If the Dodgers get knocked out, I’d better not see everyone and their mother (and especially not those who do not want a salary cap) whining about the world series matchup, how much it sucks, nobody wants to watch this, etc.
Because that’s part of the problem. The discourse in national baseball spaces is so heavily tilted towards bowing down at the Dodgers’ altar that people can claim all they want that “I wish these small market teams would just spend more!” but then they turn around and it’s clear that they don’t actually want the small market teams to spend more, they want those teams to be feeders for the Dodgers. They are sick of having to care about small market teams when they’re good, they can’t wait until all the star players are Dodgers. THAT is a problem. Not one that is necessarily solved by a salary cap, but a problem nonetheless and it’s part of why fans are so frustrated. All the discourse condescends to them (“don’t you want to be pro labor instead of anti labor”) but clearly has no love for their teams or their fanbases.
These playoffs, the fanbases in Chicago and Cleveland and San Diego and (fine yes even) Milwaukee have been far louder, more devoted and supportive, than the fanbase in LA. But all they get is “don’t you want your owners to spend more?” out of one side of people’s mouths and “Wow I can’t wait until (Miz/Messick/Hagen Smith/Murakami/DeLauter) is a Dodger so I don’t have to care about Cleveland and Milwaukee anymore” out of the other.
watching teams who have never won or haven't won in a long time will always be more interesting to me than watching the same teams win over and over (unless it's my team ofc but even then seeing 3 different opponents in the 2010s WS run who hadn't won in a long time or ever was interesting)
People really enjoyed the Cubs vs. Cleveland world series, but I think the Cubs were the bigger draw there because we are a big market team and had the curse narrative. I fear the national networks won’t know how to sell Cleveland on its own even though they have the longest championship drought in MLB and second-longest in American sports.
In 2023 all I ever heard about was how no one wanted to watch Rangers vs. Diamondbacks, MLB had no clue how to sell that matchup. These teams that have made it all the way deserve better than that.
The issue is fans always want some incredible narrative and some years it's just two good teams playing for the trophy. For me personally that's enough.
Occasionally I still go back and watch the video of the Cubs getting the last out in game five, for as long as I’ve been alive that’s probably the single best baseball moment that has happened
It was maybe the most famous title drought in sports besides the Red Sox. The Cubs also have way more national recognition due to decades of WGN broadcasts.
When TV show hosts whine about it, it's annoying but I get it. When fans do the same, it's just baffling to me. Why do we care about TV ratings? Equally stupid when they point at the ratings after a New York team is in the playoffs... it means nothing.
The problem I have with when the TV broadcasters do it is that it’s their job to sell people on whatever the matchup is. Yes the Yankees and Dodgers will draw more eyeballs and that will always be the case, but it’s not like these teams have no hook. The Rays and Brewers have never won the world series, Cleveland has the longest drought in MLB after the extra inning game 7 in 2016.
Whichever networks are broadcasting the game need to be doing a better job promoting whatever the matchup is and not whining about it. That’s what’s creating a lot of the perception that leads to the salary cap sentiment.
The problem then is the people. Hire better people than people who just want to chill in LA or catch a Broadway show while covering NY. Like instead of being a retirement program for former athletes who clearly want to be paid while vacationing on the seaside, maybe hire more passionate journalists and broadcasters
You're not expecting the posts that flood in that focus on the TV ratings of a Milwaukee v Tampa/Cleveland WS?
It's going to happen, because articles will be written. Comparisons will be made. And bad-faith fans will point at it as proof that MLB needs the Yankees and Dodgers and Mets and Phillies.
The amount of “fans” who outed themselves as ratings fans the past few weeks has been revealing and a bit depressing. Like if ratings were so important to the sport then why allow any market to have a team besides LA, NY, and Chicago
What you have described is the major problem with the nba and why the nfl separated from the rest as the most popular sport. Fans want to attach to their local team and grow and get attached to players. Having small market teams be feeders for the big markets is what the nba has built its fandom around and it’s hurt the sport so much meanwhile the nfl has focused on teams and regional rivalries and it’s a big difference in why it’s so much more popular
Correct I should have elaborated- they fixed it by having the apron and cap rules and also standardizing contracts so that an LA or NY can’t offer a larger contract than OKC or Milwaukee could
Read the article and you're 100% bang on. Fans and media don't know what they really want. Fans complain about the Dodgers, Yankees, Red Sox etc and act like they want parity then the same ones complain when it's a Diamondbacks/Rangers World Series.
You can't have both, the NBA had the same thing when it was OKC/Ind in the Finals.
I don't think seeking and making the money is always the best thing, I think leagues are nest when there is a level of parity and competitive balance, but that might not yield the very best in terms of revenues.
Not certain its the same fans but definitely the same media. I've seen the same media ppl complain about the Dodgers and Yankees and lack of parity, then write articles highlighting record low TV ratings when the small market teams make it.
These playoffs, the fanbases in Chicago and Cleveland and San Diego and (fine yes even) Milwaukee have been far louder, more devoted and supportive, than the fanbase in LA.
I love shitting on Los Angeles as much as the next person, but Dodger Stadium is like actively oppressive to cultivating a loud crowd. Prices are insane, parking is a hajj in and of itself, the seating is deep without major overhang, and the stadium PA is so goddamn loud from the outfield that it suppresses natural crowd noise.
There's a lot of actual fans who are just as loud, but naturally after winning a couple WS and the insanity that is Dodger Stadium, the crowd will self-select to be more mellow.
You're 100% right though that the media and MLB want LA, NY, Chicago, Toronto, etc involved because the sport is so regional it really spikes ratings. It's infuriating every year to be basically treated as an afterthought in playoff marketing and I'm sure the Brewers/Guardians/etc fans feel the same as we do.
Maybe I am misunderstanding you, but you could get both Milwaukee AND Cleveland in the WS. No need to choose! Whether it is Cleveland or Tampa (and I am cool with either of them), I think we agree we prefer Milwaukee take the NL over the Dodgers. Right? 😁
I think baseball sickos will love this matchup. I don’t think casual viewers will. The ratings for Dbacks-Rangers were pretty awful in comparison and I expect it to be the same especially if it’s Brewers vs. Rays.
I mean, even just this subreddit makes it obvious how bad that finals matchup would be for casual fans lol Brewers beating Dodgers g1 has over 8k upvotes. G2 is at 6.8k. I had to control f to even find the Guardians beating the Rays one lol only 1.8k upvotes...and keep in mind, that's with everyone whining about how the Dodgers' game was too early. And the Rays' win yesterday doesn't even have 1k upvotes. This series will just have very low viewership. wcyd
If Cleveland makes it at least there will be the excitement of possibly breaking a 78-year drought. By comparison the Rays just don’t offer any sizzle to the masses.
Im not even pro salary cap but a salary cap and floor would help with exactly what you are talking about. Right now it does feel inevitable that these young guys on small market teams will end up in NY, LA, BOS eventually. But that's because those teams can and will easily shell out 30 mil a year for a good pitcher, even if they are paying a Stanton like contract. And teams with low payrolls know they can get adequate production from young players for cheaper so they will. Forcing them to spend more, while limiting big market teams and actually punishing them for bad contracts does give those small market teams incentive to keep young players when it's time to extend.
National discourse on MLB labor boils down to people wanting all of the stars in the league to play for the Dodgers?
What are you talking about? Feeders for the Dodgers? What is this comment even trying to suggest - that people that do not want a salary cap don't want that because they want all the best players on the Dodgers?
Is the national discourse in the room with us right now?
Correct. Unfortunately even rational fans do it, which is why they were more than happy to foam at the mouth over my team a few years ago. Why? Because the Dodgers wanted it to be so.
There's a very real problem with over fixation by sports media on a couple of markets, which leaves everyone else out in the cold, and god forbid you upset those markets in any way.
Completley agree. The Brewers and Rays especially have played exceptional baseball all year and have a ton of interesting and fun players, not to mention compelling narratives about playoff droughts. And yet folks who spend all year bitching about the big market teams becoming juggernauts also get all whiny about them not being in the finals every year.
Last year's Mariners-Blue Jays series was INCREDIBLE. Some of the best playoff baseball games I have ever seen. We should want more of this, not less. The Brewers and Rays putting up high quality seasons and then keeping that going in the playoffs is a sign of a healthy season and playoff structure.
“If the Dodgers get knocked out, I’d better not see everyone and their mother (and especially not those who do not want a salary cap) whining about the world series matchup, how much it sucks, nobody wants to watch this, etc.”
You’re only going to see that from bitter Dodgers fans, Yankee fans that are frustrated they got knocked out early again, people affiliated with the media and influencers who want to skate on the popularity of the 2 biggest teams.
Everybody else, which is to say fans of baseball in general, welcome the smaller market teams in the WS.
small market teams in the WS is great because it proves we don’t need a salary cap to get parity, we already have that. you just need owners who want to win and are willing to invest in it.
all a salary cap does is suppress labor costs. it will not improve parity, it will just artificially break up great teams faster, and force homegrown stars to leave just to find a team with cap space. who does that benefit? certainly not the players or the fans. and the owners don’t need any more help, they already have absurdly favorable market conditions, exempt from anti trust and labor laws everyone else has to follow.
you think you want a salary cap, but you don’t. every player that has one in their league hates it. it only benefits the richest people in sports who contribute nothing but capital.
lots of ways to invest in your success that isn’t FA spending. the rays invest aggressively in their player development and analytics. they have more analysts than coaches. they’re on the bleeding edge of training tech and biomechanics. they also just have great coaches.
It doesn't prove that at all. It's just even more of a credit to those small market teams that they were able to overcome the unfair advantage dodgers, yankees, etc have. That doesnt mean we dont need a fairer system.
The national media is always going to favor the larger markets. Gets more eyeballs drawn to their programming. I agree that they should be doing a better job of hyping up the matchups (if the Dodgers are knocked out we are guaranteed either the Rays or Brewers win their first or the longest active WS drought will end with Cleveland), but the economics are driving this.
Thing is getting stars in bigger markets makes it easier to cover the bigger markets, and more likely that those teams will be doing well. If those teams are doing well, then they can cover those large market teams more positively (instead of clowning on like the Mets), and get better ratings. Greeny once said on his show that he likes it if the Cowboys are doing well, then he can more positively pander to that large fanbase instead of discussing the latest Jerry Jones headache for the sake of getting that audience in.
If you want to know what it’s like if you have a Shohei Ohtani level talent playing for a small market for several years, see how Giannis was covered with the Bucks for the longest time. Trade speculation every single offseason (except the one the Bucks one the title).
La has 3 million people for the biggest baseball team in the world and couldn’t do better ? I get it was hot but it’s the dodgers and the playoffs but I think they’ll do better today and the next couple games
I honestly think the biggest problem with the Dodgers isn't that they spend so much. The Yankees and Mets also spend to wildly different results. The Dodgers have the 2 (and maybe the 3) best Japanese players in the world. That isn't really fair and there needs to be a better international draft for these Japanese players. The Yankees and Mets and other teams could afford Ohtani and Yamamoto and Sasaki, but the players went where they wanted. I know Ohtani is a little different but he still was LA or bust when he came to the league. That system needs to be improved (among several other things, like the owners who refuse to spend money).
The Mets are a clusterfuck but the Yankees literally haven’t had a losing season since 1992
I get no rings lately but the amount of success the Yankees have had in the modern era of an American sport is unparalleled here. We’re talking equivalent to European soccer clubs
It’s just as it is in many sports (including capped ones): the Dodgers spend a ton, but ALSO, plenty of players are willing to take less money to go there because LA is glitzy and glamorous and lots of other cities are not.
This is often attributed to some sort of moral superiority on the Dodgers’ part rather than just the fact that they get structural advantages from being in LA.
It's not about sweetheart deals per se. It's more - all things equal, young rich dudes would rather live in LA than Boston. Which is mostly true. Mookie is a good example. If the Red Sox had kept him until free agency, he probably would've only stayed in Boston if they outbid whatever the Dodgers (or maybe Padres) offered. But he clearly never loved the city or living here even if he embraced the organization and fanbase. If the money is the same either way, Mookie and a lot of guys will always choose to live in southern California over Boston/Chicago/Philly/etc - so those other teams have to pay a bit of a premium (which they typically won't).
The bias isn't as pronounced as it is in other leagues, because the MLB doesn't have a salary cap or max contracts. But in a league like NBA where a player will make the same amount of money no matter where he goes, he's obviously gonna choose to live in places like LA and Miami over Milwaukee or Utah. If the MLB goes to a cap system like that, the LA bias will become even bigger.
That's because they have their supermaxes and that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the veterans that will make the same money anywhere they go. Those guys overwhelmingly choose specific cities over other cities.
Again, different leagues with different rules - these NBA guys make supermaxes. I'm specifically talking about the MLB where there's no such thing. You're comparing apples and oranges and pretending you had a big gotcha - but in reality you have no idea what you're talking about.
It's also true that the Dodgers have one of the best front offices and organizations in sports, which is the tiebreaker between the Mets/Yankees or even going to the Angels lol.
I understand that is true of unrestricted free agency across all sports. It shouldn't be true of guys when they are first joining the MLB. That's why we have drafts for players out of school. We shouldn't treat the Japanese players differently with a system that gives LA a huge advantage. Why is it different when Yamamoto declares for the MLB than when a guy leaves college?
I despise the dodgers. But as MANY of their players have pointed out, moving to LA, being on a winning team in a MAJOR market, having a good shot at a WS title, and playing with an all star lineup is a fucking no brainer as a player. Throw in the $ and who wouldn’t jump on that train?
They built a winning culture, in a major market, assembled a team any pro would love to be on, and shell out cash. Even without the money, it’s hard to imagine great ballplayers deciding to go somewhere else.
The cap/no cap is arguable as far as it “ruining” baseball, but it’s easy to see how this snowballed into massive success.
I don’t know who the idiots are basing their opinions on the cap on the outcome of one season, but I know it sure as hell isn’t the owners or MLBPA. Everybody knows any team can win. Everybody also knows small market teams are at a colossal disadvantage and in the long run the Dodgers, Yankees etc will win way more often. The outcome of one season shouldn’t matter.
My conspiratorial side wants to say this whole battle for the cap narrative has been pushed by the owners as a bet that the Dodgers will win. If the Brewers finish the job we’ll see a swing back to a more moderate position.
Frankly, I don’t think the owners or the players care about the actual results on the field and they won’t change their opinions because of it. The owners want a cap because it gets them more money and control, and players don’t want a cap because it means less money and they’ve sacrificed a lot in previous negotiations to keep it (long rookie deals and arb years). Both will use results on the field to justify their position to the fans and win the PR game, but it won’t change their approach to negotiations meaningfully.
this is where I'm at. Only fans think in terms of what's happened lately whereas the competing sides here have been thinking about their strategy for YEARS and aren't backing down based on one postseason. Getting the "public" on your side means almost nothing in this negotiation either.
You are getting hoodwinked into thinking the owners are doing this for competitive balance. There is only ONE reason the owners want a cap: More $$$$$ in their pockets. The biggest con in America for the last 50 years was billionaires fooling the working class that their money would trickle down to them.
Your comment appears to presuppose that competitive balance and profitability are unrelated, or at least that the owners do not perceive the two as being related.
Because they aren't related, due to all the revenue sharing going on between teams. Small market teams such as the rays get the majority of their year's income on January 1 when the streaming, jersey, and TV shared payouts hit. For the cubs, this is not true as they generate more money into the sharing pool than they then take out of it.
A cap ensures the big market teams make more money, allowing for a higher franchise valuation for themselves as well as pushing the values of all other teams higher due to the scarcity in there being a limited number of teams. Additionally, a cap enables increased revenue sharing from the big market teams to the small market teams, making those teams more money and higher valuations like before.
None of the evidence you cited actually supports the idea that competitive balance doesn't affect profitability/valuation. At most, it shows that competitive balance isn't the primary influence on profitability/valuation.
Also, nothing in the second paragraph shows that a cap won't benefit competitive balance or that competitive balance isn't a secondary motivation for a cap. At best, it shows that competitive balance isn't the primary motivation for a cap.
As a non-billionaire, I get the shade constantly thrown at billionaires. Also, unless we're gonna go state owned or publicly owned somehow, who do we expect to own a pro sports franchise?
I don't even know that I have a point, really. But all the "the billionaires bad" crap is lame as hell. If there's no baseball next year I'm equally willing to blame owners OR the MLBPA.
Baseball is a beautiful game. It really pisses me off it can't be it's own thing and tell ESPN and the big networks to just fuck off.
Again, I don't even know what my point is really but I expect this sub to be miserable this off season.
Everyone here is motivated by money, it’s just that the players actually do the work to create all the money that the owners want to hoard. The MLBPA wants more of the money their labor creates. The same thing every worker should want.
It's a microcosm of everything. Lots of people don't see it that way because the players make more money than most fans, but the owners make shit tons more money than any player, and they don't need more of it. Outside of the Juan Sotos, most players actually will need all of the money they make in baseball.
The average MLB player makes 5.3 million. Fuck the owners but you guys pretending dudes playing a kids’ game for a living are broke or something is just not real.
A ton more than the average fan just like the players playing a kids’ game. It is weird you guys trying to make millionaires of a kids game some poor employees of billionaires. I’m an employee of a billionaire, don’t get to play a game for money and make a ton less.
You keep saying 'a kids' game.' You do understand the players put in ridiculous amounts of time, effort and I'm guessing in almost all cases their own money to get better at this 'kids' game,' right?
The fact that you are not a millionaire does not mean the players, who have marketable skills you apparently do not and I certainly do not, shouldn't be able to make as much money as the market will bear.
Average is the wrong stat to use here. If I'm in a room with Bill Gates and 9 of my friends, the average net worth in that room is over $1B. It tells you nothing about the most common scenario.
The median salary is about 1.4 million. Which is still a lot of money, but the median career is roughly 6 years. So the most common salary of an MLB player is ~$233,000 per year for 6 years. That's a very good salary, but it's not generational wealth. They're most likely not set for life, and will have to find a 2nd career after their playing days are over.
The thing is, the MLBPA has made it clear that they are opposed on principle to a cap and floor system, even one that increases the money spent on players well past what it currently is. I don't think the players would actually vote down a cap of $350M and floor of $200M but the MLBPA's stance is they would oppose that, even though it would inarguably increase average player pay.
I really do think the MLBPA mostly serves the interests of established superstars and their agents, gives a little consideration to above average mid-career players, and basically ignores the interests of young players and league average or below average but rosterable veterans. Compromises along those lines are the reason the MLB is the only North American league with no cap and ALSO the one with the most restrictive and longest terms of team control for new players.
They are literally not in the same boat. No more than you are in the same boat as whomever owns the company you work for. Be for real. They would not be able to make millions if the owners did not make orders of magnitude more. Why should owners get all the money the players generate by “playing a kid’s game?”
No, but players are also not in the same boat as us fans either. Players are in fancy luxury yachts, owners are in super yachts the size of Australia, and we are paddling a canoe.
Bro, wtf are you on about? The difference between a million dollars and a billion dollars is about a billion dollars.
If a person sells their labor for money, they are on the same team. It does not matter what labor they sell and for how much money. A worker is a worker.
Please stop licking boots and doing the work of the ownership class. You ain't ever gonna be part of their club.
So metaphors are clearly not your strong suit. What I meant was that there are three separate classes:
The fans (canoe - simple form of boat most people have used).
The players (luxury yacht - rich person’s boat, more than the fans have but something fans can at least understand and some may even have the resource to own, some are not as fancy as we think but some of them are way nicer than we think)
The owners (gigantic super yachts - boats that are so huge and require so many resources that we (the fans) can’t even fathom how big they are. These are the sort of yachts that have their own helipads and are almost the size of cruise ships).
To us (the fans), it seems like the players and owners are the same because to someone in a canoe all yachts seem the same. To the players, the difference between their “common” yachts and the owners SuperYachts couldn’t be more obvious because you could fit several “player” sized yachts into a SuperYacht. And neither side thinks about the people in canoes.
In other words, this conflict is happening over sums of money we the fans can’t fathom, and neither side cares about what the fans want beyond how it makes them more money. As a person who is in a canoe, I’m not licking boots of either regular yacht people or SuperYacht people because I (and im guessing you) will never be in either side’s club.
I am truly sorry that you are unable to look beyond the numbers that represent dollars. Like, my wife makes 4 times what I make, that doesn't make her any less working class than I am. That's my point. Workers are workers and labor is labor. Labor is entitled to all it creates. Period.
Just because parasites have been siphoning off the excess value we create for our whole lives does not mean that it's right, or that we should accept it.
Baseball players sell their labor for money. The only reason it's so much money is because of how much revenue the players themselves generate with their labor.
So both sides are primarily interested in enriching themselves, why should I care who wi s? Why shouldn't I instead be focused on what's best for me as a fan?
You should imo. I’m so sick of this no cap because it benefits the billionaires narrative. There’s nothing inconsistent with fans and billionaires interests aligning on this issue, even if it’s for different reasons.
fans that think a salary cap will make their team competitive are fooling themselves because it's not coming without a floor. This just means you'll end up overpaying for mid to bad players to satisfy the floor requirement.
I keep seeing this sentiment and I don’t understand how you people think you’re dissuading a Pirates fan by saying that the Dodgers will be forced to spend less, Bob Nutting will be forced to spend more and both teams will have to exist within a specific margin of payroll. How is that your pitch for why they shouldn’t be onboard?
The real pitch should be that in a world where players' salaries are being capped anyway, any player with options will avoid owners like the Pirates' like the damn plague. Maybe just by the nature of the system Pittsburgh still has a better chance but they'd likely end up like the Browns or the Sacramento Kings, losing just as much but without the payroll excuse.
I mean sure but even if we’re granting that, you’re still telling fans “Everything could stay the same or everything could stay the same but your team is forced to spend more money.” I just think it’s a bad starting point. You’re telling fans with nothing left to lose that they shouldn’t want radical change because maybe they’d still lose.
I don't think most anti-cap people think nothing whatsoever should change. I certainly don't. I think there should be more aggressive revenue sharing in place and I think the owners should be made to use that money to meaningfully improve their teams. Maybe it's not always payroll (though it mostly should be), but beefing up facilities, infrastructure, etc. The deferring stuff should probably be reined in if not outright eliminated.
But the owners don't want that, because they can't pocket that. Hence, the all-out cap push.
Why do you watch baseball? Are you a fan of a players and how good they are at playing ball? Or are you a fan of the owners and how good they are at owning baseball teams? If you support a product financially, don't you want your money going towards the things that make that product great?
People say this a lot on this reddit, but what they don't say is that the vast vast majority of fans are bigger fans of the teams than the players. Your absolute favorite player could walk and go to another team, like Freddie Freeman did for me in 2022, but odds are you're not going to change what team you root for. I'm a Braves fan, not a Freddie Freeman fan.
But the reason you watch the Braves is due to what the players on the field do, not what their owner does. It doesn't matter who those players are - the players are the only thing that generates interest/revenue.
The more money that the players can get, the more incentive people will have to be great baseball players, the better baseball we all get to enjoy. Giving that money to the owners does nothing to advance baseball.
Yes there's not enough financial incentive to become an mlb player that's the problem lol. They already have gargantuan contracts compared to other sports.
You're viewing this incredibly narrowly. It's not about the binary "will I be rich if I become a better baseball player?" Look at NBA players who phone it in all season and rest half the year. They play in a league with capped salaries so they don't have much incentive to keep trying to be better. They already are in the top tier of earnings, and being even greater won't make them more money. There are plenty of players who coast once they get up to the highest earning level they can reach. Putting a cap on salaries will limit how much effort some of the players put in.
Their minimum salary is 780k lol. I dont begrudge them their money but I'm much more concerned about the health of the sport and small market teams keeping their talent than i am about the next juan Soto getting an even bigger contract.
If the lockout concerned stadium employees or low level guys making 75k id be much more likely to sacrifice my own interests in their favor but I just have a real hard time calling professional athletes at the highest level of the sport a part of the labor class.
It is $780K but they aren't like a person who went to college or learned a trade and will have a 40+ year career. They have a very very small window of time to make as much money as possible, and then a lot of them have no skills outside of baseball that will translate to earnings. Tons of players earn just like $1M-$2M and then fizzle out of baseball. That is a lot of money but it is also less than the average American earns in their lifetime working. And these are often guys who dropped out of school at 14 to focus on nothing but playing baseball. They're not going on to become nurses or plumbers and they also got a huge amount of money in a lump sum at a young age, and may not have saved it perfectly.
The average MLB player earns under $10M in his career - nearly 5x the average American's career earnings. The average owner is worth $2B - over 200x more than the average player's career earnings. The average player is way way closer to you and me than they are to the owners.
Players make the game, owners make the league. Pretending you can have one without the other is hilarious. Fuck billion and millionaires. I’m for the fan’s and majority want a cap.
MLBPA isn't pushing for changes resulting in a lockout. The owners are the ones pushing for change that is forcing a lockout. The players are cool with how things are. It's the owners' greed that is making a lockout possible.
On top of that - the players are 100% of the reason we watch this game and they generate 100% of the revenue (money we fans spend). The owners are just a necessary(?) evil that are trying to get a bigger slice of the pie for no reason whatsoever.
Ok but what if I am one of the many fans who ARENT cool with the way things are re: talent distribution? I get why the top end players dont want anything to change lol the unlimited guaranteed salaries are great for them. But I don't think theyre great for the sport.
I agree and there's a million better ways to address that than a salary cap. A salary floor, better international signing rules (LA shouldn't get the majority of great Japanese players automatically - it should be similar to a draft), harsher tax system (already a soft cap), better revenue sharing - and a requirement for teams to actually spend that shared revenue / taxes on players (not currently the case) - should all be priorities over a hard cap. And that shared revenue spending shouldn't count towards a team's salary floor - they should be required to spend on top of that shared revenue money.
We shouldn't be advocating for owners to spend less money - it is OUR money they are spending! Fans produce 100% of the money this league makes. Instead of reducing how much the top teams spend, we should be drastically increasing how much the bottom teams spend.
People who just go straight to a hard cap system aren't thinking critically and are carrying the owners water for them. There are a bunch of better solutions than a salary cap - that's just the simple "solution" the owners want because it makes them richer.
People who just go straight to a hard cap system aren't thinking critically and are carrying the owners water for them.
The condescending attitude so many of you cap opponents have toward people who want one is such a turn-off. Imply that people are bootlickers more. See if that brings them to your side.
I want my baseball team to have a better chance to win. It's that simple. I don't give 2 shits if it gives billionaires more money.
"I don't like when people call me out for my ignorance, and rather than reflect I'm going to double down" is a huge problem in this country, I agree. It has resulted in a lot of the issues we deal with both in and out of baseball.
Ok but if every team increases payroll to the max they can, to the point where theyre essentially a non profit, the dodgers and Yankees can still spend more. So how would a floor without a cap help??
How do you think these negotiations work? If people just accept that a cap is necessary to even consider any of the needed improvements (salary floor, better revenue sharing, better international signee rules, etc.) then the owners have already won and are negotiating from a position of strength. And they didn't need to do anything at all other than manipulate the way you think about this.
As somebody told you, you are incredibly condescending. You keep thinking fans are having the wool pulled over their eyes by owners. When in reality we don’t give a shit this will bring owners more money because it will also make competitive balance better. That’s what fans care about overwhelmingly.
Why? What law says that has to be the case? Again, you assuming that is just carrying the owners' water for them. We don't owe them anything at all, but their propaganda has already twisted your brain into believing it is impossible to have a floor without a cap.
A cap/floor system is about stability and balance. In order for smaller market teams to spend to the floor, revenue will need to be more evenly spread. You can't just tell teams that don't have the extra revenue to start spending $80m more per year. You have to get that extra revenue from somewhere.
And no, owners will not spend their personal wealth (which is rarely ever cash wealth anyway) on salaries. All salary comes from team revenue. So it has to be spreed more evenly, and to maintain that system, there has to be a balance between cap and floor. Not just a cap, and not just a floor.
The only brainwashing going on is people that think the current system isn't broken.
Again, I already addressed this. It doesn't require a cap at all (the owners just want you to think that), you just need to read:
harsher tax system (already a soft cap), better revenue sharing - and a requirement for teams to actually spend that shared revenue / taxes on players (not currently the case)
Just improve revenue sharing and it is already a soft cap system. Let the Dodgers run a $400M payroll - but make them spend $500M in taxes that go to the lower-spending teams. And force those teams to actually spend that shared revenue on players (which is not currently the case). Don't count the shared revenue towards a salary floor - every team should be compelled to spend a certain amount regardless of shared revenue.
Eventually this becomes diminishing returns for the Dodgers because every dollar they spend results in them funding their competition. The current revenue system is broken and if it were fixed, it'd address the issues you cite. But you don't want to think it through, you just want to go with "salary cap" because the owners said so.
And I never advocated for the owners to spend their personal wealth. There is more than enough revenue to go around, and that revenue should go towards the things that make the product great (the players). The more money that the players can get, the more incentive people will have to be great baseball players, the better baseball we all get to enjoy. Giving that money to the owners does nothing to advance baseball.
1995 showed the real power was and always be with fans. If it wasn’t for fans we would already have a cap in MLB, but fans sided with players.
What changed? Players’ priorities changed. We no longer have players vying to be singularly the best. They rather join Super Teams. This is true across all sports but the issue is that without a cap, you get teams like the Dodgers which is the Warriors’ Super Team on crack cause their very fruitful TV deal they 90% of league doesn’t even have option to get. With a cap, Super Teams are at least capped to a degree(no pun intended). Great players are forced to take a pay cut (not normally happening) or go to their own team to get their bag.
And this is why fans now side with a cap. In the end, it’s the players that killed it for themselves.
Well, the majority of fans blamed the players for the 1995 strike, so that's wrong right off the top. The reason we have no cap is that a judge (Sonia Sotomayor, actually) ordered the two sides to return to play under the terms of the existing agreement until a new one could be fashioned, because the owners were about to use scab players rather than negotiate. Just the latest in a line of dirty tricks they've used over the years to do exactly what they're trying to do again - limit compensation for their labor force.
(And yes, we already had the discussion where you think baseball is a kids' game and not actual labor, so we don't have to rehash it here.)
There are a million better solutions than a cap. A cap doesn't really address that LA automatically gets a huge leg up when a Japanese star comes to the US. Why do other players get drafted into the MLB, but Japanese players just go to the highest bidder? If Ohtani, Yamamoto, and Sasaki had gone anywhere but LA then most people wouldn't even view the Dodgers as a huge problem. And better revenue sharing would go a long way as well (currently owners basically pocket shared revenue rather than re-investing it into players).
But what is the net effect of a combined cap and floor? The top 5% of players lose value (in a way that has no tangible effect on their lives), but what about the bottom 20%? I feel like the proposed cap and floor raise the average value of players, not lower it, but I'm sure somebody could do some math on that.
The only people I'm worried about getting paid more are minor leaguers and non-players, but they're not part of this negotiation.
I mean… if they think a cap will drive more fan interest due to increased competitiveness across the league, then it is in their (and the player’s) financial interest to make it happen if league profit will go up.
Yeah to me it's not just about whether low payroll teams can keep up in the win column, it's also the fan experience of seeing star after star come up in your organization, only to see them go to the few teams that are willing to throw huge amounts at them.
The owners have absolutely positioned the Dodgers as the bad guys intentionally. You see it in all their press releases where they compare the Dodgers’ payroll to the small market team payrolls. And obviously that’s all with the Dodgers’ owners consent
Why would we see any swing at all? The owners just want to spend less and rake in more profits at the expense of labor. That’s it, that’s all it’s ever been. They don’t need any justification or excuse - they’re billionaires and they hate paying the people who do the work for them.
I don't really get how the narrative changes if the Dodgers lose. "A huge payroll can only get you back-to-back WS and a trip to the NLCS, but not back-to-back-to-back WS" isn't a convincing counter argument.
Especially because they’re “merely” in the NLCS in spite of their superstar player playing visibly hurt and in the midst of the worst slump of his career. If Jackson Chourio was playing as badly as Ohtani has been, there’s a good chance the Brewers wouldn’t even be in the NLCS to begin with.
If we gave 60 mil to Kyle Tucker we might not even make the playoffs. Brewers have to be perfect to be able to compete while the Dodgers can say “oopsy” and have 60mil in the 8 hole (though he’s been their best player this series).
Type of argument you'd see from someone who doesn't believe in global warming lol. "Well this one day was cold, so I'll ignore the previous month of record high temps!"
To be clear, in no way do I think that the owners care at all about competitive balance or anything besides their bottom line. I just think that the idea of a salary cap and floor (with the floor large enough to where players in general make more than they do today hopefully) is the best way to get long term competitive balance.
Owners want to increase franchise values by creating a system with more predictable revenue. That’s the long and short of it. But saying that out loud isn’t as beneficial to them from an optics standpoint as saying “the game is broken because of the Dodgers”.
Ultimately the owners want the Dodgers to win so that it helps them in the court of public opinion, but it means nothing if it ends up being a small market World Series. The owners don’t care about competitive balance, they want the financial benefits that come with a capped system at a time when local rights have plummeted. It’s just not as sexy to talk about that to the public.
Yeah, something to keep in mind too is that the valuations (per Sportico) of the bottom 10 MLB franchises and bottom 10 NHL franchises are now incredibly close. Here’s what they are per Sportico (with help from Claude):
We all know that MLB is far more popular than the NHL, but that the lower-tier of franchises in both leagues have remarkably close valuations - with the Columbus Blue Jackets having a higher valuation now than the Miami Marlins - is pretty telling of how things are right now for MLB’s “underclass”. And that’s with all due respect to the NHL too, but this is not how things should be for MLB. (Though note that these valuations are from before the Padres sale, which may change them going forward).
Would a cap+floor+revenue sharing help boost them up? I believe they could, yeah, especially to replace and/or supplant the lost revenue from the RSN apocalypse. There’s a reason why these discussions are being had after the TV rights deals all began to collapse.
A harsher tax system + revenue sharing is already a soft cap, so I don't see the need for a cap in that case. The current revenue sharing is completely broken though.
Another bad faith article for Jeff from Solon. The reason the NFL is king is because all 32 franchises are a draw, and some of the biggest brands/highest rated TV teams are located in Green Bay, Buffalo and Kansas City. These franchises can spend just as much as the Jets, Giants and Rams. The MLB needs to do everything they can to do the same for their franchises. A cap and a floor is probably one of the steps in that direction.
College football is a separate entity, with alumni base is biggest in areas where there are not a lot of professional franchises (SEC). I guess my point is not the only reason that NFL is king, but having franchises in those markets generating 30M TV viewers is only possible because Allen and Mahomes can play there forever.
In this day and age, why would any celebrity or athlete even hint about where they stand politically? No matter what you say you’re going to get shit on for it.
the comment that struck me most is kwan being the second most tenured player on the guardians because it speaks to one of the massive problems: once a player is "too good" for the market, the team isn't paying them. skubal is a great example. no reason he shouldn't have been a tigers lifer
You roll the dice enough times, you'll eventually get boxcars. This is no different. The odds are still 2.78% every roll, and it's still far more common to roll seven (high payroll teams advancing).
The last few years they seem to have lost the fundamentals (fire cash and Boone) but 17,19 and 21 were WS teams that happened to run into the cheating and good Astros
I'd argue there's nothing to fix, or at least nothing that can't be just as easily addressed by more significant revenue sharing, which by itself can be done without a single proposal to the players if the owners want.
People, both owners' side and players', want MLB to be the NFL or even the NBA, but it's never going to be, even if there was a hard cap tomorrow, because a Giants fan isn't going to go out of their way to watch an unrelated Marlins game on top of their team's 154-162 games.
Isn’t there a way all teams can just get the same tv deals and we can all pay for a reasonable streaming subscription to watch all the games including our home team? That’s my biggest concern really. I’d rather see teams investing money in scouting, player development, analytics, etc than just signing some overpriced FA because they have to spend more. If Cleveland and Tampa can be perennially good teams with a shot at the playoffs why can’t every team? There’s definitely some problems with parity I suppose but every year I look at the free agent pool and there’s really not a ton of guys that think are truly going to be game changing. There’s ones who probably are are of course out of reach of most teams and they still will be with a floor and a cap. Idk. If there’s no baseball next season I don’t know when I’ll give any more money to MLB. Figure it out.
I'm adamantly against a cap. Let the free market be. This is not about team competitiveness. It is the simple fact that most franchises lose money every year. That's it. It's not about winning. Most owners are not creative. Attanasio and the Brewers have proven that you can run a profitable business in the smallest market if you innovative and care about winning above all else. They invested in their own academy in the DR, recruit in Venezuela, don't hold guys for more than 6yrs, trade smart, focus on fan experience, hire good people. It's not rocket science but takes some ingenuity and execution. We need arch rival franchises like the Dodgers to incentive players with big pay days, generate a ton of revenue, share revenue. If other owners aren't serious about winning and arnt willing to innovate, sell your share and let someone else in who either has deeper pockets or is more clever. This cap and floor idea is going to make competitiveness in the league worse in my opinion. It will be a disincentive for teams to compete at the highest level and find ways to create a winning advantage. I welcome team owners who want to spend big. Bring em in. Baseball is better for it. Lazy owners who won't spend of course don't like it. And sure attanasio is going to say sure cap sounds good it improves our bottom line but when you look at the product on the field and in the stands, most baseball fans would rather be partying at AmFamField in lederhosen watching the brewers win than at Yankee stadium booing and jeering at their losing team.
11
u/Substantial-Pea7626 Seattle Mariners 15h ago
This pushing a narrative of big market vs small market, what's good for baseball, and the looming lockout is sucking a lot of fun out of the playoffs.