The latest episode of the MLB Trade Rumors Podcast is now live on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, and wherever you get your podcasts! Make sure you subscribe as well! You can also use the player at this link to listen, if you don’t use Spotify or Apple for podcasts.
This week, host Darragh McDonald is joined by Tim Dierkes of MLB Trade Rumors to discuss…
- MLBTR’s poll asking whether fans want an MLB salary cap (0:30)
- What does parity mean? (5:25)
- Trying to assess where things stand for the next round of CBA talks (11:20)
- How much would a salary cap actually improve parity and what other paths are there? (17:40)
- What is the mentality of the players right now? (24:50)
- How baseball is not like the other major sports (28:35)
- The Dodgers trio of recent pitching additions: Roki Sasaki, Tanner Scott and Kirby Yates (31:55)
- The Blue Jays signing Anthony Santander (40:30)
Check out our past episodes!
- The Jeff Hoffman Situation, Justin Verlander, And The Marlins’ Rotation – listen here
- Brent Rooker’s Extension, Gavin Lux, And Catching Up On The Holiday Transactions – listen here
- Kyle Tucker To The Cubs, And Trades For Devin Williams And Jeffrey Springs – listen here
The podcast intro and outro song “So Long” is provided courtesy of the band Showoff. Check out their Facebook page here!
A cap AND a minimum. With profit sharing, teams should reinvest rather than keep it in their pockets.
No and no because that doesn’t solve any problems that currently exist in baseball and more importantly in other sports.
See nfl where they’ve duped people into thinking they have the best parity and even manipulate schedules to produce parity and you have the patriots and chiefs in the afc championship game for the last 20 years one or the other.
People like the idea of a salary cap because it sounds like it should work, but if you really analyze the results, you see that it really doesn’t. 16 different MLB franchises have won a title in the past 25 years. That is more than the NFL, NBA and NHL which all have hard caps. That shouldn’t be possible, but there it is.
pjc – Without question, spending doesn’t guarantee championships – the Yankees can attest to that, having gone 16 years without one.
But a hard salary cap is definitely needed, because huge spending does basically guarantee playoff spots nearly every year and that’s obviously an unfair advantage.
The thing is, neither the owners nor the players would want a hard cap. When the NY and LA and other big market teams with all their stars don’t make the postseason, that drags down ratings.
As for a hard salary minimum, it should be only as a requirement for revenue sharing eligibility. If a team has a window where 20 of their active roster players are all under team control and therefore not paid much, why should they be forced to spend more if they are not revenue sharing recipients?
Oh, is that because of market size?
Or because of the outsized importance of QB play?
Your argument is MLB doesn’t need a salary cap because Brady and Mahomes are really good QBs.
It’s silly.
It’s not. Baseball has better parity than every other sport.
What’s silly is fans stomping their feet because their favourite player wants to make the most money he can, and fans want to chain him down and force him to stay somewhere he doesn’t want to play. It’s anti player and it’s disrespectful to players past and present who fought and lost millions in earnings not to have a cap. It’s spitting in their faces because fans ignorance and entitlement.
No, and No.
Baseball isn’t the NFL, NHL or the NBA. It doesn’t need to align itself with the other sports and it is entitled to think they matter in this discussion. They are each individually their own sports with their own personalities of structure and competitive advantages.
It is ignorance to think think that fans whom pay for the tickets, and provide the players with the opportunity to make such salaries in a variety of markets to show their skills, that competition is paramount when super teams are created and small markets are reduced to sideshow acts rather than actual contenders. Thus spitting in the fans faces unless they’re fans of the away teams, rather than their home team.
The nfl example is silly, we all know the NFL is less of a team sport and more of a who has the Best Qb.
There are teams willing to spend money on players in the MLB, like Toronto, NY, etc. but if you can build a SUPER TEAM in LA then yes as a player wanting to win why wouldn’t you migrate there. LA did it anyway with a soft cap-which is still a cap. Stop spitting in the faces of the fans with your own ignorance and entitlement by doing nothing, while clearly something must be done. Sports, are a social construct and experiment that mirrors the flaws of capitalism as shown. Sitting on your hands and doing nothing because you’re using examples like the NFL as absolutes is disrespectful.
Thats – Depends on what you consider to be parity.
In terms of championships, yes MLB has had parity since the Yankees 1996-2000 dynasty ended.
But in terms of making the postseason, heck no. The Yankees and Dodgers make the postseason virtually every year, while other MLB franchises are perennial non-contenders.
Yup, 3 of the 5 longest playoff streaks in baseball history are currently active. The 4th ended 2 years ago. The playoff field is nearly set before these teams even break camp.
Yes. The Dodger winning the NL West 11 of 12 years is great parity. The Yankees making the playoffs 25 of 30 years is great parity.
Does baseball have more parity or does it have more variance?
Parity is defined as the condition of being equal or equivalent. No one in their right mind would say the Dodgers or the Yankees are equivalent in any way (talent or payroll) to the Pirates or Reds.
What we have is a higher variance game, that allows for more random results therefore allowing some teams to perform above or below their average outcome. This is not parity.
In the NFL each team has the same salary to build a team with and therefore building your team and identifying talent is very important as well as maneuvering with the cap and most importantly coaching.
Baseball is a game of chance with some teams playing with a single bingo card, others with a few more and then others with 10 or more. While the 10 bingo cards won’t always win they will always have a better chance and will likely be close every single time.
If you care about the long term health of the league then you should be willing to sacrifice a season to make it healthier for the future. A sport relies on its perceived equality of opportunity and each team does not have that right now.
To say the the game of football is less of a team sport than baseball is completely asinine. The game of baseball relies on singular players taking turns swinging a bat. The NFL relies on multiple layers of the team working in tandem.
If the offensive line can’t block for the quarterback then you can be Tom Brady and you will still get hurt. Or an elite secondary can only cover for so long before WRs will get open, therefore they rely on a defensive line that can force the quarterback to make throws quickly.
That’s just very basic levels of the team aspect of the sport of football. Baseball is by far a more of an individualistic sport.
Football is a quarterback driven sport. If Baseball was more individual Trout would have won something.
Roses – Sorry I have to respectfully disagree.
In basketball if you have a Michael Jordan or LeBron, every time you are on offense you can give him the ball and he can attempt to score. They played 38 minutes of a 48 minute game and they were one of only five players on the court at any given time. When their team needed to score, they got the ball.
In football the QB is involved in every offensive play (except the few kicking situations) and there’s no other QB to replace him in the same game. Over the course of a 60 minute game, Brady averaged 36 passes per game and also ran the ball on average twice a game. If his team needed to score, Brady is the only one who would make nearly all the pass attempts.
It’s not the same with MLB. No matter how good a hitter you are, there’s always at least 8 other guys who are stepping to the plate as often as you …. no matter how bad they might be. And unlike the NFL, every baseball player (except for the DH and pitcher) play BOTH offense and defense. That’s why baseball is much more a team game, and why baseball’s biggest stars don’t have as much of an impact that basketball and football stars have.
It works great in the NHL
All media ,sponsors , ticket sales revenue split evenly.Each team in NFL received 404 million dollars in revenue sharing. and it has been rising each year . Plenty of money for all to pay players it’s even sport even if good QB makes a dynasty it’s even . All teams have chance not market sizecan compete with Each other . That’s parity
A Salary floor is just as important !
It’s honestly the most important part. In the other three leagues, the floor is something like 90% of the cap. This ensures teams spend roughly the same amount, and gets player salaries close to an agreed upon percentage of revenue. That percentage is close to 50%, MLB appears to effectively pay lower than that under the current system.
You do not have a serious cap proposal without that kind of floor and percentage. The MLB has never proposed anything like that. The last proposal with a floor was something like $100m for the floor with a cap close to $200m. That is way too wide of a gap.
The larger reason they don’t do that is they would have to force everyone to share more of the revenue and the big teams don’t want to, and the small teams don’t want to force that.
Fine, institute a cap in exchange for getting rid of market based revenue sharing and a $100m payroll floor and 4 years of club control until free agency.
You can’t have a floor without revenue sharing. Too many teams generate inadequate revenue.
Then maybe they should sell to people who can.
MatthewStairs
Then maybe they should sell to people who can.
==========================
Okay, just for fun, explain how you think Cleveland, with a metropolitan size of 2M, and sharing the state with another team, is going to generate the same revenue as, say the NYY, with a metro are of 19M.
To be fair, this comment comes from pure jealousy of the Dodgers and the fact my team chooses not to spend but…baseball just isn’t as fun to watch anymore.
It can’t be good for the MLB product that 3/4 of the teams already have no shot at the playoffs and we haven’t started Spring Training. If a salary cap/floor could help level the playing field (even if for just a bit), I don’t see how that’s a bad thing.
How can 3/4 of the teams already have no shot at the playoffs when 40% of teams (12 out of 30) make the playoffs in the current format?
ROTFLMAO!!!!
Another 8 teams finished within 6 games of the playoffs, meaning 60% of the teams had a legit shot.
So we’ll round that down to 25%.
What’s the chance of being in that 40 percent tho??
About 4 in 10
I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt.
He didn’t say no shot at *MAKING* the playoffs. I’ll read it as no shot at being competitive in the playoffs.
It all depends what other words you want to add to his statement to flesh it out
GASoxFan
I’ll read it as no shot at being competitive in the playoffs.
========================
That’s fair enough, but I had already given him the numbers. 8 teams finished within 6 games of the playoffs, in addition to the 12 that did make the playoffs.
Or going in reverse order, how many teams were out of contention when the season started? IMO:
White Sox
Rockies
Sacramento
Miami
Nationals
Angels (maybe)
So 24 teams had a legitimate shot at the playoffs.
GASoxFan
I’ll read it as no shot at being competitive in the playoffs.
==========================
Or going from a slightly different perspective, outside of the 6 teams I listed, every other team had at least 74 wins. That .457 winning %.
The NFL had 12 teams with less than a .457 winning %. The NBA currently has 9 teams below .457.
what’s the cap and who gets to set it? The big market teams are gonna throw the weight into the ring and demand 250-300 million caps which is ridiculous and still unsustainable.
Which is exactly why they’re probably won’t be a 2027 season. It’s going to be hard enough getting the owners to agree, let alone the players and the owners. It’s going to be a freaking mess.
There will be no mess as there will be no lockout and no cap.
LOL! Do you really think it is that simple?
Oh wait, it is. IMO, shared revenue with the players at about 50%, plus a staggered $150-300M cap will benefit the players and the league.
But while both sides will come in like Yosemite Sam, I expect no serious quarrels.
Salaries would explode with just a 200 million ceiling and 150 floor. Salaries generally jump only 3-5 % yearly. Obviously a 250 million cap would not work.
I would think the Cap would be around the 200 million mark with a floor around 180 million. That would put the total pay for MLB players around the same percent of revenue as NFL and NBA.
This was disappointing. I was hoping to hear an intelligent discussion about the pros and cons of a proper cap system (all cap systems require a floor). Instead we got two union shills desperate to get validation from the national baseball media, the MLBPA, and Boras telling us they don’t want a cap and implying that two-thirds of us are stupid. Really bad job here..
Bingo
Or…a realization that a cap is largely about limiting players’ earning potential, so there’s no reason for the MLBPA to agree to one.
That is not the purpose of a salary cap system..
Ghost,
That’s the purpose for owners. They convince fans to support it by claiming it’s about competitive balance, but the NFL and NBA have been less competitive than MLB over the last ~30 years.
I disagree with that statement. If you look at championships then yes, but if you look at opportunity, Look at playoff appearances. Look at retention of star players, then there is no comparison. The Dodgers have won the NL West 11 of 12 years and I think its safe to say the trend continues.
Does Josh Allen stay in Buffalo or go to the Giants. Does LeBron ever sign in Cleveland? Does Sidney Crosby stay in Pittsburgh?
You can’t honestly believe that all teams operate on a level playing field in baseball like they do in the other sports.
Championships or playoff appearances, MLB does not have a competitiveness disadvantage relative to the NFL or NBA.
LeBron left Cleveland – twice – to chase rings, with the latter departure to LA, home of the Lakers and Dodgers.
I don’t know the specifics of the Josh Allen or Sidney Crosby situations, but NFL and NBA players switch teams all the time, often because teams can’t afford to keep them.
Kevin Durant has played for how many teams? Saquon Barkley didn’t just get 2000 yards for the Giants, did he?
You can’t honestly believe all teams operate on a level playing field because of a cap.
There are many factors besides payroll that prevent a level playing field. As just two examples, until recently, the Lions and Bengals were uncompetitive for a long time despite a cap.
A cap does not ensure outcomes, only opportunity.
Didn’t LeBron win a finals in Cleveland? When was the last baseball championship in Cleveland?.
I don’t think NFL and NBA switch any more than MLB – the only thing for sure is that in the NFL if Mahomes is a free agent, Minnesota and New York have the same chance of signing him. This is not true in baseball.
A cap ensures a level playing field. Dumb is still dumb and the Pirates will probably be bad in a cap league, but at least they won’t be bullied financially and they’ll be more than cannon fodder for the super rich.
You cannot stake any measures of parity in baseball to winning championships.
During a monotonous 4-year stretch in which the only two NBA teams to reach the Finals were Cleveland and Golden State, LeBron won a title in Cleveland in 2016.
That same year – a season after small-market Kansas City won the World Series – Cleveland played in a 10-inning Game 7, as close to a title as possible while falling short. While they haven’t won a championship since 1948, when was the last time Detroit or Cincinnati won a Super Bowl?
Speaking of free agents and Minnesota, Carlos Correa signed with the Twins, twice! We both can cherry pick examples that support our side of the argument.
A cap ensures no owner has to, or can, spend significantly more or less than others. League-wide broadcast contracts in football and basketball help that tremendously while MLB teams have greater variance because of local revenue.
Given that, this seems largely like a problem among owners, with increased revenue sharing an equally – and possibly better – way to level the playing field. Why is it the responsibility of the players to fix an issue between owners?
Ghost: “Opportunity?” I mean, what you’re really doing here is redefining parity to try and fit a a very narrow framework to justify a cap.
I’m going to guess that the NFL team you like does well every year…. So, because they do, you say there’s “parity.”
But, what that means is: you are upset (understandably) that your baseball team doesn’t do well and doesn’t spend.
There’s simply no evidence to support your theory a cap creates better parity. In fact, there are decades of evidence in the NFL/NBA that it does not.
Is anyone really surprised that KC/Buffalo are in the AFC championship again? The Eagles…..again? The Patriots for almost two decades? But, you think there’s parity because more teams had….. “a shot.” If that’s your definition, you should be pushing for expanded playoffs, which is the *only reason* more teams have “a shot” as you put it. I mean, look how many teams had five or less wins this season. You think THAT is exciting to watch?! The Dolphins? The Giants? The Bears? The Jets? These teams were not even remotely competitive. The Cowboys were not good, and have not been, and they’re the preeminent team of the NFL.
This boils down to jealousy and fandom at the heart of the argument. The fact is, regardless of the sport, it’s only fun to watch when your team does well.
OK Yankee Clipper. A lot to unpack here. First, I am a Jets fan in NFL and Rangers in the NHL. I was a Yankees fan for many years but got tired of watching them buy their way into the playoffs every year and in 2021 I became a Pirates fan.
Also, I acknowledge Nutting is the worst owner in sports, but I’m not sure if he signed Profar and Alonzo we’d get past the first or second round. It would be great but I don’t think it’s “parity” when one team can spend in excess of the revenue of one third of the league.
I also think parity would allow me to buy a Skenes jersey and not have to throw it away in 5 years.
I am not sure a cap system fixes everything but something needs to be done.
Yeah I agree with you. Sorry if I misinterpreted what you wrote. Also sorry you’re a Jets fan …. lol. Seriously though, I’m concerned at the call for a cap that will make the sport more lopsided. I’ve lost all interest in NFL, NBA because the super teams that persist. It’s just not enjoyable to me and I feel caps would exacerbate that in MLB.
I don’t know either, man, but I appreciate the discussion nonetheless.
Ghost,
Skenes is from California and went to college at LSU and the Air Force Academy. I seriously doubt he would want to pitch in Colorado, but the Southwest or Southeast might be most appealing to him. I’m glad he will have the chance to make make that decision when he reaches free agency. Sure beats the old reserve system.
Of course, the Pirates have the opportunity to offer him a long-term extension right now, and they could do it for a much more affordable price than if they wait five years.
gbs42
Of course, the Pirates have the opportunity to offer him a long-term extension right now, and they could do it for a much more affordable price than if they wait five years.
===============================
I was going to post something similar. KC just guaranteed Witt $289M, and they have about the same revenue as Pitt.
Let’s see how much Pitt puts on the table before we go “poor Pitt”.
NHL, NBA and NFL players all get a larger % of their sports revenues than baseball players.
Because they get a specified % of those revenues, unlike baseball players.
So, no…the ONLY people who benefit from the lack of cap are the owners, the TV networks and fans of the rich teams.
I’ve been saying this for years. The owners go into negotiations demanding a % of the revenues, without really wanting one. Then they toss the players a few cookies, settle without a cap, and the players think they won.
Then the owners go out and increase revenues by 6%, increase player salaries by 4%, and laugh all the way to the bank.
I like criticism and intelligent debate.
But when someone throws around accusations and insults, I’ve found it’s best to tune them out entirely.
I don’t think they realize that the fans are simply going to lose interest in the game altogether if this continues. The dodgers are a legitimate super team and if they win a couple of World Series we’re going to see fans check out by the millions. Very few people want to watch a game where their team is utterly inconsequential not bc of their decisions and actions but bc of those of their opponents. Soon enough the players will be begging for a cap when revenue collapses bc fans bail and their salaries plummet as well. Teams will be disinclined to spend big on free agents when they’re staring down 30% decreased viewership numbers and dodgers dominance. This is an inevitability at this point. It’s a when, not an if.
Then why is viewership, ticket revenue, and sponsorship all up?
In this offseason? You didn’t even try to engage in an honest or intelligent fashion, did you? Intellectual dishonesty is a real problem for some people…
Isn’t intellectual dishonesty an oxymoron?
dan, the Yankees were “a legitimate super team” for several decades – “an inevitability” even – and fans continued to follow the game.
It was an entirely different game back then. People had different expectations for their entertainment. And the financial investment as a fan was nothing back then. You’re comparing apples to elephants here.
dan, how about comparing this situation to the Yankees from 25 years ago? Granny Smith vs Red Delicious, at least? Baseball has survived – thrived, actually – since then.
I don’t know whether fans losing interest is an inevitability, but if the sport’s revenue keeps going up and all teams are profitable, then I can’t picture owners trying too hard to impose a cap.
I think the point is that it is difficult to imagine revenue increasing if this continues. If the fans of twenty markets largely believe they have no shot at all they’re going to check out, teams revenue will decline, those teams wil not see FA in a dodgers dominated World as a viable path to competing and will refuse to invest significant funds in the FA market seeing it as a waste, and with decreased FA competition the players salaries will begin to decline dramatically. Then everybody well be begging for payroll constraints. But that could prove too little too late. You can’t assume that you can break their toy and the kids will want to play with it again just bc you tried to superglue it back together.
I’m already checking out . The league is unbalanced . Unless you are a fan of the big spenders.with endless cash . My team don’t have a chance . Major market baseball and has been . MLB screwed up giving teams the RSN now half the league is broke with DSG .Tiered of LA NY controlling the league. Cancel MLB TV
oldguyG,
This sounds like a description of all of baseball history. The big-market teams have had advantages because they have more fans and money. However, MLB didn’t give teams RSNs, the teams created them on their own.
oldguyG
.Tiered of LA NY controlling the league.
============================
Since 2000, how many WSC have the 4 NY & LA teams won? 3. Random distribution says they should’ve won 3.2 times. So NY and LA are winning less often than they are supposed to.
jt,
I don’t see it. The writers are fans who don’t want baseball to shut down. They also have answered numerous questions about deferrals and have explained repeatedly that they’re within the rules and have been used for decades. Some fans don’t about the rules and just want to be mad at somebody, and now it’s the Dodgers.
There was a question in the most recent chat from someone using the handle Stupid-face dodger who said, “Baseball is acting like sucky-faced, smelly poopoo-heads.” How are they supposed to respond to that level of input?
Recommended reading for everyone with an account at The Athletic:
nytimes.com/athletic/6076507/2025/01/21/los-angele…
I read the story and I am not surprised at how clueless the National baseball media is with respect to the fans. Rosenthal, Passan and the rest of them are so far entrenched in the Boras camp that they can’t see straight.
Maybe a cap isn’t the answer, but anyone who doubts the system is broken is just so far biased toward the top end of the MLBPA that they can’t be taken seriously.
That’s fantastic I’m going to listen now. 2/3 of you people are stupid though so really good job by them. That’s what you people need more people telling you you’re wrong so you stop suggesting stupid ideas like a cap.
How can you blame them when you read comments from all these morons who aren’t smart enough to know a cap is stuoid.
This site lost any semblance of balance when Jeff Todd quit.
1984,What balance did Jeff Todd bring? I don’t think I was visiting the site then.
I’d love you to elaborate on that comment. Jeff Todd rules.
If that’s most people’s perception, then yes, that’d be a problem.
I can tell you I’m coming in here to have intelligent debates where possible. If I was dismissive of other ideas I just wouldn’t do that at all.
I also get a vibe sometimes (not necessarily from you) that if I do not agree with a majority opinion – just due to that disagreement alone – then I am being all those adjectives you listed. And I don’t form my opinions based on what most baseball fans believe.
Small market teams have
-market based revenue sharing
-mlb central funds
-luxury tax revenue sharing
-draft priority if they suck
-an antitrust exemption
What do they want, the Dodgers to run their front office too?
They want the ability to sign superstar players. They want to curtail teams like the Dodgers, Mets and Yankees from having a payroll that exceeds the revenue of one-third of the league. They want a level playing field.
A good cap system benefits 90% of the players. The only ones hurt are Boras and his clients.
Then they should sign superstar players.
Build an organization players want to play in.
c’mon Matthew, you can’t be that obtuse. Could the Twins really have deferred 680million? Could the Marlins pay Juan Soto 760 million? You know they can’t, so why pretend that there is a level playing filed.
If those teams can’t keep up with being competitive in offers for superstars then they should sell the team.
Owners don’t have a Right to own a baseball team.
No owner in Minnesota, Pittsburgh or Kansas City could have signed Soto or Ohtani and you know it. Just stop it.
Owners don’t have a right, but they and their investors should have the right to own a team and expect a reasonable profit.
A good cap system will not help the owners – it will only ensure a fair economic system.
MatthewStair
If those teams can’t keep up with being competitive in offers for superstars then they should sell the team.
======================
That’s completely ridiculous. The LA payroll, including the CBT tax is about $500M. Last I looked, only 4 teams have $500M in revenue.
Are you suggesting a 4-team league?
It’s been TWO PLAYERS that have signed for massive contracts.
Spare me.
It’s not like any of these teams were even giving out $150m deals before.
Y’all are over reacting to how a few generational talents got paid.
Don’t expect children to understand economics…at all.
Ghost of Willie Stargell
No owner in Minnesota, Pittsburgh or Kansas City could have signed Soto or Ohtani and you know it.
===================
But Minny did sign Correa for $33M/year, and KC did sign Witt to a contract that will pay him $36M.
Willie, do you honestly believe that there are there are owners not making a reasonable profit? Give me a break.
@ Ghost. How do you figure that “a good cap system benefits 90% of the players?” Where does that data come from? The whole point of a cap is to suppress player salaries.
It is simple math. Now the players get a certain percentage of league revenue – say its 47%. Have the cap system ensure 50%. By definition the players as a whole get more money.
Throw is other things like a faster time frame to free agency and arbitration and a higher minimum and you have a really good deal for the players.
@ Ghost. The math on caps is anything but simple. See, e.g. the NBA’s new CBA. Compared to other leagues, 47% would be a bad deal. Other leagues don’t have a reserve or arbitration system, either, mostly because they have colleges be their minor leagues. Baseball is a different sport with different circumstances. Moreover, you haven’t done the math, simple or otherwise. The assertion that 47% is a great deal is conclusory, and not backed by any math in your comment. Nor can you dispel the simple truth that the whole purpose of a cap is to suppress salaries which, btw, is not great for players.
The good idea in your plan is the shortening of the reserve clock to 4 years. Scrap arb entirely and build a few small escalators into the minimum salary structure, and get guys to FA in 4 years. That gets guys paid sooner. Ironically, that also might mean some suppression of salaries because it means less scarcity of FAs on the market. Decreased scarcity means better prices for buyers. When free agency first came into being, Marvin Miller and the union did not want everyone to be a FA every year because if that very effect. To ensure more FAs on the market each year, maybe limit lengths of contracts to, say, 6 years.
I don’t mind tweaking the system to help out small market teams, particularly on the revenue side, but these teams still are owned by billionaires who have enormous revenue and investment growth from baseball. I see no need to institute a cap for their benefit at the expense of the players, the guys you actually pay to see. A cap guarantees nothing. See, e.g., the Cleveland Browns. Further consider that the Dodgers were very different under Frank McCourt that they are under Guggenheim. The Mets are very different under the Wilpons than they are under Steve Cohen. Who owns the teams matters more than suppressing salaries. I have no desire to lend a helping hand the Fishers, Dolans, Pohlads, Nuttings, Shermans, and Morenos of the world. There’s no good reason to do so.
Usual: I think that the only realistic implementation of a cap/floor system would necessarily see earnings for most players (90% seems like a reasonable figure to me) go up, with big hits coming from the top. Otherwise it’s a complete non-starter.
But that’s also why I don’t think it will happen. The top 10% never agree to take relatively inconsequential hits to their earnings in order to markedly improve the bottom 90% anywhere else in our society, so I don’t expect baseball to trailblaze there.
Another point in favor of a cap is that it will force the owners to open the books.
I know it is not simple, but something needs to be done. As a Pirates fan, I should be able to but a Skenes jersey and not have to throw it away after 5 years.
Under your proposal you’d have to throw it away in 4…
If you believe the point of a salary cap is to suppress player salaries then you’re missing the entire boat and why fans want a salary cap.
Do not confuse the idea of maximum per-franchise spending per year with the idea of what the portion of league revenue going towards player salaries should be.
A properly structured salary cap is a *piece* of a well intentioned solution, but cannot be the *only* change.
You need to bundle:
1) a total cap on spending per franchise;
2) a better redistribution of league wide revenues among all franchises; and
3) a significantly elevated hard floor for spending – saying technically there is a floor via league minimum salaries doesn’t do the job.
The point of a salary cap for owners is to suppress salaries, otherwise they’d have no interest in doing so.
Fans, who want a cap in an attempt to promote parity, don’t have a say in the negotiations
“a better redistribution of league wide revenues among all franchises;”
Socialism at its best. I’m all for it as long as amazon, meta etc get broken up too. Healthcare for all too!
I don’t feel you’re participating in a good-faith debate that considers the entirety of the points made on the podcast.
Perhaps, but I didn’t do that, which is very clear to anyone who listens to the podcast in full. Which brings me back to:
I don’t feel you’re participating in a good-faith debate that considers the entirety of the points made on the podcast.
and nobody in the comments seems to think you have any interest in a good faith debate about it. It really just comes off like you’re trying to push everyone to agree with you instead of actually caring what they believe.
You mean the two guys in here?
I’m am absolutely interested in good faith debates about MLB labor stuff.
How do you know what I care about? And why would I poll our readers and spend hours in the comment section if I didn’t care about their opinion?
If I didn’t care, wouldn’t I have just done nothing?
Yes they do and they are ineffective
I think that’s very hard, since parity is a very vague term. I’ve tried to get you guys to commit to some numbers on it in this thread and have gotten no responses.
The payrolls are just a means to an end (winning), right? So what you want is some unknown distribution of winning and playoff appearances.
I disagree, the comment section is often for healthy debate. I haven’t insulted anybody (though I have been insulted, of course). I’m also accustomed to people putting words in my mouth.
Evening out payrolls is a potential solution. There’s no reason it should be a goal in and of itself, especially since it would be extremely difficult to achieve.
You must better define the problem (competitive balance is poor) and how it’s measured, plus explore all solutions beyond the obvious one.
Or not – more to say that one must define those things for me to consider their case for torching a season to be strong. If you don’t want to define those things by the terms I’d like to see, that’s fine of course.
Why are they entitled to sign superstar players? Shouldn’t superstar players be entitled to make as much money as they can sense they’re the ones who put in the hard work? It’s already ridiculous they can’t pick where they work and grow as a young pro.
I think wherever you work should have a draft and you should be traded.
Then we should contract to an 8 team league.
You saying others aren’t participating in good faith is rich.
I guess we just have different ideas of what a respectful comment section debate is.
Money is split with half of money going to retirement fund .
It very little dodgers/yankees media is still 150 million more .
A lot of teams could spend more but why it’s not in thier benefit .
Green Green Bay has a city of 150,000 People and they function just fine in the NFL. Why because the media is national and they spit split al Split all the revenue from the media $280 million a year for each team are the Dodgers and Yankees willing to give that up and everyone put it all in the same spot and split it 30 ways and sell the rights to Netflix or Amazon. The league is broken. That’s why they need a cap. That’s why the players are getting more expensive and the teams with that without a lot of revenue. Can’t keep up with the teams that can pay the high salaries. They also need to sell floor to keep the poor teams, trying poor
I have seen almost no salary cap advocates lay out exactly what they think parity/competitive balance is and what specifically they want to see as the result. The salary cap is not a result; just one potential prescription. And as a lot of people have pointed out to me, a fairly unlikely one.
In terms of reasonable fans being turned away by all this, I agree. I suspected as much and did the poll for that reason.
I do think a lot of people want to hear the basic “Dodgers are ruining baseball and the sport needs a salary cap,” and no, I’m not going to say that because that’s not how I feel.
This is the difference between those in baseball media and fans.
I personally am a pretty disaffected fan that now pays attention to the whole of the league rather than a single team. I don’t really have a favorite team.
The Dodgers aren’t ruining baseball because your favorite teams chances at beating them have lessened.
Well, if giving an honest opinion turns readers away, I have to accept that. It’d be pretty weak to just match my opinions to the majority.
Competitive balance is not having a team have winning seasons for over 30 years. Competitive balance is not having teams almost automatically be in the playoffs in January. Competitive balance is teams not being able to spend in excess of the revenue of one third of the league. Competitive balance is that dynasties come to and end at some point (look at Golden State and New England). Competitive balance is having an all time great like Sydney Crosby stay in Pittsburgh for his whole career. That is what competitive balance looks like.
Competitive balance is not having a team have winning seasons for over 30 years: which MLB teams have done this, and what is an acceptable percentage of winning seasons over 30 years? How are you defining winning?
Competitive balance is not having teams almost automatically be in the playoffs in January: what are the highest playoff odds in January for a given team that are acceptable to you?
Competitive balance is teams not being able to spend in excess of the revenue of one third of the league: that’s not competitive balance. Competitive balance has to be defined by results on the field, wins, losses, playoffs.
Competitive balance is that dynasties come to and end at some point: which MLB dynasties are you concerned about, and how do you define a dynasty?
Competitive balance is having an all time great like Sydney Crosby stay in Pittsburgh for his whole career: also not competitive balance. More an issue of player continuity
Which MLB teams have done this, and what is an acceptable percentage of winning seasons over 30 years? How are you defining winning?
The Yankees have not had a losing season since 1992. Is it that they are smarter? No – they have more money and never need to rebuild. That is not parity or competitive balance.
what are the highest playoff odds in January for a given team that are acceptable to you?
I will bet you $1,000,000 that the Dodgers make the playoffs. Will you take the bet?
Competitive balance has to be defined by results on the field, wins, losses, playoffs.
OK – the Yankees have made the playoffs in 25 of the last 30 years. The Rockies – 5 times in their 32 year existence..
which MLB dynasties are you concerned about, and how do you define a dynasty?
The Dodgers have won the NL West 11 of the last 12 years and have been a playoff team each year. That is a dynasty that will NEVER end under the current economic system.
also not competitive balance. More an issue of player continuity
Oh please – you can do better than that. Of course it has to do with money and the current economic system. A cap fixes this.
Funny how these posts never get a reply
This one? It didn’t really answer my questions. I guess I can repeat them?
What is an acceptable percentage of winning seasons over 30 years? How are you defining winning?
What are the highest playoff odds in January for a given team that are acceptable to you?
How do you define a dynasty?
Tim – I think I answered them with examples. You’re trying to trap me by asking questions that don’t have answers, but I’ll take the bait.
A winning season is defined as winning more than half your games. How many out of 30 is acceptable, less start with more than 1 and less than 30 and work from there.
Playoff odds – I don’t really gamble, but my offer stands. I’ll bet you any amount that the Dodgers make the playoffs.
I defined a dynasty with the Dodgers example – not sure I could have been more clear..
Look, you are entitled to your opinion and I am not trying to change it, but it would have been nice if the podcast was more of a debate and discussion about the pros and cons than two guys just insulting the fans and telling us why a cap is a bad idea.
It’s not a trap. I think some salary cap advocates, including you, have not done a good job defining competitive balance or demonstrating why a cap would improve it. I said as much on the podcast.
You need extremely high confidence in those things to risk losing an entire baseball season, right?
If this isn’t measurable with numbers, then we’ll never even know if it worked.
I don’t even think I’d say that a cap is a bad idea. I’d say many of its advocates have not defined what they want and why they’re sure a cap would create it. We need to know this because the potential cost is HUGE.
Ideally, those people would have also explored all cap alternatives in good faith to determine whether any could get them what they want without a long work stoppage.
Tim – I have defined it by example. I have shown examples of how it works in the other sports and I have shown examples of how baseball is broken.
The answers you are looking for don’t exist because baseball has never had a fair economic system. How can you measure something in numbers when there is nothing to measure.
You say I need to have high confidence. I already have high confidence that the system is broken.
The thing that keeps fans coming back is hope. When that is gone, so are the fans.
I don’t want to lose a season, but I am willing to do so to avoid what is inevitable and that is an increasing gap in the payrolls and success between the haves and have nots.
We all agree “small” market teams should spend more, but at some point is it worth it? If I can miss the playoffs spending 175 million, why not spend 125 and make a few bucks?
“You say I need to have high confidence. I already have high confidence that the system is broken.”
No qualms with that opinion, but if you’re going to push for a solution with huge consequences, you have to be relatively certain it will produce whatever outcome most fans want.
No, I think the argument is good:
Salary cap advocates have not clearly laid out the result they want. If you want parity, a word that can be interpreted in broad ways, define it with specifics.
If you refuse to do that, fine, but you’re opting out of real discussion.
Competitive balance is I, as an Orioles fan feel like its not a waste of my money to buy my favorite players jersey because he’s gone as soon as his rookie contract is over. I am a baseball diehard, I have been a season ticket holder. I am not going to games this year because what’s the point. The guys I’m rooting for will be gone in 2-3 years because the system is so broken that we have to trade prime Gunnar Henderson for prospects because we will never resign him. Forcing half the league to operate like this disenfranchises fans. The NFL doesn’t have this problem Baltimore a “small market” was easily able to retain Lamar Jackson one of the most marketable and talented stars in football. That’s true parity.
In terms of reasonable fans being turned away by all this, I agree.
=========================
Hasn’t this always been the case?
Weren’t fans outraged when the Padres spent $300M?
And outraged when the Mets spent $375M? Or do people not care because both teams spent poorly?
And have they forgotten the original EE? In 2005, the NYY spent $207M. My small-market RS spent the 2nd most with $117M. So the NYY spent almost twice what the RS spent.
Contextually, the Dodger spending is not that bad.
And how much of your feelings were predetermined… It’s bad business for you if there’s no baseball and there’s no fans arguing about the quality of it.
It is very true that canceling a baseball season would be terrible for my business, and I am absolutely biased toward not wanting that.
I’m also predisposed to not want that as a baseball fan.
I generally thought your podcast was more fair than most sports writers are. At the same time; I believe you (and others in the media) are misreading the room a bit in regards to the general sentiment of educated fans.
It’s without a doubt a large portion (i’d say majority) of us deep divers have been tolerating decades of unfairness in the sports competitve economic struncture only because we love the Major League game so much. It’s in our history and for many of us associated with memories with friends and family. It’s part of our everyday lives for over half of the year or more.
We love the game; not the way the league is structured in regards to player movement or competition.
I don’t want a full cap. I want a floor, of at least 120 mil. I want extreme taxes and loss of draft picks by the big spenders who go over the threshold; but I don’t want a full cap. But going way over the luxery tiers to have a real price. I want one more year of player control in exchange for not going to a true cap and raising the minimum salary to 1 mil. And eventually I want the media rights and distributioon drastically overhauled; and the players to have a bigger share in the profits. And maybe some better guardrails for deferrals.
It’s getting out of hand, most of us have never been fans of the market size or ownership’s personal wealth being this big of an advantage. And for the love of the lord; there should be an internationl draft!
The extent to which a salary cap would improve parity would in large part be determined by the level of the cap. There is such a huge revenue disparity between the richest and poorest clubs in baseball even with revenue sharing. So a salary cap of let’s say $200M would only restrain the richest clubs and outside of the Mets, Dodgers and Yankees only a little bit.. Last year 10 teams were over $200M payroll. yet half the league under $150M and 5 teams under $100M. Another 5 under $120M. The Mets payroll last year was 5 times what the A’s had. No other capped sport has the revenue and payroll disparities that exist in baseball. That makes a cap very difficult.
So unless you really drop the hammer a cap will not lead to parity. The players will never accept a cap especially a hard low cap as it would constrain their salaries. One way to seek better parity is an international draft. An item in the last CBA that they agreed to continue to discuss but never went anywhere. Give the players the elimination of the QO system. Give teams a draft pick for losing a FA similar to what they do now but signing teams don’t lose draft picks.
The problem fans have is that the parity isn’t actually there. If you are a fan of a team outside of the Yankees, Mets, Dodgers, etc. you can’t actually enjoy the product. The Orioles have great players right now. Except everyone knows no way they can keep Henderson. Same with Skenes and the Pirates. So if your team isn’t able to resign the superstars you end up having to be the Rays. How’s their attendance? Baseball may not need a salary cap but they need a real way for small market teams to retain their marketable stars ie the “Bird rule” from the NBA or the Franchise tag from the NFL. its bad for Baseball that only big market teams can retain their marketable stars.
This isn’t really a parity issue, though. It’s a question of whether there is too much player movement in baseball and whether it needs to be lessened.
But the only way to lessen player movement is to address the salary disparity between teams. That’s my point fans aren’t angry about parity in terms of what team wins each year. They are angry about what kind of team wins. Since the Marlins in 03 there has not been a single team win a World Series that wasn’t a top 15 payroll. If the Yankees or Dodgers had traded a Judge or Kershaw on their rookie deals the media would flame them. However when the Orioles and Pirates do it with Henderson and Skenes it will be lauded as smart baseball. Thats because there is not parity between these teams and the small markets are forced to play a style of roster construction that is destructive and disenfranchising to their fanbases. It has to be fixed.
I think it’d be more clear to not use the term “parity,” and just say that you want much less player movement in terms of the stars.
To me, that is indeed a clear desire, and it’s easy to see why someone would want that.
I’m not sure I can think of a solution that would not result in a significant work stoppage. I’d prefer not to make that tradeoff, but I understand that some fans would.
Tim, Oxford Dictionary defines parity as “the state or condition of being equal, especially regarding status or pay.”. There is no world where you can compare the Orioles and the Dodgers and say they are in parity with one another. There is a parity issue and the rules must change to create parity. I would also like to avoid a lock out. But if that is what it takes to fix the problem so be it. I would rather that than continue to watch an imbalanced product.
One question is what has to be equal? The payroll? Each team’s chances at the playoffs?
If there is a dumb team that spends a lot of money and has player continuity and doesn’t win and another team that is the complete opposite, those don’t have parity, but it seems like letting teams spend a bunch of money poorly or in a mediocre way might be fine?
Tim – no one wants equality of outcomes, only equality of opportunity.
Yes if each team had the same payroll it would be parity. Teams spend poorly all the time in other leagues. Look at the Browns. No one blames parity for their idiotic behavior. People just want to feel like their teams are on equal footing.
If a cap is so troublesome why not another solution.
All teams revenues no longer go to the teams. It is collected by the MLB and then equally dispersed to each team on an equal 1/30th disbursement. The Dodgers, Yankees, Mets, etc. can’t just bully the market if all teams have the same revenue. Of course that will never happen either though. But the point is. Until certain teams can’t just triple another teams offer there is no parity.
Ultimately you can’t say the current system isn’t broken. There’s a clear parity and class system between the teams in the league. We can discuss what the best solution is IE cap, salary, floor, changes to arbitration, a Franchise tag etc. But doing nothing will continue to hurt baseball. It’s not a coincidence that the two other leagues that have better financial parity (NBA and NFL) continue to outpace the MLB in popularity and revenue.
Whether you agree or not, your poll exposed a major anger amongst some of the most active fan’s of the sport (people who seek out baseball content during the NFL playoffs in fact). The sport is in a seriously unhealthy place and if nothing changes it will hemorrhage fans at a historic pace.
I say this as a diehard baseball fan that used to go to 20-40 games a year and would watch every other game on TV and pay for MLBtv so I could watch more than just the Orioles. Next year I am attending no games and canceled my MLBtv package. This inequality is hurting the sport and while I don’t know the answer SOMETHING has to change.
So you want 30 identical payrolls, and teams differentiating themselves on other factors.
Interesting thought experiment, but even more extreme than a cap/floor system.
Not identical, but a tight cap and floor like in the NHL, NBA and NFL. You know – the other major sports in North America.
If your argument is that other sports exist and they have a tight cap and floor, sure.
If your argument is that this has had some competitive balance effect on these sports that is measurable, baseball falls short of those measurements, and you would like baseball to match those measurements, sure, I’d like to read that – although you haven’t made that yet.
I think I have. Again just look at Josh Allen – in baseball – he’d never stay in a small market like Buffalo. Sidney Crosby in hockey. LeBron when he signed with Cleveland. I’m sure there are many other examples.
Kansas City is a dynasty in football – the Royals will NEVER be a dynasty of any kind.
In the last 30 years, almost every team in the NHL was in the cup finals. In baseball, the Brewers have been around for 50+ years and have one World Series appearance.
If this does not make the argument, I am not sure what will.
You are giving examples, not anything measurable.
It sounds like you are saying parity in baseball would involve dynasties, but only if they’re in small markets?
If the Dodgers became a dynasty (which they are not currently) under a cap system, would that fit your definition of acceptable?
That we should measure parity by championship appearances and not playoff appearances? Why?
We define dynasty differently. I say winning your division every year is a dynasty,
Not only small markets should have dynasties, but they should have the same chance, New England Patriots were a dynasty – large market. The Chiefs are currently a dynasty – small market.
Parity is measured by opportunity, not success.
I don’t care what the solution MLB comes up with. That’s THEIR job to figure out how to balance their product. Right now it is not balanced and you and all your writers know it. No one thought Soto was going to the Reds. But ok. You win the semantics battle. You’re right baseball has perfect parity. It’s not at all biased to large markets. But when baseball starts regressing heavily in tv viewership and attendance tanks for everyone that’s not large market (Orioles already had over 10,000 unsold seats at each playoff game last year). Don’t be remotely surprised. I’ll just go spend my money on a better product.
I wouldn’t argue that large market teams’ payrolls give them opportunities that small markets don’t have.
You could very well be right. If most small market teams truly stop being profitable, then yes, baseball would have a problem.
I believe the Dodgers fit the definition of a baseball dynasty. Ten Division Titles in the last 12 seasons, correct? The most winning team in baseball over the last decade+. Two World Series Championships in the last in the last five years, very likely to continue adding more titles over the next half-decade. I’d say they’re probably a dynasty. The have had added Freeman, Teoscar, Glasnow, Ohtani, Yamamoto, Snell, and Sasaki over the last three offseasons and spent about 120 million on their bullpen this offseason alone. It’s out of control.
I I watch baseball for 55 years and the 162 games matter to an a pennant race is fun for fans. It’s not fun when your team is out in April because the talent uncertain teams can be bought because of payrolls Are three to one . I watched the NFL and I see the Green Bay Packers survive and a team like Jerry Jones with $1 billion a year revenue on the equal footing payroll wise It’s not so much parody but the payroll if the payroll is equal and they make dumb decisions so be it but at least you know they have the same chances as the large market or if there’s a dynasty, you know they did things right
My my team has never won. The World Series in 55 years . look at the American League Central last year all the teams were pretty much Same and it was a fun race for the pennant. Teams with the highest payroll or pretty much guaranteed 90 wins and a playoff spot which if you go every year after year after year, you’re gonna win sooner or later
Lot of subjective terms from you.
I am of the opinion that the examples provided serve as poor evidence. I’d like to see a more numerical case made, still haven’t.
You can label that opinion as all kinds of different things, but ultimately it is one person’s opinion.
@ McNuggzy. There is a way the O’s can keep Gunnar. They can pay him. You cannot convince me they don’t have the resources to keep a generational player. I mean, the Boston Freaking Red Sox couldn’t afford Mookie Betts? C’mon. If the Twins can keep Mauer, the O’s can keep Henderson. Pretending teams/owners are poor doesn’t mean they’re actually poor. P.S. They also don’t need our help to build stadiums.
Mauer’s deal was in 2011. It’s annual value was 23 million. His contract is closer to what Anthony Santander just signed then it is to Juan Soto or any other generational player has signed in the last 5 years. The fact your best example is from 15 years ago also highlights this issue. The reality is once players like Henderson hit free agency they’re gone. I’m not saying these owners are poor. But when a team (Dodgers Forbes value of 5.45 Billion) is worth 3 times as much as the other (Orioles 1.75 billion) there is just factually a disparity in what each can feasibly offer and still sustain. You are right that this isn’t Amazon versus your mom and pop hardware store. But recognize that Amazon versus K-Mart still isn’t a fair fight. (I do fully agree on your stadium point)
I’m not an inflation expert, but that Mauer contract in 2010 seems like it might be something north of $250MM today. And the Mariners and Royals did find ways to lock up J-Rod and Witt.
It seems like you want to make free agency much less attractive to players. Which of course would involve an epic fight as free agency has been fairly unrestricted since it began in 1976.
J-Rod and Witt required the teams in question to take higher and more inordinate risk by signing them to huge deals before they were established stars. Those deals panned out, however ask the White Sox about Jimenez and Roberts. Teams like the Dodgers and Yankees do not need to take those risks in this system.
Even then, Mauer at 250 million today would be a bit light of a contract.for a 28 yr old perennial gold glove catcher coming off of a 170 wrc+ season. And again, that being the best example is a highlight that this system is broken.
Tim further more, what do you think that Gunnar Henderson’s contract will look like when he is a free agent at age 27. My guess is that a 40 hr shortstop at that age probably receives 10yrs 400 million at worst??
And with that being said. Is there ANY world where the Orioles give a 10 year 400 million contract?
Ofcourse the answer is no.
Sure they just had to be willing to gamble the whole future of their franchise on an unproven player to do it. Not the same Tim….
I don’t expect them to, but I also have no idea what payroll they’re actually capable of. None of us do.
You’re saying the system should be changed such that signing a much cheaper extension is more appealing to him than free agency.
I can see how fans would benefit from that, sure.
So Tim. Is the only thing you’re worried about out here is making sure a small handful of players get their absolute max value? Sure seems like it.
You’re saying the system should be changed such that signing a much cheaper extension is more appealing to him than free agency.
No – what we are saying is the the Pirates and Orioles should be able to keep and sign their players. The elite free agents should not be limited to 3 or 4 teams.
What have I said to indicate that?
But baseball players have agency, and many of them like making as much money as possible.
So if you want more Gunnars and Skeneses feeling that staying with the teams that drafted them is better than free agency, you need a system that makes free agency much less appealing than it currently is.
As I said, it’s easy to see why fans would root for their stars to stay.
You mean some type of revenue sharing along with the cap and floor like most other leagues have?
Yes, I think a salary cap in MLB could increase team continuity. I’m not sure though; I’d need to study the nuances of the other sports.
Why can’t the MLBPA see the teams’ books without imposing a cap and floor? Basically because teams don’t want to, right? Are you good with that?
I think the MLBPA sees the books. We don’t, but they do.
I’m still not the one coming in here with insults/attacks.
I’d argue that spending hours debating is the definition of being open to readers’ opinions. I can probably find 3-4 examples in this thread alone where I said something like, “Yes, I agree with that point.” Haven’t seen you do that.
Being open to people’s opinions does not mean one must just agree with them. If that is what you’re looking for, you’re right, you’re not going to get it from me.
The only thing a team needs to do is win. Fans shouldn’t put caveats on teams on how they need to win. The rays are the most successful small market team and you’re saying because they don’t retain their star players that’s why fan’s aren’t coming. So if they won 70 games every year but kept Evan Longoria until now more fans would be retained?
Those are exactly the type of people nobody should cater to. Teams have a responsibility to fans to be competitive and try to win you can’t tell me the rays haven’t been successful at it despite spending the least amount of money. They just have dumb, entitled fans if the reason why you’re suggesting is that they haven’t retained fans.
They don’t have fans because they don’t have players for fans to root for. They tried with Franco and got burned.
You have been insulting and condescending, probably because your argument is weak. At least Tim is respectful in his responses.
If you think the economic system is OK then you are blind or stupid. No team should be able to spend in excess of the revenue of one third of the league.
If a cap system fixes that, then I am all for it.
I voted “yes” in the salary cap poll, but based on my idea of a reasonably-implemented salary cap system, which would almost certainly never take. Effectively, I’d like to much more of the money in baseball pooled by the league and split among orgs/owners and players in an agreed-upon manner. Players sign with teams for percentages of the player-allocated money. I doubt either side would agree to an arrangement like this, but it’s my idea of actually evening the playing field.
Yes like a national media split 30 ways not individual mlb screwed up not keeping tv nationally. NFL media 10 billion dollars going up .each team receives 280 million and shared revenue . Plenty of money for equal salary on players . If you don’t draft well that’s on them but the money is there to pay players.
So, the pro-cap movement is largely based on the notion that small market teams can’t compete with large market teams because of revenue disparity. The solution to that problem is not to address revenue inequity, but rather to limit expenditures at the expense of the talent who didn’t create the revenue disparity in the first place. Why not try to address the revenue problem instead? To do otherwise is a bit like continually changing the battery in your rig even though you’re pretty sure the problem is the alternator.
“rig” and “alternator”, this man wears boots.
@ Matt. Yeah, sometimes I wear boots. Where I’m from, pretty much everyone does. And a vehicle is always a “rig.”
A Cap/floor does not reduce overall player revenue (at least a proper one would not).
@ Ghost. Of course any cap the owners would agree to would reduce the players’ aggregate take. That’s it’s sole purpose. Why else on God’s green earth would owners want one so badly? It ain’t for parity reasons. Understand, there are far more Fishers, Dolans, Pohlads, Shermans, Monforts, and Nuttings than there are Middletons or Cohens. The former group cares not on whit about the game. Even if you’re right in your alternate universe, you’ve still done nothing to address the revenue/market inequities. Nothing.
That may be the case, but I think at this point, the owners cannot reasonably expect a cap system unlike the ones in the other sports where the books are open and players get about half of the league revenue.
Of course any cap the owners would agree to would reduce the players’ aggregate take.
========================
No. If the players get 49% of the revenue now, it would take me 5 minutes to calculate caps and ceilings so that the players still got 49%.
15 teams spending $150M and 15 teams spending $300M yields $6.75B, which is more than they get right now, and a number every team can afford.
Owners wouldn’t support a cap if it raised salaries. The only reason they’d support a cap would be to suppress salaries. Otherwise they’d be against it.
Owners are not going to the wall for the fans belief in parity.
There are other reasons to support a cap.
1-Some people like the idea of every team being within a few games of .500.
2-Having a cap would require sharing revenue with the players. Baseball wouldn’t have to through the CBA fight every 5 years, and could probably grow the game more effectively.
Last season 25 out of thirty teams were within 10% of .500, and two of those teams were within two games of .500.
Easy solution
$300m cap
$100m floor
Team control goes down to 4 years
Get rid of all market based and luxury tax revenue sharing
I truly don’t think there needs to be a cap. Honestly, if baseball would get rid of the arbitration process and take out more regulation in the game, I think it would work perfectly fine. The problem is, the owners have sold you this ridiculous story that they can’t pay players and clearly that’s just not true. They just don’t want to do it because they want u to be behind the league mandating a ridiculous system to control cost on their balance sheet. And just because the dodgers business model is more aggressive doesn’t mean almost every team can’t approach it the exact same way. They just don’t want to because they can fool u to get the support of glorified socialism. In what world would you be ok with being in an industry where your salary earnings are capped because of some artificial rules placed on the industry. Not 1 person on here would be ok with that and under no circumstances should u support a system that caps anyone’s income regardless of how much it is. That’s ridiculous. Because guess what, that money is going somewhere no matter what, and I assure you, the good teams like the dodgers will continue to be great with player development and drafting and roster mgmt and the bad teams will continue to be bad cause they will be cheap and not spend it regardless. They might spend it on their roster per the rules, but the savings or spending will trickle down elsewhere in the organization
No fans on here are advocating for a cap that saves the owners money. We all want players to get paid. The amount of money going to the players should be MORE than it is today under a good cap system.
We just want to prevent the Dodgers from having a payroll in excess of most team’s revenue.
A system like this would require more revenue sharing and open books.
I think a lot of fans would advocate for a cap that saves owners money. I don’t know for sure though, I haven’t polled them on it.
Interesting take. I have no interest in supporting that.
No, fans are typically anti-player on labor disputes. They just want their team to win and they don’t consider owners a “side.”
I ran a poll seven years ago asking whether MLB players are overpaid. Over 73% said yes.
mlbtraderumors.com/2018/02/mlb-players-overpaid.ht…
The idea that a cap and a floor would make the players more money is something that would have to be proven, and without any room for doubt. Clearly that is an opinion Marvin Miller never held, nor did anyone in charge of the MLBPA after him.
I imagine accurately answering that would be the field of an economist.
The MLBPA appears to be of the opinion it is more important to maximize the highest salaries for the top 15-20 contracts in baseball than it is to maximize the share of revenues winding up in players pockets.
Pretend youre in a world where a vast majority of all MLB revues were subject to revenue sharing putting the teams on equal footing. To make up numbers so we’re using hard numbers, imagine we’re talking $9B in revenue being split, meaning every team pulls down $300m to work with. Then say you’re going to make a $160m hard floor and $240m hard cap.
At that point players would be guaranteed $4.8B out of the $9B as the floor compensations couldn’t drop below, with a theoretical peak of $7.2B. Point is, even 4.8/9 exceeds 50% of revenue, and, it’s a certainty all teams wouldnt just spend to the floor. But as a percentage of revenue, that appears to be more money going to players than under the current system.
What it *wouldnt* allow is one team to be carrying a bunch of huge contracts, and, the top end of the mega deals wouldnt be feasible to carry astronomical AAV because it would eat up too large a chunk of team payroll. If you’re capped at 240m, and can’t exceed it, you’re not going to pay a guy $50m a season, you’ll lack the ability to fill out the roster.
If the goal is to enrich players across the board MLBPA should love the salary floor accompanying a salary cap since it’d allow a guaranteed piece of the pie. Especially if you set the yearly limits via a formula tied to a percentage of revenues rather than predetermined numbers as is currently used for CBT throughout the CBA.
However, it’s been clear for a long time MLBPA has the goal of guaranteeing the right to chase the largest individual contracts, with lesser concern about percentage of pie based approaches.
I don’t see why you necessarily think that would be the result. The salary cap in the NBA hasn’t kept teams from dedicating a huge percent of the cap to 1-3 players and having the majority of the team be on draft deals or minimums.
With a salary cap it seems more likely that mid-range veterans are the ones that would lose out, especially pitchers. Who is doing to risk tying up $10 million of precious cap space in an aging #4 starter who could run out of steam at any time when you could get slightly worse results from a rookie making under a million.
Tim Dierkes
No, fans are typically anti-player on labor disputes.
==========================
Most people think all rich people are overpaid.
The players union, imho, are not exactly led by long-term, strategic thinkers. When I saw the contract that they signed in 2017 (?), I literally laughed out loud. It was only when I read all the details that I ROTFLMAO!
The owners are always going to be ahead of the players when it comes to generating revenues.
Then say you’re going to make a $160m hard floor and $240m hard cap.
====================
One other way to slice up a floor would be a tiered approach, where you have 5 teams at $150M, 5 at $175M, 5 at $200M, etc.
And, at the end of the season, anything less than say 50% of revenue goes to the union to cut up anyway they see fit.
After that, you have a ton more flexibility. You could make the minimum salary $1M a year, benefitting the common man at the expense of the royalty. Things like that.
Go figure a couple of writers can’t figure out why fans are mad after said writers pushed the last CBA so hard…..
It’s obvious why fans are mad. Weird comment.
I guess quote me on what I said pushing the last CBA? No idea what this means.
I’m old enough to remember how much water you all carried for the union throughout the lockout.
I guess quote me?
I’d like to see a salary cap but agree it probably won’t happen. I think something that the large market teams might be agreeable to that would help the smaller market teams is an additional draft pick in the 2nd round for the 10 lowest market teams . Better players along with the existing revenue sharing will slowly make a meaningful difference in these teams getting back to a more level playing field.
Kind of fitting how YaySports (Seemingly a fan of the Braves) and Ghost of Willie Stargell are fans of teams who didn’t do anything this offseason. Maybe your teams should act like Cap-Less Steinbrenner?
Yes because everyone else is as simple as you are… Some of us were here telling Tim he was wrong last CBA when he was crying for the league to bend over for the union.
I guess quote me?
I have no question Nutting is the worst owner in the league, but that has nothing to do with a cap/floor system. Again if you can say that you believe the economic system in baseball is fair, you are not paying attention.
I get you enjoy that your team has the financial muscle to buy the AL East almost every year, but even cheapskate Nutting doesn’t have that kind of money.
To all the people that say owners should spend more – let me ask a philosophical question.
You are the Colorado Rockies. If you spend 175 million, you come in fourth. If you spend 125 million you come in last, but have 50million dollars in your pocket.
Which is better?
To me, parity in baseball is not what is happening on the field. Anything can happen which is why we play the game. To me, it is every team having an equal shot at star players. Right now, that is not possible. Take Soto as an example. Everyone who knows even a little about baseball knew he was signing with one of the New York teams. Sure, there were a few on the fringe, but it was only ever going to be New York. Teams like PIT and TB were never even thought about let alone in the conversation. I want a league where every team has a shot to sign Soto. I don’t want every star player to go to the same 5 or 6 teams.
Look at the MLBTradeRumours free agent tracker (I’m Canadian, that’s how you spell rumours). If you look at the Top 10 free agents and note where the four pundits thought each would sign, there are only 13 teams mentioned across the 10 free agents, and 3 of those are token single mentions. This means that MLBTradeRumours’ own pundits feel that only 10 teams would be in the running for the Top 10 free agents. To me, having a league where two-thirds are not in the running for the big names is a problem.
“I want a league where every team has a shot to sign Soto.”
This would be a pretty interesting league. I’d watch it!
If the question is whether I’d trade the 2027 season for it, though, the answer is no.
And yes, I am biased toward labor peace because I don’t want to make no money for a year.
You’d have a monopoly! There’d be nothing but rumors!
Then say you’re going to make a $160m hard floor and $240m hard cap.
===================
Maybe Soto is off the table, but many small-market teams have signed long-term contracts with players.
Almost anyone could’ve matched the Ohtani contract except maybe Miami and Sacramento. KC extended Witt, and they are 26th in revenue. TB extended Franco and they are 27th in revenue. Cleveland and Ramirez. AZ with Carrol.
The difference isn’t the star players. The difference is that LAD can sign multiple players to huge contracts.
Create a salary cap because of Ohtani?
youtu.be/bcmYUhiOYuA
As Alden Gonzalez says in the video, before signing Ohtani, the Dodgers were a prudent spender in free agency, and as Pierzynski says, it’s the Ohtani effect.
This is far more complicated than Ohtani
Had they not signed Ohtani, the Dodgers wouldn’t be spending anywhere near the current level right now, and people wouldn’t be talking about the salary cap.
In 2024 only 5 teams finished more that 10% above or below the mean.
Dodgers- above by 2 games
Angels- below by 2 games
Marlins
Rockies
White Sox
Of the teams that finished below, only the Rockies and Marlins are in small markets
Forced spending on free agency isn’t the best answer either. With a floor MLB can force the Rays to spend X number of dollars per year on salary, but if you asked them I’m sure they’d tell you that investing in drafting, trading, and developing players is a far better and more sustainable investment and the best way to open and extend their window.
Example for this year:
Floor $101M (6 team currently below this)
Cap $301M (1 team above this, two others close)
Keep the first 3 CBT tiers, revenue sharing, and deferrals can’t lower the AAV.
Players get more salary on average and big earners keep more as they are hard capped. Big money teams would still have facility, non-player personnel, and status advantages (i.e. attractiveness), but would have to deal with a more competitive environment and loose the deferral advantage (many teams can’t do significant deferrals due to MLB debt service). GM would have to be a lot more creative with trades or maintain buffer room for trades.
Exemptions for minimum salary players (already in the team’s farm system for a year) when called up for players going on the 60-day IL.
2024 season had zero 100 win teams there was a lot of parity
A salary cap does not force teams like the Reds, Pirates, A’s, Marlins, White Sox, Rays, Guardians, Tigers, Royals to spend more. If the cap is 180 million, they will spend 80 million and say, ” What’s the issue? we didn’t go over the cap.” What needs to happen is if you collect MLB revenue, 55 or 60% needs to go back into team payroll. If a team doesn’t do this they loose the 1st two picks in the next draft. If you do it again, you loose 50% of that revenue along with losing the 1st two draft picks. This to me is the only way to force cheap owners who cry small market, but pocket 60% or more of revenue to spend. They lie to thier fan base, aka my Reds, while banking most of that money. Another issue is the International market. Now Japanese player stars now only want the Dodgers. What Sasaki did was BS. His so called agent kept saying Market size didn’t matter, then signs with LA. I believed he was going to the Dodgers the whole time. There needs to be an international draft, and the way you fall in the standings gives your team more chances. White Sox would have had more chances all the way down till the last non playoff team. Then, all the playoff teams had one lottery chance each. Only way to help make it fair. Also, let teams trade their 1st round draft pick only. This will create buzz . The example this coming season the White Sox could really help their team trading that top #1 pick if they wanted to.
Also, it makes draft day more fun to watch. With what the Dodgers are doing, making a super team and Manfred has not said a word about it. Makes me as a baseball fan think he is ok with a LA/NY NLCS every year and Yankees versus whoever ALCS.. if they don’t fix this, and it’s like that every post season, fans will stop caring in total, and they will lose revenue. This upcoming strike could be worse than 1994, if they screw it up.. I hate baseball strikes, but seeing my Reds with an ownership that isn’t forced to spend revenue, then I want one so they are forced to instead of screwing the fan base. They also forget the fans paid for that GABP with taxes. They should reward the fans with a winner.
Interesting discussion and debate.
Of all the responses, Willie’s Ghost is getting the closest.
I can speak to the other sports, namely, the NHL. Sidney Crosby was mentioned, another generational star Alex Ovechkin would also qualify. 20+ year career in not large market teams signed for big money but with the ability to build around the stars and retain other stars. Letang, Malkin, and Fleury were all able to stay long term if not full career for the first 2, Backstrom and Carlson in DC. Capitals have done a tremendous job over the past 2 seasons retooling around a 39 year old Ovechkin while losing 2 of their stars of the past decade in Oshie and Backstrom, are one of top 3 teams, and could contend for the next 5 years. It can be done. And its the NHL with teams in Winnipeg for crying out loud, which makes Oakland look like New York.
It can be done in MLB, with a hard cap and a hard floor. No exceptions. The Dodgers found a creative way to get into the gray area and this loophole needs to be closed off. The A’s, the Orioles, teams like that also cannot get away with pocketing profits and revenue share. If it costs the 2027 season, so be it. The game needs to be fixed or within this next generation, it’s a second rate sport.
I live in the Denver area. They talk ZERO about the Rockies here, except for a trade or two and around opening day. Its Broncos day and night, even when they stink, even in the offseason. They talk about the Nuggets and Avs more than the Rockies, even when they stink. The Rockies should be THRIVING here.
Like folks said, as an Orioles fan, I want the Orioles to have as much chance at signing Gunnar Henderson to his first big boy contract as the Dodgers and the Yankees do. As it currently stands, there is NO WAY that happens. That is not parity. A team of stars might not beat a team of no names or young guys (see 2023 Orioles) but it is going to generate fan interest and loyalty. In the NFL, if a team manages the cap, they will have that equal chance to sign the big name. Some still manage to drag the bottom like the Browns by spending on the wrong players, but teams that do it right can be consistently in the mix or at the worst, down a year or two before they are right back in it.
Under the current deal, the Orioles will spin to their fans that they made a QO to Gunnar that will be half the AAV he will sign for at his actual market value elsewhere (they will call him a greedy traitor), and that draft pick will be the supposed savior IF it hits along with others like the Orioles have done and they get a few years before sinking to 90 and 100 losses for 5+. by the time that draft pick makes it to MLB.
The big reason I became an Orioles fan as a kid was Eddie Murray, who stayed 11 years and signed a couple contracts. He should have stayed 20 but for the idiocy of owner EBW and it broke my heart when he left. It never was the same for me as a fan. For some of my friends it was Cal Ripken who did stay 20. Under the current setup, none of these young stars will sign a big boy contract here. Gone in 5.
To those that say “but the Orioles can spend.” Yes they did. Their payroll at the moment is $156M and that’s up substantially from last year and its 15th in the league, without an ace and basically running in place versus last year’s roster. But take a closer look. Only $18M committed for 2026, which is around bottom 5, and ZERO committed for 2028. They could start 35-45 and fire sale 2/3 of this in July with the guys on 1 year or expiring deals.
What does that tell a young star going into Arb years about the Orioles commitment to ongoing contention? Or a free agent? It certainly doesn’t look like the Dodgers and Braves, who have signed their players and told them and their fans they’re in it through the rest of the 2020s if not longer.
That’s what we want as fans, as others said, equal opportunity at getting the guys who make fans interested in baseball to begin with, who might spark a kid’s interest to buy a jersey. You’ve lost my kids already.
For your NHL example, consider that Bettman has almost total control of the owners. He kicks out owners that don’t spend enough or aren’t financially stable. He tells owners to fix their management if their team isn’t being run properly (and can use the threat of being kicked out of the league as incentive). I’m sure the bigger market clubs like the Leafs and the Rangers probably hate the current system but Bettman is able to maintain solidarity somehow. It took Bettman a long to consolidate power, while weeding out the old owners and bringing in owners that agreed with his way of the world. My guess is that there are just not enough large market clubs in the NHL to override the votes of the other owners who want the hard cap. Manfred does not have total control of his owners, it seems more like he’s herding cats, I believe a lot of the benefits from an NHL style cap are lost without the ability to manipulate the owners as Bettman can.
For your Rockies example, the cap will do nothing for them. As far as I can tell, the Rockies are run terribly and have a meddling owner that’s kind of incompetent. If we use your NHL analogy, Manfred would probably tell the owner to get out of the way and makes him hire 1 of 3 new POBO candidates that Manfred picks for him.
On some level, the situation with baseball is unique. The system in place has an enormous intake of players, the majority of which never pan out. “Guys who make fans interested in baseball” are mostly signed years before they can prove they will be successful in baseball, it’s only the occasional incipient star out of Japan that violates this principle. Beefing up the draft & minor pro-leagues to me seems to be the best and most cost-effective way to get guys experience, fame and fan interest with cheap tickets & concessions, but MLB has happily contracted their minor leagues and draft, shrug. I guess it shows MLB doesn’t really care about fan interest and won’t care in the future, so why bother speculating about it, I suppose.
yeasties-
Interesting take
NHL fans hate Bettman worse than MLB fans hate Manfred (though the gap is closing). I don’t think the NHL game is as fun as it was before Bettman got rid of fighting, even though players are more athletic than ever before, but the game is still action packed.
I think a bad owner has proven to hurt the NHL more than it does in MLB (or NFL). Angelos or Fisher or someone like that can poop in a vacuum but what they do really only kills their own market while the other teams continue competently, but in the 90s, LA’s owner nearly killed the NHL’s efforts in the entire SW US.
For the Rockies, its a shame. Nice stadium, large metro area, population with demographics which should support MLB…but doesn’t. Just don’t go to a day game in August. No amount of Coors keeps you cool.
The accessibility of all sports has decreased. All but the NFL are off local TV or basic cable, its premium cable or worse. I pay for ESPN+ just to see maybe 20-30 Capitals games a year. I might only see the Orioles 5x/year now. But I get to see the Broncos…and the freaking Chiefs and Cowboys…every single game from my couch. But the accessibility part is hurting baseball the most – it is the sport in the biggest deficit with young fans, and its not marketing to them. I am turning 50 and I believe I am still younger than the average baseball fan. I don’t plan on living forever, nor do I want to, and probably not long enough to see the Orioles in the World Series again.
Yes, Gunnar Henderson was drafted in 2019 and came up in 2022…Eddie Murray was drafted in 1973, came up in 1977 and I became a fan in 1981….but with today’s game he signs a big boy contract in 1982 somewhere else. What would that have done for loyalty? Maybe I would have followed him to the Angels or Red Sox, or become a USFL fan.
Has the salary cap in the NFL or NBA been shown to do anything except place an overabundance of importance on the draft? Both leagues have teams on extreme boom/bust cycles just waiting to get lucky in the draft, does that do anything to boost general fan engagement?
Even the White Sox’s historically bad season had a win percentage that wouldn’t be at the bottom of either NBA or NFL. Do fans of the worst teams in those leagues really feel like their teams have a shot at the championship in the next 5 years?
Teams like the Jaguars and Bulls have boxed themselves into tough corners based on poor salary cap decisions, yet in both leagues the strategy seems to be to have a couple star players on huge contracts and a ton of role players still on their draft day contracts. Would a salary cap in MLB just exacerbate the ongoing trend of squeezing out middle class veterans for guys on rookie deals?
Neither NBA or NFL has a simple cap/floor system either. Both have a myriad of complicated exemptions, restrictions and rules. There is so extreme pressure on players, from both management and fans, to take discounts so the team can sign more guys. Doesn’t this defeat the entire purpose of the salary cap? If the Dodgers had the exact same team but everyone on the team made half as much, would that be any more fair?
Finally, is there anything to show that those leagues have better overall parity than baseball? Both leagues have recently had extreme dynasties and year-to-year the best/worst teams in both leagues have higher/lower win percentages than the best/worst teams in baseball.
I can’t wait to listen to this podcast now. The way the cap simpletons are crying about this it must be good. It’s about time they got told their idea is dumb and not to have opinions anymore and let the leaders of the intelligent baseball fan community have the vocal power that will command more attention from the sport. They’ve wasted too much time on the whiny less intelligent part of the fan base with their cries of caps and floors nonsense.
Wow. You are obnoxious.
I love when baseball fans act like we don’t have decades of evidence regarding salary caps.
Let your sport die just so you can pretend your team actually “won” something.
MLB will never risk the Yankees becoming the Jets or Giants or the Dodgers becoming the Clippers or Chargers of past years.
And their fans want to keep pretending they won those trophies they bought.
Trash league.
You want to increase revenue? Put a better product on the field. First, no team “loses money”. Yes, star players are expensive. But, with all due respect to the Rays model, all those years of 90+ wins, with even one true star player they may have been a championship in there.
Look at the Pirates, they fell into it with Skenes, Keller and Jones. What have they done this year to improve? NOTHING. At this point, signing Alonso and a more moderately priced DeJong or Verdugo makes them the best team in the division. They won’t. Because, their billionaire owner pocketed the $68mm (reportedly) league shaed revenue, and spent$0 on players.
Don’t blame the Dodgers, yes, they may have more than most, but all have enough. Ask the Mariners why they aren’t spending?
The Dodgers didn’t I vent deferred money. Hire better GMs.
I am in favor of a REAL floor. Spending 75% of revenue sharing on players andno cap.
They call it ” the will” to win for a reason.
You can’t have a floor without a cap. But I agree something needs to be done about owners not spending.
Willie – Why not? Spending money is a good indication of performance, because normally youre buying better players, but, with that said, it is very far from a guarantee to having a good team. Ask the Padres and Phillies……
The floor is entirely more important than the cap.
Because a cap will keep teams from blowing the doors off the other teams. I mean if you put in a floor of 150 million what does that do when the Dodgers spend in excess of your revenue?
Why not?
==============================
Because a floor without a cap will cost the owners money. They might be willing to do that, if the union kicks in money elsewhere. But they won’t do it otherwise.
Owners could maybe be convinced to agree to a floor, if the union gave some incredible concessions. Union will NEVER agree to a cap. EVER.
They consider it an existential threat and will strike. It will not happen.
A salary cap makes little sense because the league wants and needs their biggest stars in the biggest markets. It also gives small market, profit sharing teams larger payouts so they can sign their own free agents.
What needs to change is the penalties for teams like the Dodgers, Yankees and Mets who spend spend spend and exploit “loopholes” such as not signing players with qualifying offers and allowing them to assign qualifying offers to free agents.
For me, I would keep the first tier penalty the way it is. This encourages teams to spend money, augment rosters without crazy penalties. The second and third tier however would receive much harsher penalties in the form of reduction of draft picks and international spending. An example being if you are in the third tier you lose your first five picks and nearly if not all your international pool money. If you repeat the third tier again you lose your first ten picks and if you repeat a third you lose the entire draft.
I’d also make it to where if teams pay the luxury tax they do not get to assign qualifying offers to player. I’d actually reconsider the qualifying offer system all together, only allowing market sharing teams to be able to receive compensation for losing players and due away with the full year of control clause.
If the MLB really wants competitive balance, all teams cannot play by the same rules. Look at the NBA and NFL, there isn’t real competitive balance. Despite floors and caps.
Dras – I think you are definitely moving in the right direction with some of your recommendations.
The “salary cap” is a lazy idea. Its never gonna stop the Yankees and Dodgers from spending right up to the ceiling and 15 others from spending right down to the floor..
I like the idea that QO pick compensation shouldnt go to top spending teams, and the loss of early round draft picks for going over the thresholds, without having a “cap”.
Balance this by fixing the Arbitration system and allow a get a larger pool of younger free agents to the market quicker. The extra supply will lower the demand.
In the NHL, the biggest spending team spends about 20% more than the lowest spending team.
In the NFL, the gap is less than that.
In MLB, the biggest spending team spends 6 times more than the lowest spending team.
If that is “parity” to you, OK.
The best player in the NFL plays in Kansas City. The best player in the NHL plays in Edmonton, Alberta. Both signed extensions to stay in those cities.
Anyone who claims “parity” in MLB is someone who benefits from pretending that there is parity in MLB.
If the Dodgers rip off 4 or 5 World Series titles in a row then there’s a problem with over spending.
The problem with baseball is (in a very generic sense on the small market teams, and certain BIG market teams like the Red and White Sox, Mariners, Blue Jays, Nationals, Cardinals) UNDER spending.
Again, every team has the ability to spend. If the Pirates spend (even a little) money they could win the Division. Win the Division fans come to games, playoff gates bring evenue, winning brings eyes to the tv, sells merchandise,. Its not hard to figure out
If you knew that for every dollar you upped your payroll, the richer teams would just up theirs by $2 and you won’t win more by doing so, you’ll just make less…
What would you do?
There is a problem with over spending even if they win 0 WS. Point is they are heavy favorites in all metrics to win it for many years to come and most of the rest of the league will be thrilled over the moon just to squeeze into the wild card one year. While I agree small market ownership needs to spend more, are they in reality ever going to be able to spend enough to seriously compete for anything more than a wildcard and get bounced out of the first round?
Reds – I dont believe that.
How many times in the past twenty years have one of the top three payrolls won the world series?
Since the Reds have homegrown talent the likes of Elly, Steer, McClain and CES they dont need to be a top three payroll team, they need to supplement that with a top closer, a big bat, etc. Are you saying that the Reds with Pete Alonso, Tanner Scott, Flaherty couldnt compete with the Dodgers?
Ask the Phillies how having a top 5 payroll for 20 yrs has worked?
Anyone who claims “parity” in MLB is someone who benefits from pretending that there is parity in MLB.
========================
The MLB has more parity than the NFL on every level.
MLB has fewer teams that never had a shot at the playoffs.
MLB has more teams that have made the playoffs over any given period of time.
MLB has more teams that win the WS than the SB.
I’d wonder who the richer team in the NL Central is that would keep me from winning by spending a modest amount.
Steer and CES were obtained in a trade because the Reds could no longer afford to keep the talented players they were trading. Elly was pure luck. Reds had little to no idea what they got when they signed him. Now in a couple of years Reds will have to trade him to the likes of the Dodgers, Yankees. If the Reds signed the players you mentioned, yeah they would have a better chance and competing against the Dodgers but the Reds don’t have the money to sign such players and it is a dream for fans like me and nothing more. Again you seem to have missed my point. If the Phillies have missed or not done well in the playoffs or WS that is not because they did not have the talent to do so. I am sure the Phillies and media experts go into each year expecting them to at least make the playoffs. Currently Dodgers team WAR sits at 53.9. Reds are at 34.6.
Dodgers projected to win around 100 games +. Reds are projected to win 79. Reds have not been to the WS in over 30 years and there are many teams in worse shape than the Reds. I fully acknowledge that there are deadbeat owners that need to be addressed as well. At any rate I have looked at this from all sides and pretty much set in the fact that baseballs financial situation is broken. I appreciate you have a different opinion. I hope you have a good day!
Don’t look at any other sport for guidance.
The two metrics that should be used are attendance and winning percentage. If a team can’t draw fans over an extended period of time, move the franchise. If a team can’t win over an extended period of time, the owner has to sell.
Revenue sharing is an absolute must, but in a way that reflects the two metrics above.
Every single player is subject to the draft. Allow for free agency after 5 years.
Get rid of that stupid runner on second base, the automatic intentional walk, and other inane rules that the myopic “leadership” has deemed are needed. They’re not.
Less commercials between half innings.
More afternoon games.
And probably other stuff but I’m tired so that’s it for now.
LOL. Good luck with less commercials between half innings. Pretty sure that will never happen. Too many owners crying poor now and less commercials means less $ to spend. Heck we have commercials during the game every five minutes when someone hits a home run, turns a double play or a call to the bullpen.
If a team can’t draw fans over an extended period of time, move the franchise.
==============================
I assume that period is 30 years since that is the life span for a stadium.
And why cancel commercials? Are you suggesting like a blank screen between innings?
Is there a single Dodgers fan who actually pretends that they “won” something rather than failed to break the thing they paid for along the way…?
Keep telling yourself that, I guess.
11 and 33 are pretty good too.
Parity to me is that every team has a chance to make the playoffs over a five year period. Drafting and developing players to where the team can be competitive. More teams have a shot at signing top tier talent. BUT, you can only reward success and punish failure beyond the draft. If a team is able to keep the talent they developed for longer periods, that’s a good thing. If a team is constantly churning players but winning? Well that’s ok, too. The market size imbalances are what should be accommodated. Tampa should have a shot. They kind of don’t.
It’s more fun to have a system like in the NFL. Smaller markets can be more competitive.
Yes Tim, one benefit of a cap is that it would disperse talent around the league. NOT just to other big market teams but to mid-tier teams. Lowest revenue teams would still struggle to compete. Revenue disparity just too great. But mid-tier teams could afford many of the free agents that ultimately sign with bigger clubs. But a $350M cap is not realistic. In order for this to work it would need to be in the $200M to $250M range if not lower. That would help a lot more teams get and stay competitive.
Tim, you don’t get it. People are mad at Sasaki not because he signed with the Dodgers. It was because his agent layered on the BS about him being open to smaller market teams and a huge dog and pony show to end up signing where everyone expected him to sign. Had he just kept quiet and then signed the Dodgers we would have all grumbled but moved on pretty quickly. Sasaki and his agent can say they were doing their due diligence, but none of us really believe it.
The host points out data about teams like the Dodgers not winning copious amounts of world series and no team has won back to back WS since 2020. IMO that’s not the point. How many of those years were teams like the Dodgers in contention to at least make the playoffs, division title and WS? My guess would be 90+% of those years. What about the small market teams? Maybe 10%? I don’t blame the Dodgers for what they have done this year. They play within the rules. It’s the rules that are broken. Whatever ends up happening either a salary cap and floor or some iteration of that it needs to make things better and give the majority of fans some realistic hope of seriously competing with the large market/ultra wealthy owners!
I dont believe a cap does anything other than allow big teams who would spend more on their on-field product to make more profit instead.
According to Sportico, in 2024, the Athletics generated the lowest amount of gross revenue at $241mm but spent $81mm on payroll.
Is there a will to win there, or a will to maximize profits. Teams need to spend more money, the “small market” team is a fallacy.
I have no opposition to dynasties, just that they be earned on a fair playing field.
Finally had a chance to listen. Really enjoyed the discussion. Informative. As you said – nuanced. I hope people listened to it.
Im a good portion into the pod and I like the subsidy portion on one condition. Benefit winning. For example if you’re the Guardians, Brewers, and Rays who are small marker clubs and make the playoffs, find ways to reward them. Id be careful with that because the Ray’s who play in an old park are taking money while maybe not reinvesting in the club. Whereas say the Guards are reinvesting, I think. If you’re a small market club, winning, spending on the team, but being out spent, then the league should find ways to keep you competitive. Draft pick pentalies to big spenders, changes to international draft/spending, revenue sharing bias to playoff/teams above .500. I don’t want to reward teams that aren’t all in. That’s the problem with baseball right now. Id also have what NBA has which is salary floor and disburse the remaining amount amongst the team, the difference under the salary floor (evenly or % based on salary usage).