have been in the world series multiple times since 2017. Just because fans are just that, fans. Doesn’t make these jokes wildly dated now.
Says the ghost. Some of us will not forget the one who bit them. Juss sayn.
I mean they stunk up the NL for years drafting and scouting. Explains the good farm.
The Astros left the NL in 2013. Very few of their current players were high draft picks. Bregman and Tucker are the only top 5 picks playing. The rest of the roster is IFA, trades, FA, or later round picks (LMJ was a supplemental round pick). Good drafting and scouting explains why they are the model organization.
yes, the Astros have a legitimate chance to win WS this year, but not (barely at present) in top 10 CBT. It’s rare for a team not in the top 10 CBT to win a WS, only 1 team in the past 15 years has done so.
Don’t have to spend much when you have an owner/gm like Crane.
Best video department in baseball
Anyone who thinks they stopped cheating when lunhow got fired is naive.
Cookie, anybody that thinks 29 other teams don’t do the same is naive.
Apparently it’s cheating to analyze talent AND get it right? Ok.
Tiers 1 and 3 are the only tiers that teams should actively try to avoid going over. Tiers 2 and 4 are just more money.
Building a blue-print for ruining a product…
Every team can and should spend a minimum of $200 million and most should spend over $300 million. Salaries are still well below what they would be in an actual open market given that owners do nothing but make cash well beyond their outlays through the efforts of the players.
Again, someone seems to think they have seen every teams books and know what they can spend on contracts.
@Reds: every estimate I’ve seen pegs revenue sharing numbers at $100+ million from the teams and another $50+ million from league-wide revenues. They’ve all got money, some just refuse to spend it.
Then close up shop if it is too hard to compete. North Carolina would love to have a team. We would have zero problem filling stadiums.
You are talking a historic franchise. Obviously you have no concept of history like most of America. But being a Meta fan, you probably do not care either.
That being said, I’d love to see Charlotte get a team also. Great city, have been there many times. They would support a winner, not so sure if they do not win citing the Panthers example. The Pittsburgh game was like a home game for the Steelers.
Does it matter who is being rooted for if your stadium is filled. The Rays love when the Red Sox and Yankees come to town because it fills seats. Maybe this new schedule with every team playing each other will help teams like the Reds. I’m sure they will sell more tickets when the Yankees and Redsox come to town. Reds fans go drive to see Cubs games and there is no incentive to go to games because the Cubs are in town.
Great time for Pirates, Tigers, Royals, or another small market club to accept a upside down contract with a few prospects thrown in to beef up their farm system. I’m surprised this doesn’t happen more often to help borderline luxury tax clubs reset their clock
Ridiculous, the wide discrepancy between the haves and the have nots! Competition is suffering and baseball popularity is paying the price. A larger increase in revenue sharing is needed with a hard payroll cap and minimum as well. Like 150 M minimum salary per team and 200 M cap.
The only real way for a cap to work is if there was a complete revenue sharing systems similar to the nfl. Then they would have to give nearly 50% to the players which is more than they do now. So it would cost the mlb owners more overall. They don’t seem to want to do that nor does the players want a cap. It’s just isn’t going to happen.
The more likely possibility is an even stiffer tax penalty. Perhaps one that cost you draft picks for going over. This would also be fought by the players and is doubtful. Instead they will just keep increasing the number of teams that can make the playoffs so the low in teams have a chance. Specially since the mlb playoffs are more about who is hot then who is the best.
Many teams pay players well more than 50%.
As a whole the players aren’t receiving 50% of the total revenue. Surely that is easy for you to understand. Hence why the league overall would have to increase the amount being spent on players. The few teams that are spending over 50% are the ones making the bulk of the money.
Cut that to 75 million and make the max 225 million, with those only increasing at the CPI inflation level and not the 25 percent or whatever MLB’s inflation is. Sure, greedy players will boycott like they did last year (IDK if the authors here spin it and call it a lockout, it’s a boycott). Still, rebuilding teams shouldn’t need to spend that much money when they are rebuilding. I do think that a minimum should exist, though. I agree with that.
Once a Cap is imposed, the players will see less and less money. The Cap won’t keep up w/ revenue. Just like in the NBA/NFL/NHL. It’s just 101 Business sense.
There is yet to be an industry where Owners want to pay employees fairly/well. That’s just human nature/nature of ownership. Collective bargaining is the only counter-balance to the nature of ownership.
MLBPA will Never Ever allow a Hard Cap. (They see how toothless and slovenly the PA’s in Capped sports operate (all of who gave Ownership bigger slices of the pie in their CBA’s for years))
The #1 thing that gives MLB competitive parity is the length of control teams have on players, before they become FA’s. Small market teams utilize the player controll to remain competitive.
I’d argue your better off getting the League Minimum raised higher to see more $$ go to plyers on smaller teams. Making league minimum a million or two.
But, I don’t want players making more. I don’t care about revenue growth. That comes from increased ads while the inning is running and game breaks to try to keep up with player salaries. I don’t think their salary increase is nearly aligned with baseball growth. In fact, I think baseball went from number 1 to 2 and may even be lower now. Players thrice, bur the fans and the sport go downhill. There has to be a lower salary and bonuses based on the sport’s growth instead of free agency negotiations.
Too bad that MLB can’t have a hard cap like the NHL. League would be much more competitive and balanced
Baseball doesn’t need a hard cap. If the revenue is there, the players should be allowed to get as much of it as they can. A hard cap isn’t going to force Oakland to spend more, it’s just going to reduce player salaries because the better ran teams have to spend less.
Appalachian_Outlaw;
All major revenue including ticket sales and all national and local TV-radio revenue should be administered and collected by the MLB Commissioners Office.
Then the revenue should be sent back equally to the 30 franchises.
A floor and a ceiling should then be in place for payroll, with the floor no lower than 15% less than the ceiling. Teams that do not spend at the floor will be docked draft choices as are done now.
The amount of the floor and ceiling will be based on an agreed
upon percentage of the previous years revenues.
Players will “get paid”. All teams will have an equal chance to win.
This levels the playing field, and is fair – 2 things badly missing in MLB and more in line with the NFL, NBA, and NHL. Most fans that follow professional team sports have no idea why MLB is so unbalanced.
How do you prevent an owner from saying, “I don’t care about the draft choices”, then just pocketing the money? I’ll point to the A’s again because they received revenue sharing for a long time, and they hardly spend.
The ONLY way I’d be okay with any hard cap is if owners who didn’t meet a salary floor threshold were stripped of their franchises. MLB has some notoriously bad owners.
Hard Caps mean players get less of the Revenue from the league. Players Associations in every other sport have been loosing % of League Revenue for years.
Raise league Minimums. That’s how you get a floor, and the money going directly to players.
O’sSayCanYouSee;
Why do hard caps mean the players get less revenue when there is a floor?
The only players that would get less with a cap and floor are the top Boros clients with the mega deals. The rest of the players would benefit and make more on a whole.
I think the Blue Jays show how much baseball revenue has increased. Should be several more teams ahead of Toronto.
Why?
Jays have low key spent a boat load. The rotation might not be the best but it’s got over 100 million committed to it this year. Chapman, Springer and KK is another 45.
Good. The Mets are going to make it impossible for Hal Steinbrenner to show up in public, and claim that he can’t spend big because of the “cap”.
He’ll have to either match the Met spending, or never show his face again.
That’s only if the Mets actually win something. They spent a lot last year and still couldn’t win the division over the Braves and then went nowhere in the playoffs.
No, it doesn’t matter whether they win or lose. Hal never tried to argue that he’s not spending big because spending big doesn’t help the team win. Yankee fans wouldn’t buy that nonsense. We KNOW that spending big helps the team win. That’s because Hal had a father, who proved it.
What Hal’s been doing is that he’s been going around claiming that it’s IMPOSSIBLE to spend big.
Now he’s been proven wrong. Now we know for a fact that the Yankees could easily be at 400 million payroll, with all their holes filled by superstar free agents (get your mind out of the gutter, I didn’t mean it that way). If Hal WANTED TO spend, he could. If he wanted to replace Hicks with the most expensive outfielder to hit the market in the last 4 years, he could have. If he wanted Verlander on the team, he could’ve got him too.
Dewey, your post didn’t show when I posted, but I obviously agree.
An arbitrator essentially capped the Dodgers payroll where it was at the end of December, making any further moves very costly to the team. I feel certain this has generated a good deal of conversation between the Dodgers and the commissioner’s office. Another shoe to drop, I suspect. Stay tuned.
@BlueSkies “Another shoe to drop, I suspect. Stay tuned.”
Could you elaborate on that?
The assumption is since the Dodgers are on the hook for $22M this year (for the player who shall not be named) that this is the dollar amount applicable to the CBT for the last year of his contract. But this isn’t the usual way the CBT is calculated. It’s figured by the total contract value divided by the number of years (AAV). That would make the AAV for the contract around $18M. So I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the Dodgers are making this argument for more breathing room. This, or something similar would have to happen or the team couldn’t even promote a player from the minors without become a third-timer.
That’s interesting, but I’ve got to believe that this would be something that’s already accounted for in the CBA – such that everybody would already know that CBT-AAV’s are subject to change in these cases. After all, this isn’t the first time a player got suspended without pay, for some portion of his contract, right?
Right, and you make a good point. I don’t know the answer. I know only that the Dodgers have to feel as if they’ve had a hugely important financial decision made for them by the arbitrator. It puts them in a terrible competitive bind for this season at a minimum, and quite possibly others going forward if they’re unable to pare out some payroll space under the CBT this season. I believe the player discipline system was designed to punish players who violate the rules, not the teams who have the misfortune of employing them.
Dodgers need to trade Muncy.
Doubt that’s going to happen. The infield is already thin.
OK, but I’d argue that – since the Dodgers made the CHOICE to sign “the player…” (lol) – then they also accepted ANY and ALL of the inherent risks – again, as specified in the CBA. That’s why teams take everything into account (due diligence that includes character/reputation) before acquiring a player. They rolled the dice and they got burned.
I can understand how the Dodgers “feel” about it, but they know how the CBA’s arbitration rules work too, and I don’t see any reason (or any legal basis, for that matter) for retroactively making an exception to the rules, just to help the Dodgers with their current CBT situation. I can’t see how that would be even remotely fair to the rest of the league, either
Maybe the next CBA will have something new in it that alters these rules in some way…but I doubt it. I’d think they’d want some elements of the lesson to stick.
If L.A. is uber-concerned about staying under the 233 line, then they will wiggle under it at a more pressing time. Lots of things can happen still but, at worst, they can sell at the Deadline to obtain their preferred number. Seems blasphemous to speak about, but they could potentially (and easily) trade a Kersh or CT if L.A. deems it prudent at that time. I suspect they will add; being a multi-year payee means fiscally nothing to Big Blue.
ohio person? why?
Don’t get me wrong, Friedman bit the big one with this signing, not that it seems to have any effect on his continued employment. My point here is the financial uncertainty it created has dragged on through two offseasons already, and has a definite potential to impact the team for years to come. Pretty sure this wasn’t the purpose of the policy and I doubt that any other team would want it to happen to them either. No idea what the CBA says about any of this.
Going over a third year in a row, the penalties get a lot more painful. It’s plenty clear that they’re going for the reset this year. No way they trade Kershaw under any circumstances, even if the bottom falls out from under the season. Just not a happening thing. And they don’t have a lot of better options. It’s a BFM, really.
I’d just add that it’s not something that simply “happened” to them. It’s something they HAD to know was part of their overall risk – ALL of the potential consequences of their own self-created circumstances – short term and/or longer term. There’s no escaping any of that. And if they hadn’t gamed-out every single element of their own unique risks, before signing any player, let alone “the player” – that’s just entirely on them.
If the CBA provides any wiggle room whatsoever on any of this, then I think we’d have heard about it by now. Besides, the CBA is not something the Commish can just alter by fiat (not that he’d even want to in this case).
So, outside of waiting for some new language in the next CBA that changes things, I don’t see anything to “stay tuned” for – for the next several years, at least. Even then, I don’t imagine there would be anything like the necessary consensus needed to change the existing rules with regard to the high-wire predicament(s) inherent in the way the Dodgers have chosen to operate.
Cheers.
If that happens then the last few years luxury taxes would be adjusted for them to pay more.
Yes and no. Every signing comes with risk, but I don’t see how the policy anticipates a disciplinary process that takes a year and half to resolve. That happened because of the extraordinarily long investigation by the DA, and it being the first time in the many years of this policy’s existence that a player has appealed a commissioner’s ruling.
So you have to ask yourself whose interests are advanced by the policy playing out this way. The players? Not really, they want the teams to be able to spend freely. The owners? Surely not, they want predictable costs.
Again, if you know what the CBA says about this specific situation please fill me in. Personally I have no idea, but I do know it’s all about the money. So I’m looking at where the financial interests lay, and can’t see where either financial stakeholder in the game benefits from this result.
And finally, we might imagine we’re entitled to know what goes on behind closed doors at MLB, but we aren’t really. So I’m saying don’t put a lot of stock in what we have or haven’t heard.
MLBPA will never accept a Cap. Anything that limits players earnings will not be allowed.
You mean, like arbitration? Or the CBT?
In the CBT, any topic that limits players salaries will be a non-starter
Those are different. Arbitration doesn’t really cap earnings, it’s a compromise that allows teams to keep players for a certain amount of time and allows the player to earn higher salaries based on performance. As for the CBT, well the four teams that are going over the luxury tax this year prove it’s just a minor incentive to not go over a certain amount, not a true barrier.
A real salary cap would basically give the league the right to reject a deal that would take a team over a threshold. And I agree that the MLBPA would never accept it as it would ultimately cap their own salaries. Problem is my guess is more and more owners might demand it after watching Cohen spending so much this offseason.
Of course arbitration limits earnings (not “caps” it). Any player who is performing under their projected arbitration earnings is non-tendered. Any player who is over-performing their arbitration salary is tendered a contract, which by definition is for less than they’d be paid as a free agent. How much the CBT reduces payrolls can be debated endlessly but it clearly does, as can be easily seen when a team makes an effort to not be a third-time payer. So the argument that the union would never accept limits on player salaries is obviously false. They may reject a hard cap, but they’ve negotiated many other restraints, including these two.
Good. Bring on the scabs. The beer will still be cold and hot dogs tasty. Baseball is not about individuals.
A cap with a floor would actually give more money to more of the players instead of mega deals to just a select group.
The Dodgers are currently calculated for a CBT figure of $232.9MM, just barely under the lowest line. It’s been rumored they would like to limbo under the line in order to reset their status, since that would allow them to go into 2024 as a “first-time” payor. Doing so will be a challenge at this point unless they move something off their books.
Well the Dodgers have Trevor Bauer and the Orioles have Chris Davis’s contract of 42 Million defferred
I think that would help smooth things over and help everybody
Davis retired, so I don’t see how his deferred pay can be traded.
Well that is the thing
A. Can it be done
B. Are either team interested
I doubt either A or B. More likely the Dodgers try stuffing a bunch of cash in his back pocket and look for a team that isn’t concerned about the fan reception. They really have only another week to find that taker, which I don’t see happening since their only other option is unconditional release.
Well, I am all for him to get a second chance however Orioles fans are mixed
Second chances come to those who admit to their mistakes.
Let me guess without reading
Mets, yanks, dodgers, maybe SD
Terrific info – had to retweet it,
Dodgers saving $$$ to make a run at Ohtani next year!
Dodgers can make a run at Ohtani even if they weren’t saving money. It’s more likely they are just wanting their prospects to play because they want to reset their core players. Prob tired of getting beat in the playoffs every year except for the 60 game season that isn’t fully counted in the eyes of many.
“many” = Fans of teams that weren’t good enough to even win in a shortened season.
It’s not the same, no matter how you look at it
Well that many is an awful lot.
The problem with the shorten season isn’t that the dodgers were the best team or deserving. It’s the fact that many things happen over 162. I mean heck look at the padres that year, a week before the playoffs they lose their best two pitchers to injuries. Over 162 who knows who the dodgers would have lost. Let alone what team may have got hot at that point. Maybe the dodgers still win it all but let’s be real there is a pretty good chance they wouldn’t have. I can say that about just about any team. So yes it’s not a 100% true championship. Doesn’t mean it didn’t happen and that others didn’t want to win it. Just means that season wasn’t going to count the same as any other year.
Resetting the CBT would help save the Dodgers a good chunk of change next year if they sign Ohtani, in terms of the luxury tax. If they don’t reset the tax and sign Ohtani for. $50M a year, they would actually be paying him about $88.2M per year (assuming their CBT payroll ends up about $300M) as 3rd+ time CBT offenders, $38.2M more in tax.
If they reset the tax this year, as first time offenders, and assuming the same $300M final CBT payroll, they’d be paying Ohtani about $72.7M, a savings of $15.5M just from having reset their tax.
It was a conspiracy he didn’t sign there in the first place
What a joke pushing picks back just 10 spots, big market teams rule the roost, competitive balance not
Maybe one day baseball will have a true salary cap and a min also
With that payroll does anyone else kinda want to see the Mets fail? I know this will be taken as an anti-Mets statement or a schadenfreude type statement (Hell, I wish the Red Sox would have not gone cheap) but no team has ever breached the $300 million threshold and the Mets are basically breaking the highest payroll record by about $100 million. There’s just something about that that makes one want to see a team like Oakland win the World Series next year out of the potential for shear hilarity.
However you look at it you have to think that anything short of a WS banner next year will be considered a failure for the Mets. Maybe anything short of multiple WS banners.
Think 95% of baseball wants the Mets to fail. They’ve become the new evil empire by spending so much more than everyone else (spending over 70% more than the 2nd highest spender, the Yankees).
The Mets total actual payroll (not CBT payroll) plus CBT luxury tax this year will be $493.1M if the Correa deal finalizes per the original reported terms. The Yankees actual payroll plus luxury tax will be $286.8M. The Mets are outspending the 2nd highest spender by 71.9%, or $206.3M!!!! Has any team ever outspent the 2nd place team by that much? The gulf between the Mets and Yankees, $206.3M, is higher than total payroll + luxury tax of every team other than the Yankees, Padres, and Philliies!
The Braves, as of right now, will be spending $199.9M on their payroll plus luxury tax this year. The Mets are outspending them by $293.2M!!! LoL.
Of course everyone wants to see the Mets fall flat on their faces. Outrageous spending to such an absurd degree to buy a ring is gross imo.
Wonder if Shapkins had to clear it with Eddie in order to run a $40,000 Luxury Tax?
The reality is that all of the parity related issues and potential solutions are always going to be a work in progress. Yes, the large market and uber market teams have a huge advantage…and yes, too many small market teams do not spend what they really should every year on payroll.
One will never entirely bridge the gap between the market revenues available in the NY metro area and Pittsburgh, et al. Luckily for our favorite sport, the revenue advantages do not translate into World Series titles for a number of factors already discussed…much of it simply due to the nature of the game of baseball, and more recently the fact that more teams are in and have a chance.
Years ago I saw an insight into the Yankees revenues as they compared to the Phils at the time (I think that it was just before the Phls opened CBP in 2003 / 04) and it was mind boggling. The revenues available to the Yankees simply dwarfed the Phils and we are in what is considered to be a large market. There is a reason that they want to keep the data private.
The hidden component that is rarely discussed that is a huge advantage is this…not the baseball salaries, but the ability to spend on operations. The Dodgers were the ones that really maxed this out under their relatively new ownership group and set the tone…albeit a tone that few clubs could possibly afford. Not just the analytics side, but scouting staff and development staff and senior consultants (at one point they seemed to hire every retired GM as a consultant) and such. When you will pay more for all of that that makes a big difference over the long haul.
And yet somehow the Tampa Bays manage to do wonders on a relative shoestring…Cleveland somehow develops more pitchers than half of the rest of baseball and so on. In essence, with a sharp ownership group and front office one can compete, and the bar is raised all around. But they still need to keep after both ends of the equation – make it so the uber markets are not able to bully as much as they do, and get the laggards in the smaller markets to actually spend the revenues that have been thrown their way by the balancing process.
Carver Andrews;
The small markets can win as long as they go through periods of non-contending, taking their payrolls down and filling the roster with quality young players they control.
This is why the large market teams and their fans complain about those teams “not trying to win” and demanded they spend more. If they did teams such as the Brewers, Guardians, Orioles, Rays, and others would never have a chance to win anything.
What if the large markets had more franchises (New York once had three, Boston had two), while the unsupported small markets were eliminated? Would that balance better?
Hell, the Metropolitan area has THREE hockey teams and it’s not even an American sport!
whyhayzee;
I have no problems with that.
I live in an area where there are 3 small market teams in a 3-5 hour drive. I watch games via MLB.TV so I can watch any team that’s not in my “market” live…and 2 hours after the game I can replay it. And I don’t even follow the team that’s in my “market”. I enjoy MLB and follow 7-10 teams a years closely….doesn’t matter where in the country they play.
If MLB took those small market teams around me and moved one each to the NYC area, the LA area, and the Chicago area – that would be fine with me. Not so sure people in those 3 areas particularly want to follow a 3rd team. But what it would do is cause people in the 3 areas it left to discontinue following MLB.
Another solution is to move those 3 teams to Nashville, Las Vegas, and Portland (for example). I give those cites less than 10 years before they realize that they’re the new small market teams and they have no chance of winning anything as anytime some of their players get good, they’ll leave for salaries their teams can’t afford to pay.
Allow me to sneak in the Bryan Reynolds thing. The Pirates developed a good player – not a superstar – but a good player. The guy is playing on a lousy team, wants a contract he sees large market players of his ilk getting, and asks for a trade. Wham! Here come the Yankee fans and other large market fans talking to the great unwashed and telling them they’ll do them a favor and trade them 3 garbage players for Reynolds….therefore they’re doing the Pirates and their fans a favor.
This mentality exists because of the structure of MLB. It’s not that the field isn’t level – it’s that it’s so out of whack that at least half the franchises have little hope of being successful at any time. Cincinnati got to the Super Bowl last year. Phoenix and Milwaukee got to the NBA Finals a few years ago, and Milwaukee has had one of the power teams for years in the NBA. Right now it would be a miracle if their MLB teams could have more than one year of contention out of the next 10 with the idea that they could go to the championship series.
Samuel, do you think baseball had it better prior to free agency? I remember multiple teams being really good and the players had more continuity with each team. But there were also teams that were bad every year. At least it felt like different teams could win each year. And there were good teams that still didn’t win.
Baseball has changed so much since those years, late fifties to early seventies? I could be totally rose colored glasses as a growing boy who loved baseball during those years.
whyhayzee;
I think overall it was better for the fans before free agency. It depended on the owner. If he/she would spend and keep FO people so contending teams could be built.
I’ve written here often that most rebuilds fail. Of course they do. Almost all teams not in contention are in some sort of rebuild (even in the early stages where they’re tearing the ML team down – as the Red Sox are currently doing and the Nationals did the previous 2-3 seasons). But even with the expanded playoffs only half the teams can be in a winning mode. So it’s a numbers thing about rebuilds working.
I loved – and still do – watching quality teams being built over 3-5 years. But before free agency those teams could be kept together. Now once players hit their 6 years there often isn’t enough money to pay them all – which is why the A’s tear it down and rebuild around 6 -7 year cycles.
I watched teams build long-term (well over 5 years) contenders in cities like Baltimore (over decades with some years of stepping back and reloading), Pittsburgh, Cincinnati of course, Oakland (the ’72-’74 A’s were the best team I ever saw), St. Louis, Brooklyn/LA.
But those days are gone.
Don’t follow the NHL, but the same thing has happened in the NBA and NFL.
There seem to be no more ‘Boys of Summer’ in MLB – although what the Astros have done going into their 9th straight year of contention is the exception to the rule.
FYI – About 6-7 years ago I totally stopped following MLB (this has happened a number of time in my life – busy with other things). I came back and looked at rosters, and players had moved around so much it took me almost a year to figure out how they got there.
Following professional sports is like going to my Doctors office a few times a year. It seems like all the clerical help and even some of the assistants have changed since my last visit.
Samuel, this off-season has been pretty head spinning. I’ve had to scroll back through stories to remember all the moves that have been made. I’m not really sure what it’s like for a young kid these days. No continuity at all.
whyhayzee
Philadelphia used to have 2 also. My father was mad when the A’s moved since they were the better team back then.
Panj341, you’re right, I forgot about Philly.
Agreed. The small markets are doomed to work hard for a shot at a few years of potential contention, usually followed by a reset. At best in a few cases, they minimize that cycle via harsh roster culling (within two years of FA then on the market as we can’t afford ya’) tied in with really efficient returns on trades and solid farm development.
The next issue that pertains is this – the large market teams are learning fast when it comes to the rest of the market inefficiencies. For a while, simply by virtue of necessity the well-run small market teams devoted tremendous effort to the less expensive (on a relative basis) areas that they could exploit in order to compete. Drafting and development; saberdudes, combing the bushes for injury upside rehab plays; roster depth and the like.
Now, while I am thrilled to see the Phils moving in this direction, when you have the Dodgers, Yankees and Mets figuring this out then we are right back to the same story…figuring out how to make the playing field just a bit more level every time that we can. Every fan base deserves to feel as if they have a shot at things.
The system really doesn’t work. The value is in the younger, cost-controlled players, but it spending teams are heavily penalized when it comes to draft picks, they don’t necessarily develop the younger, cost controlled players and instead have to bid up when a hole in their lineup or rotation appears. The CBA pushes both ends of the barbell to extremes. A highly competitive team can’t risk positional black holes because they could lose out on the playoffs, or advancing in the playoffs, so they have to spend. A lower spending team sees no incentive for getting better–even no incentive to signing young talent to extensions, because the revenue sharing is coming in, as are the extra draft picks. Why decrease profitability to go from a 71 win team to a 74 win team?
“A lower spending team sees no incentive for getting better–even no incentive to signing young talent to extensions, because the revenue sharing is coming in, as are the extra draft picks. ”
Mikenmn;
You believe that?
“Lower spending teams” win by developing their controlled players; and as those players put in time their salaries get larger.
Most small market contenders can afford one or 2 high priced players that have their 6 years in, and that’s it. The Guardians signed Jose Rameriz. He gave them a discount, which people here were upset about. Had he not they would have had to trade him for prospects – which is what people here want…..as they view the small market teams roles as AAAA teams that develop major leaguers for other teams. Currently the Guardians are trying to sign Shane Bieber to an extension. They have all the incentive in the world. Unfortunately, even with the current revenue sharing they cannot possibly pay him what the owners of the Mets, Padres, Yankees and others will pay….what Scott Boras regards as “market rates”.
What “market rates” infers is that anyone can pay that. No way. Reminds me of when Boras was negotiating a contract for Barry Bonds with the Giants – a large market team. Bonds made it clear he wanted to stay with the Giants. At one point in the negotiations the owner was so exasperated that he told Boras he’d give Bonds the money Boras wanted, but Barry would wind up playing on the field with 8 rookies because there wouldn’t be enough money to pay anyone with any ML experience. Boras had to drop his demands some.
Thanks for the reasoned response. What I’m saying is that a) any team, rich, poor, or in between, would love the cost controlled young player. Rich teams don’t pay more than they think they have to to get the player., but the more competition there is for that player, the higher the price is likely to be. Boras’s “market will bear’ envisions multiple competitors bearing cash,” The key is on the demand side. Just like a house sale the winning bid sets the market rate.
“Just like a house sale the winning bid sets the market rate.”
Mikenmn;
Keep in mind that the game within the game by not only benefiting the bidding winners but those that drove the price up as well. The object is to drive all salaries up which basically knocks out more then half of MLB’s teams from doing much. Of course those middle teams aren’t going to get the big name FA’s each year. But as salaries continue to climb those teams that are on an upswing and need depth cannot 1) afford to pay those players and/or 2) can pay them for one year, then will need to trade off some of their players to bring their payroll back to something they can afford.
This is what the Yankees and Red Sox did for decades. They ran up salaries so often that teams that hoped to compete in a coming season had to pay their better FA players multi-year NYC / Boston salaries to keep them. Once the team fell out of contention they had to dump those salaries. Then the Yankees and Red Sox showed up to make one-sided trades for taking on the remaining salaries.
Teams are smarter now and most stay away from that. But the media – which pushes the large market teams – eggs the small market teams fans on to hate their “cheap” owner and demand he/she overspend and overcommit…….which plays into the hands of the big spending teams.
Jays being a bit over shouldn’t be an issue.
They have about $50M coming off the books after next season. Paying 20% on an overage and dipping back under next year shouldn’t be a problem.
On that note… would love to see them grab Chafin to be the top lefty in their bullpen.
Stroman, seiya, dansby, hendricks, bellinger, taillion… who else is that number composed of? And those salaries aren’t particularly high even.
To likely be competing for 3rd place in an awful division when 3-4 WC teams are miles better (maybe the brewers aren’t miles better, just better) and another couple could/should be better… and running that kind of payroll makes little sense to me
Cbt number, not payroll, I forgot.
They have 30 mil of dead money on their books and a lot of expensively mediocre players. Theo left the team in pretty bad shape but the team will have a cleaner slate come next offseason.
The only likely explanation is that fundamentally the Cubs are not run to win. From that perspective they are inefficient and lazy. From the perspective of revenue generation and promotion they are razor-sharp. If asked why their on-field product is usually lousy, an honest reply would be that we don’t have to be good to be successful.
If the point of the tax is for competitive balance, as the name implies, it would be better if teams exceeding the thresholds were hit with more severe draft penalties. Obviously some teams have enough that they don’t care about the money.
That means the small market teams that don’t fill up the stadiums with fans, the luxury tax from the big market teams is taking care of that for em lol. So they don’t care if they don’t sign anyone big to bring fans in, the Mets will take care of their losses.
Convenient they docked Bauer’s salary just enough to help the Dodgers slip under the tax.
Bauer was docked for the pay he received in 2021 while on administrative leave.
does the Dodgers # include Bauer?
Yes
I’m a Dodger fan, and i can say this out loud, as I am also a baseball fan in general.
Do we really think that the “independent”arbitrator picked 50 games without pay for Trevor Bauer in 2023 to bring Bauer’s contract value down to $22M and kept the Dodgers total number to $232.9M just under the threshold was just a coincidence? Really?
As for the Mets, Padres and all the escalated spending, until they win something, it means nothing.
Why complain when the money has not yet bought a championship?
IIRC… it’s a panel of three people – an independent arbiter, a MLB rep, and a MLBPA rep. There needed to be a satisfactory medium for all parties.
Rob Manfred’s version of baseball socialism. Just put a salary cap in instead of this stupid tax system.
put it in the books, No, not Manfred’s version of baseball socialism. This system precedes Manfred’s tenure. The CBT was first instituted in 1997. Manfred came to MLB, not as commissioner, in 1998. He became commissioner in 2014.
No one can just put a salary on. Players have to agree to a cap, and as history shows, that is never, ever, ever going to happen.
MLB is one business with 30 owners. This reality long preceded any commissioner, who in any case is hired by the owners and nobody else to represent their interests and no others.
To all you’all who say a hard cap would not be accepted: if there was a floor as well as a cap that increased the amount of money being paid to players over the entire league, how could the mlbpa complain?
By guaranteeing a higher floor, owners could argue for a lower ceiling. By increasing their minimum salary costs by $10M-$20M a season on “minimum” or pre arbitration salaries they could argue to pay guys less in arbitration and less in free agency.
Not saying it’d be justifiable but ownerships could make that argument- we pay you guys less as rookies and team controlled players and if you thrive you get paid exponentially more later, but for those who burn out quickly or who the league figures out- flash in the pan kinda guys who are mediocre at their personal best- we’re not currently wasting money. If players get that hard floor of higher wages, then the owners are overpaying for less valuable production which lowers the value of actually productive players later.
How could they complain? Since they already rejected the idea, that question is moot. What they care about is not having any kind of upper limit on salaries. So a cap with a floor is not going to fly with the players.
This is why it seems highly unlikely that Cashman is going to the free agent market for a left fielder. Either he manages to swing a trade or left field will be manned by Cabrera and Hicks (and I really hope that Hicks is off the roster before spring training).
You trying to get rid of the Hicks up?
Hold your breath.
Where does this money go?
To the poorer teams?
If yes then they should also pay if their payroll is too low like under $100 million.
We need more balance in MLB.
Come on… do a trade
Devers for a deep dish pizza. Who says no?
So what is the penalty? Really wish they would tell this information.
Team total payrolls remain fluid for those over the CBT. It’s not hard to do the math. If MLBTR staff includes the current penalty tax number, then you’ll have readers complain every day about an update whenever there is a roster move.
Still doesn’t answer my question. What is the value of the penalty?
You should send a list of the teams that don’t spend the least amount of money and wonder why their gate attendance is at an all time low.
It probably would be a bit complicated to do, but I would love to see someone construct 30 rosters out of the entire list of major leaguers, following the current distribution of team payrolls and see how many competitive teams would be created. There are an awful lot of players overpaid for their production and many younger low cost players out there as well. I wonder what the maximum number of competitive teams would be out of this giant pool of major league players?
A fantasy draft in MLB The Show set to autodraft would produce such rosters.
To everyone saying we need a salary cap, I suggest you read “The Game: Inside the Secret World of Major League Baseball’s Power Brokers”, by Jon Pessah. It documents the labor negotiations between the owners and players, among other things, from 1992 to 2010.
Anyone who reads that book, though I’m sure not many will, will understand the futility of suggesting that a salary cap be instituted. It will give readers the true appreciation of the fact that it will never happen.
Then the game will eventually die and many future players will have no job whatsoever. But as long as they get theirs, right?
Nonsense…smaller clubs always adapt…just because the Mets have spent all this money doesn’t mean they’ll win the World Series automatically..
What are you talking about? I’m not saying anything is right or wrong, just how things are. No salary cap is the hill the players will die on. How it turns out is anybody’s guess.
Give the money to charity. A’s fan talking
It’s clear the best way to deal with large market teams isn’t salary caps or taxes. Rather it would be best if there was no interference, or, a complete reversal, with new franchises added to large markets.
No interference allows richer teams to overspend on veteran stars and take on overbearing contracts that limit team success in the long run, thereby balancing the competition somewhat.
Or, the addition of more teams to major markets should even out the disparities big city teams hold over mid-sized metros. As large markets have the capacity to hold many teams. Even New York successfully held more than two teams many decades ago.
CSE:
Actually, no it isn’t clear that is the only methodology required – and I am not trying to pick on you here at all. Yes, in a free market, those types of strategic assumptions are helpful; not in a stand alone way but that would be one of the remedies.
Baseball is in no way a free market however – instead it is a monopoly that poses as one via the PR department. Hence, given that protected design, one cannot utilize pure competition to remedy this type of disparity…actually one literally cannot do that as it isn’t allowed unless one is voted ON to the island by the very crew of folks that don’t want to have you next door (see the ongoing legal drama for the MASN network relating to an INTERNAL squabble over rights and revenues).
As far as the uber markets continuing to make the same mistakes that they have in the past – using the anvil of money while ignoring the rest of the subtleties – those days are also over. The big $$ teams are working just as hard on the small details now and are catching up (or surpassing) the small market teams in those areas as well.
The way baseball is balance is not with the payroll tax or penalties, its by allowing more teams get in to playoffs (nearly half and they wanted more) this way an 87 win team can be a ws champion. A mediocre team can get hot at the right time and win 4 short series and be a ws champion. Soon Cohen will learn that having the best team means nothing.
Cohen would have to have the best team, in order to learn that; I don’t think Mets are the best team, MLB, or just NL
All the horses are in the barn so we don’t know who will win the race at this point.
Even with more playoff teams, there’s still an advantage to the larger franchises.
But you’re right, the Morgan’s Magic team might just pull it off in any given year.
They’ll all be knocked out in the first or second round anyway.
The blue Jay’s are over the luxury tax? I had no idea their payroll was that high…egg on my face.
what is the point of a luxury tax when these teams have plenty of money to pay it?
A better option to keep spending down may be the lost of draft picks in the early rounds.
The Yankees and Mets can buy their way to contention every single year.
The Giants, Jets, Rangers, Islanders, Devils, Nets and/or Knicks cannot do that.
But sure, “a salary cap wouldn’t make any difference”…says the people who benefit from a lack of a salary cap.
Let’s hear it from the White Sux fans who constantly argue the Cubs are not spending enough. Looks like they spent more than the south side.
MLB needs a salary cap. The willingness of some teams to go way over the luxury tax drives up player salaries to obscene levels.
In 2008 the Yankees were the first to crack $200 mil ($209), #2 was the Tigers at $137 (66% of the Yankees). In 2023 the Mets will be close to $400 mil with #2 the Yankees at $291 which makes them 73% of the Mets roughly. #3 is the Padres at $267 mil or 67% of the Mets (roughly the spread the Yankees had in 2008). As a reminder, the Phillies won the WS in 2008 over the Rays. The Yankees were 89-73 that year, but did win it all in 2009 for the last time (so far). So no, money doesn’t make everything perfect. It helps, but it takes more as the Rays proved that year and every year.
What the Ray’s do takes extreme smarts and skill. They are at such a financial disadvantage compared to the top spenders. It truly is amazing what they have accomplished despite such a financial disadvantage.
But they only do well due to being extremely well run. Spending teams like the Mets can just make terrible baseball decisions time after time and just spend over their mistakes. It isn’t even close to a level playing field.
Nice to see a billionaire spend that extra money he made (exploiting and crushjng people in service of gaming “the system” and it’s politicians) in service to his teams fans!
What’s he going to do? Take it with him!!?? There are no luggage racks on a hearse
(thanks for pointing that out
Don Henley! You can go back
to your underage girl fans now.)
He certainly isn’t going to use it for reparations to minorities to make up for the systemic advantages that allowed him to be born on third base while he thinks he hit a triple.
So there’s nothing to see here folks! May the best paid team
(rosterd with the most POC players hoovering all those “whitewashed” dollars) win!
America!
What a country!
Note: The revolution will be
streamed…..
Jorge- What sort of revolution will that be?
I love all the Mets hate. I get spending all that money guarantees nothing. However, I also know my Owner is committed to winning and putting an entertaining product on the field. I’ll gladly spend extra to go see some good players.
I honestly wish all Owners were giving at least 1/2 the effort to win. Instead we know they’re not. Once great teams like Oakland, Cincinnati and Pittsburgh are ripping their fans off by not even trying. They not only have the money to spend but they receive competitive balance money that they put in their pockets instead of spending on players. You can whine all you want but the Mets are playing by the rules.
Metsie-Those once great teams that you mention are all small market who have no choice but to build from their minor league system so teams like the Mets can eventually poach their best players like what happened to the A’s this year.
And meanwhile, the A’s have a payroll of $25M lol. I think with the next CBA there will be some changes or steeper penalties. Something to kind of even out the playing field. I still don’t believe in a salary cap for the MLB though!
So from the rangers, angels, cubs, red Sox giants, white Sox those teams will hover just around .500. Astonishingly they keep adding bad talent to the payroll.
I would give Kruk’s left nut for the white sox to spend money on REAL talent and continuously blow past the luxury tax like the big market team they are …
Memo to Jerry Reinsdorf: when you retire to the billionaire’s old folks home in the sky, you can’t take it with you.