r/baseball • u/dog_butt_swirls • Aug 21 '26
Opinion [More Perfect Union]Could There Be No Baseball Games Next Year? These Owners Are Betting On It.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHvE6vlrwDc244
u/HotelAmericana Detroit Tigers Aug 21 '26
At this point there’s a Kalshi market for how many games will be played and all the owners already have money in on it. Thats what this country is under its current leadership
→ More replies (38)
19
u/JAWinks Chicago Cubs • Detroit Tigers Aug 21 '26
They’ll play, Manfred needs a media deal for 2028
115
u/jtime24 Aug 21 '26
Anyone cheering for a completely lost season isnt a real baseball fan.
52
u/alwaysleafyintoronto MLB Players Association Aug 21 '26
Not cheering for it, just expecting the loss like the Maple Leafs have conditioned me to do
3
65
u/tmoeagles96 New York Yankees Aug 21 '26
I’m just rooting for the union to be successful and stop salary caps from being introduced. If the owners want to ruin the season, that’s on them and I’ll support The players 100%
7
u/sexinsuburbia Los Angeles Dodgers Aug 22 '26
One wrinkle is that the current free agency system requiring 6-years of service time disproportionately favors the owners. Misiorowski is getting paid $500k less than the Dodger's backup-backup-backup catcher, Ben Rortvedt ($1.25M).
It's criminal how baseball underpays stars, uses them up, and sends them on their way. Only 25% of players make it to UFA.
If the owners demand a cap, the union should demand UFA at 25.
1
u/Mediocre_Airport_576 Los Angeles Dodgers Aug 23 '26
A significant reduction of 6 years of team control (after an average of four years of minor league control before that) would be necessary to get towards a cap.
Owners have SUCH a good deal with the current system, I don't seem them budging much...
1
u/sexinsuburbia Los Angeles Dodgers Aug 24 '26
It's interesting. MLB draft position is the worst predictor of player performance compared to other leagues. So, teams are legitimately signing a ton of guys hoping a few develop into something. That's sort of the reason why team control over players is a big deal. It might take 6 draft picks to get 1 MLBer. Teams are footing player development costs for 6-guys, so they need some payback on their aggregate investment. Henceforth 6-years of service time.
Wrobleski was an 11th round draft pick and made the ASG. The average draft round for all 2026 ASG selections is 3.5. In the NHL, the average round ASG game participants were selected in was 1.65. You're still more likely to be an all-star if you were drafted in the first round than later rounds, but there's less of a difference if you were picked in the first round than the 3rd round in the MLB compared to the NHL. Or, probably for the NBA and NFL, since draft position is more correlated with future performance.
That's why wanting a salary cap seems baffling to me, from an owners point of view. They've developed a system that financially works for them. There's no way the players are just going to accept a cap without renegotiating all of it.
10
u/DecoyOne San Diego Padres Aug 21 '26 edited Aug 21 '26
rooting for the union
Flair checks out
Edit: downvote me all you want, southern sympathizers. I’m voting for General Sherman in 2028.
32
u/telly69 Philadelphia Phillies Aug 21 '26
I think a lot of people took this as a union vs labor comment when it was meant as a Civil War joke (northerners were/are called Yankees as a slur by southerners).
31
u/DecoyOne San Diego Padres Aug 21 '26 edited Aug 21 '26
I stand by this joke and I’m perfectly willing to die on this hill, just like those brave yankees who fought off Pickett’s idiotic charge.
→ More replies (2)5
u/Yanks1813 New York Yankees Aug 21 '26
Buddy even the rich owners want a cap. Suppressing salaries is the name of the game. You aren't hurting the Yankees Dodgers and Mets by getting a cap you're hurting the union only
12
u/DecoyOne San Diego Padres Aug 21 '26
The only caps I support are blue caps because I support the Union
5
3
u/SanjiSasuke New York Yankees • New York Heights Aug 22 '26
I would say especially the rich owners want a cap. If I was a rich fuck who didn't care much about baseball, I'd not want to pay Juan Soto and Ohtani a kajillion dollars. But signing them brings in more $$$, the ultimate good. If only there was a way that I could only spend a fixed amount of money, much less than I do now, and still end up pulling the best talent...
Meanwhile, if I'm a Pirates GM, I'm perfectly OK with the current system, where my team is quite profitable. And I don't much care for this talk of 'salary floors'. But I could stomach it if the floor was low enough...
2
u/Yanks1813 New York Yankees Aug 22 '26
Yeah 1000% I mean even think about us. What changes with a cap
- we don't have Stanton? Ok that's probably for the best
- we don't have Rodon? Sucks but we'd love
- Judge makes less money? Hal would love that
- Cole makes less money because players who want to be in one market exist everywhere
-4
u/Dan_The_Man_Mann Baltimore Orioles Aug 21 '26
I really don't care if the union or the owners get what they want, I'm not in the union, nor am I an owner of a team, so it doesn't materially affect me at all. I'd personally want a salary cap, but I want baseball to be played next year more.
2
u/Beneficial_Lion_1312 Aug 21 '26
I'd personally want a salary cap
Are you organizing for a salary cap/floor in your own workplace?
4
u/DarkGreenMazda Cleveland Guardians Aug 21 '26
Every union in American employment has this, actually. Not just sports unions, every union.
2
u/Beneficial_Lion_1312 Aug 21 '26
My questions remains unanswered. And if the answer is "no", then I would follow up with "if you're not willing to organize your work to cap your own salary, you shouldn't be advocating that for others". Rules for thee, not for me type of beat.
5
u/DarkGreenMazda Cleveland Guardians Aug 21 '26
Name any other union in the the United States were wages are not regulated specifically.
I personally would love to join a union where a minimum salary was $1,000,000.
Oh, your question is pretty dumb - just because one isn't organizing their own unions, doesn't mean one can't advocate for a system they feel works best in MLB.
3
u/Beneficial_Lion_1312 Aug 21 '26
Name any other union in the the United States were wages are not regulated specifically.
Their wages are well regulated through already agreed upon terms such as luxury taxes and arbitration and free agency. That you think their wages aren't already regulated just shows you don't know much about this topic. Recommend staying as a spectator rather than joining the comment section if you don't know much about a topic.
I personally would love to join a union where a minimum salary was $1,000,000.
You would need skills that bring in enough revenue that you could be paid that much money at minimum.
Oh, your question is pretty dumb - just because one isn't organizing their own unions, doesn't mean one can't advocate for a system they feel works best in MLB.
Like I said, "rules for thee, not for me". You can hold a hypocritical stance, but it kind of makes you look like a moron to anyone with some brain power.
2
u/DarkGreenMazda Cleveland Guardians Aug 21 '26
Since it appears it will help the conversation move forward, I will modify my language (even though their is no maximum salary regulation in MLB), from regulate to specific wages. Surely you'll answer my question then.
Please name any union that doesn't have specific wage ranges. Like you said "rules for three, not for me". Why should the MLBPA be the only union in the US without specific wages?
Certainly you can answer this question - otherwise you can hold a hypocritical stance, but it kind of makes you look like a moron to anyone with some brain power.
4
u/kyndrid_ New York Mets Aug 21 '26
The union quite literally does have specific wage ranges based on league minimums and service time as well as clauses that can kick in after x years of service time. Part of that "wage range" is the fact you can make an obscene amount of money if you make it to free agency. That is literally the upper end of the range. The upper end is pretty explicitly uncapped by anything besides what the owner is willing to pay and the luxury tax, with the ability to skip arbitration if you sign an early extension.
→ More replies (0)-2
u/kyndrid_ New York Mets Aug 21 '26
Lmao bootlicking for billionaires
7
u/Yanks1813 New York Yankees Aug 21 '26
It's because they think a salary cap takes away a big market advantage. It doesn't, the Yankees and Mets would love a salary cap. They'll still make a shit ton of money and now they can spend less
5
u/kyndrid_ New York Mets Aug 21 '26
Not just that. The super spending teams also will be obviously grandfathered in with their current megadeals from the current CBA so the small market teams get fucked even harder for the next 10 years.
3
u/Yanks1813 New York Yankees Aug 21 '26
Exactly, Soto stays a Met and Ohtani a Dodger.
Honestly for us with a cap we probably don't have Stanton which is probably a good thing and Rodon which you could argue. Judge would just be making less money and players like Cole who wanted to be in one place exist in capped leagues too
-3
u/DarkGreenMazda Cleveland Guardians Aug 21 '26
So your more interested in not having a salary cap than having baseball in 2027?
→ More replies (12)15
u/huskersax Kansas City Royals Aug 21 '26
I'm interested in siding with labor over the owners of capital, yes.
0
u/DarkGreenMazda Cleveland Guardians Aug 21 '26
I don't really care who wins or loses the labor wars, and how much money each makes (they will all be fine no matter what happens), I just want a fair system. I do believe that a system with a salary cap and floor, you'll have a higher minimum salaries, which will actually cause a lot of players to see increased wages.
13
u/huskersax Kansas City Royals Aug 21 '26
You should care who wins the labor war.
6
u/DarkGreenMazda Cleveland Guardians Aug 21 '26
Don't really care who "wins" between billionaires and multi millionaires. Neither group cares about the fans. I care about a fair system for fans.
I promise you if and when a salary cap comes to baseball, the players will be fine. Obviously there are other factors (size of roster, league revenue), but MLB players aren't even in the top 2 of avg salary per player. NBA team salaries are higher than MLB, even though NBA rosters are 1/2 of MLB rosters.
9
u/huskersax Kansas City Royals Aug 21 '26
You should care who wins between billionaires and multi-millionaires.
You wanna know the difference between a billion and a million? It's a billion.
Labor is labor regardless of the compensation. These workers deserve just as much claim to the revenue they generate as any other laborer.
9
u/DarkGreenMazda Cleveland Guardians Aug 21 '26
I really don't. I just want to watch baseball exist in a system that is fair to all clubs.
"Labor" in baseball is well compensated. I'm glad you advocate for them as much as they advocate for you - fairer wages for people working at stadiums, and fairer prices for beer and food for fans. They don't care about you as much as you'd like to see players make even more money and the product suffers.
0
u/tmoeagles96 New York Yankees Aug 21 '26
How is it fair to everyone to limit spending though..?
→ More replies (0)2
u/AlessaBlue3942 Los Angeles Dodgers Aug 22 '26
You can’t promise me anything. And the NBA is not an example I would use. It’s become virtually unwatchable. Not to mention the games themselves and the impact of one player make the them very different.
1
u/DarkGreenMazda Cleveland Guardians Aug 22 '26
I sure can promise you that MLB players will be fine if and when a salary cap comes. Every MLB player on the roster for the entire season will be making 7 figures.
You may or may not like the NBA and its product, but the example you provided has nothing to do with roster building and the salary cap/floor.
23
u/IafratesSkullet33 Seattle Mariners Aug 21 '26
I don’t think many are actually cheering for a lost season in the sense that you are thinking. But I think people are willing to see a lost season if it means fixing a system that I think many would agree is broken. Everybody talks about the Dodgers and their $400 million payroll, but the Marlins and their sorry excuse for an operation is equally to blame. I want to see both issues addressed for the good of the average baseball fan. While it sucks to see no baseball, I’m ok with losing a year if it means that fans in Pittsburgh can finally see their pathetic owner be forced to put a worthwhile product in the field. I don’t want to see this bullshit continue just so we can see a 2027 season
→ More replies (4)3
5
2
Aug 21 '26
[deleted]
22
u/BoomWhiskeyDick Seattle Mariners Aug 21 '26
It’s going to be funny and sad if/when we get a cap and the cheap, poorly run teams continue to be cheap and poorly run.
I don’t anticipate anything saving the Mariners from the mediocrity of the people in charge of the organization.
6
u/DarkGreenMazda Cleveland Guardians Aug 21 '26
Small market teams win championships in sports with salary caps all of the time, but almost never in baseball. Wonder why?
3
u/JohnMadden42069 MiLB Pride • MLB Pride Aug 21 '26
It certainly helps that in sports like football, basketball, and soccer the individual impact one player has dwarfs what one baseball player can do. KC went from completely irrelevant to a dynasty by adding a single player. The Angels were cellar dwellers with two of the greatest players of all time on their team.
3
u/BoomWhiskeyDick Seattle Mariners Aug 21 '26
By my count the MLB has 3 small market titles over the last 20 years (KC, STL x 2), the NBA has 4 (OKC, CLE, SA x 2), the NFL has had 6 (KC x 3, GB, NO, PITT). What is and isn’t a big market isn’t set in stone, so maybe someone would disagree with the above.
Doesn’t seem different all that from the NBA, the NFL does seem a little more small market friendly. I don’t know if I’d put that down more to salary caps or the nature of the sport.
5
u/DarkGreenMazda Cleveland Guardians Aug 21 '26
St Louis isn't really a small market in MLB. There are some cities/markets where they are small market in some sports and not in others (Pittsburgh is a great example). KC is the only small market team to win a championship this century.
When St Louis won World Series this century, their payrolls were 9th and 11th.
Also, for the NBA you left off Milwaukee, and for football you left off Tampa 2x, and Indy.
→ More replies (6)1
u/iiamthepalmtree Chicago White Sox Aug 21 '26
Yea, a cap only works with a floor. I feel like that’s implied though.
13
u/BoomWhiskeyDick Seattle Mariners Aug 21 '26
Even with a floor there will be teams who are cheap and/or incompetent. The Charlotte Bobcats, New Orleans Pelicans, and Washington Wizards are some examples id point to.
7
u/MassCrash Boston Red Sox Aug 21 '26
New York Jets, Cleveland Browns. Salary caps don’t prevent teams from perpetually sucking. The Reds, Pirates, Marlins etc will still suck with a cap in place, but their owners will be wealthier. Which is the whole point of a cap.
18
u/Jimmykindaexists St. Louis Cardinals Aug 21 '26
In the MLB, Patrick Mahomes would have been a Dodger/Met as soon as his deal either expired or a leveraged trade was made 1-3 years prior when the team realizes they can't afford to keep them around
Salary Caps are needed to limit superteams, otherwise you get the 2025-26 Dodgers who can grab Tarik Skubal and Kyle Tucker after winning back to back chips
4
u/Queen-Makoto Seattle Mariners Aug 21 '26
Salary caps haven't prevented super teams in capped leagues either. If there was one now, Skubal could just take a discount and still go to the Dodgers on a short contract, rake in ad deal money (hopefully legally cough cough), get his hopeful ring(s), and go. There is nothing that can make free agents agree not to sign somewhere they want to go. See also Brunson signing 100 mill lower than he could have gotten. Brady taling less to fit in more pieces around him. The only people who lost anything were players taking less to win and owners saving more by not having to pay them.
2
u/GoldandBlue Los Angeles Dodgers Aug 21 '26
The Pirates are letting Skenes go because they don't want to pay him, not because they can't afford him.
And tell me again how a cap prevented super teams in the NBA?
1
u/MassCrash Boston Red Sox Aug 21 '26
I reject the premise that players being able to sign with their preferred employer for whatever wage the employee and employer agree is fair is somehow a bad thing that needs to change. That’s how employment works in a free country.
I also reject the premise that “super teams” need to be limited. Take a second to think about what you are actually arguing for:
“The league should force more good players to move to a city they dont want to live in and make less money than they otherwise could because their team wins too much and I want it to be my turn to win” is the dumbest shit I have ever heard.
1
u/DarkGreenMazda Cleveland Guardians Aug 21 '26
This is exactly the point - revenue should not dictate if a team is competitive. This is why a salary floor/cap are needed.
1
u/BoomWhiskeyDick Seattle Mariners Aug 21 '26
Apologies to the people of Charlotte, they’re the Hornets
6
u/AdoringCHIN Anaheim Angels • Rocket City Tra… Aug 21 '26
The owners proposed a floor to go with the cap with their first offer. And it was actually a decent floor at $171 million. Half the league currently has a payroll under that so it would make a lot of teams have to spend.
8
u/darthllama Aug 21 '26
The owners’ proposed floor is only 70% of their cap, which is a joke compared to the 90% floor that the NBA and NFL have. It would leave a potential $74 million gap between the low spenders and high spenders.
They absolutely want to leave themselves wiggle room to cheap out as much as possible
2
u/Queen-Makoto Seattle Mariners Aug 21 '26
And they included costs other than players actual salaries in there lowering the actual payout even more.
4
u/DarkGreenMazda Cleveland Guardians Aug 21 '26
Players should accept the cap, and the negotiate this. Having the floor 80-90% of the cap is even better.
→ More replies (2)1
5
u/Available-Owl7230 Aug 21 '26
Shit as a small market fan, every season is a lost season. Do I really care about the difference in the Royals going 0-0 or ending up 70-92 again? In either case I stop paying more than the barest attention to baseball by May
6
u/darthllama Aug 21 '26 edited Aug 21 '26
I have absolutely seen fans in this very sub cheering for a lockout in order to get a cap
→ More replies (1)1
u/DarkGreenMazda Cleveland Guardians Aug 21 '26
I'm one of them. Want a cap and floor, and willing to sacrifice 2027 for it.
1
3
u/Error262_USRnotfound Aug 21 '26
anyone rooting for the players to get a blank check to crush fans dreams and continue to only have 5 teams compete for championships is as fucking moron.
4
u/asteriskmos Seattle Mariners Aug 21 '26 edited Aug 21 '26
Baseball isn't dead. Baseball will continue in other countries, in schools, in minors. We had MLB this year. We'll have it by 2028. But this CBA will directly dictate the lives and salaries for thousands of current and future players who actually have to live with the CBA. You know, the people we pay to watch. I'm already a little sad that the season's about to end, but I'm baffled by these histrionics by random fans over players establishing their rights over wayy richer & way more powerful companies. Do your job, find a hobby, enjoy another sports team.
2
→ More replies (9)-19
u/Jimmykindaexists St. Louis Cardinals Aug 21 '26
I guess I'm not a real baseball fan for wanting this damn sports inequality issue fixed. What a shame it for wanting this league to be like the other 3 major American Sports
19
u/bitorontoguy Aug 21 '26
2/3rds of the league is within 3 games of the playoffs?
There have been six different champions in the last decade, in-line or more than the other 3 leagues.
Even with that the union HAS addressed competitive balance in their proposal. Significantly increasing revenue sharing. The idea that the only possible solution is capping the pay to labor and shifting wealth to owners is ownership propaganda.
The other 3 leagues have capped the compensation to labor because their unions are weaker.
But those unions being weaker isn’t a consideration for the MLBPA. They only care about their members and negotiating the best deal possible for them.
Capping their pay isn’t it, so they’re against it.
→ More replies (17)5
u/AdoringCHIN Anaheim Angels • Rocket City Tra… Aug 21 '26
The idea that the only possible solution is capping the pay to labor and shifting wealth to owners is ownership propaganda.
The idea that a cap would just benefit owners while capping player revenue is just misleading bullshit. They proposed a revenue split, which is working fine in the NHL. The players and owners split revenue 50-50 so it's not like the players got screwed while the owners started taking a bigger share
3
u/bitorontoguy Aug 21 '26 edited Aug 21 '26
They proposed a revenue split, which is working fine in the NHL.
Are the players paid more or less than if there was no arbitrary cap on their compensation? You're not A-B testing it.
Overall revenues rose, so the salary of labor rose. It rose less than if there was no cap on their compensation.
Obviously. The NHLPA didn't oppose a cap for no reason and the MLBPA isn't opposing it for no reason. It's worse for labor than there not being a cap.
players got screwed while the owners started taking a bigger share
Of course they did. The owners don't earn 50% of the value of the league. The value comes from the performers.
If capitalist shareholders said they deserve 50% of the revenue from your industry would you say that was fair and that they'd earned 50% of the money?
2
u/Redbubble89 Boston Red Sox Aug 21 '26
Why do the same 8 NFL teams seem to pick in the top 10 every year in the draft?
Jags, Jets, Browns, Raiders, Cardinals, Titans, Panthers, Giants/Bears.
I have lived outside of DC and out of 35 years, in the sport where it is the easist to make the post season, the Wizards have made the post season only 10 times and have never made a conference final.
The other leagues aren't equal either.
→ More replies (3)4
u/Electrical_Doctor305 Aug 21 '26
A salary cap without restrictions and regulations leads to little parity, see the NBA. There’s been 8 champions in the last 8 years, but before that it massive consolidation of both championships and quality of player because the bigger markets would simply pay the luxury taxes and blow over the cap. They’ve forced the owners hand with the first and second apron, really hamstringing them financially to relinquish quality players after so long, as well as the “supermax” contract incentives you would only qualify for where you were drafted as a player. These types of things actually help smaller market teams. Do you think this is going to be in V1 of the MLB salary cap?
A salary cap doesn’t change the liquidity of a team nor their willingness to spend it.
6
u/Jimmykindaexists St. Louis Cardinals Aug 21 '26
But is that system not more balanced than a system that would have allowed the 16-17 warriors to add more than just Kevin Durant? The current system is completely busted, it fully allows super mega teams to keep adding more and more and more. There needs to be a quality floor and cap ultimately. The dodgers always being able to spend more than most teams in FA is a black eye to any parity argument in my honest opinion. It's real hard to sell a small market fan that they should enjoy the current system, especially while knowing that all of their stars will end up leaving for one of 4-6 teams.
I think a Floor forces a team to spend at very least, luckily the owners want both a floor and cap. If they didn't want a floor? I'd be on your side as well, but a floor if nothing else forces them to become willing to spend
2
u/Electrical_Doctor305 Aug 21 '26
It’s taken them decades to get to the place where parity existed. Before that it was Lakers, Celtics and a couple teams each decade who drafted a Michael Jordan or Tim Duncan…or built a super team like the Heatles or the Warriors with KD. And the Lakers, Celtics, and Warriors are included in the last 8 different champions. I wouldn’t expect to see much of a difference overnight in the things you’re complaining about. It’s still by and large the same teams who would always be there.
No there’s perennial fucking losers in every league with dog shit owners and GMs. You can’t change that aspect of the business side of it. I hope you don’t think this would turn around the fate of any franchise. The system doesn’t dictate how competitive you are. These same teams you’re saying don’t have a chance because the Dodgers are overspending without a salary cap are going to complain about the money the Dodgers spend in luxury taxes because money isn’t a problem. Will the MLB salary cap, being pushed by the owners, really do anything to change that? If they cared that much they could take a vote and remove bad owners who don’t spend enough. Even with a floor and a cap and whatever else you wanna throw at it, bad owners and gms exist.
3
u/Jimmykindaexists St. Louis Cardinals Aug 21 '26
You talk about the inequality of the NBA but do you think part of that is the sport being based around superstars? It's like a quarterback in football, where stars can carry a team. The reason baseball has better looking stats when it comes to parity is because of the sport itself. Baseball itself is a random sport, where highs and lows are constant.
The reason I bring this up is because we've actually seen what the sport of basketball can look like without a cap, it's name was the 50s-60s-70s where the Celtics led by Bill Russell won 12 championships. Without a salary cap, the Heatles aren't having to start Mario Chalmers and play with 0 bench. Without a salary cap, Charles Barkley is most likely playing ball for the Chicago Bulls (I'll admit the bulls being able to offer Jordan the whole cap was fucked lmao, there has to be a hard cap too)
I actually do see your argument about the luxury tax, but to me? That just means that the existence of a hard cap is needed. Even then though with a cap the Dodgers would have to slow down. They'd have to actually use their prospects that we see trapped in their minors. They'd have to actually be more strategic instead of being the equivalent to a kid playing OOTP Baseball with budget turned off. Bad Owners and GMs will always exist, but with a salary cap/floor you at least don't have to worry about the owner fully tanking the budget because he's desperate for cash. There will be new ways to be terrible for certain teams but at least for the small markets who are fighting for their lives like the Rays won't be fighting the most unfair battle of their lives always needing to be ready to flip talent the second they're gonna get paid
2
u/Electrical_Doctor305 Aug 21 '26
The MLB and the NBA are as close as you can get because their contracts are fully guaranteed. Dominated by superstar or not, you can’t really put the NFL into the same category because they can waive or cut you without any financial implications.
That is certainly a factor, but it doesn’t mean you’re going to win if you have one. The Pistons in 89-90 weren’t built around a superstar like Kareem or Larry or MJ. Many big time superstars won very little in a superstar driven league. Maybe some of what you said turns out to be true, but it’s all speculation.
If you wanna look to the hard cap, it’s still dominated by dynasties. Steelers of the 70s, Bears and 49ers in the 80s, 49ers and Cowboys in the 90s, the patriots for 2000s-2010s and Chiefs after.
If you have savvy people in your front office it’ll work out, if you don’t it’s almost worse than if you don’t have a salary cap. You’ll never be able to make a move for a big time player when you need to, you’ll be borrowing from ten years from now to pay for today, happens in the NFL often look at how Mickey Loomis operates in New Orleans. You’re just opening up another can of worms for what sounds like weak and underachieving front offices in small markets to be able to compete even less when their decisions fall flat.
I’m not sure there’s a sport where what you’re referring to doesn’t happen in some form or fashion. I don’t see any league where there isn’t giant inequality from the top and bottom of the league. There’s very little to make anyone think this about league parity and not a money grab by the owners.
1
u/Jimmykindaexists St. Louis Cardinals Aug 21 '26
"The Pistons in 89-90 weren’t built around a superstar like Kareem or Larry or MJ"
I'd definitely argue that IT was a superstar. Also that team was stacked defensively to the gills lol. I do understand your point about guaranteed salary though, but I'm pointing out how superstars affect the game on the field. In baseball as a superstar you have far less impact on the game compared to just about any other American sport. You only get 4-5 plate appearances or can only really pitch (Unless your name is Shohei Ohtani lmfao)
"If you wanna look to the hard cap, it’s still dominated by dynasties. Steelers of the 70s, Bears and 49ers in the 80s, 49ers and Cowboys in the 90s, the patriots for 2000s-2010s and Chiefs after"
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but didn't the salary cap get implemented in the 90s? I remember hearing about how the cap screwed over the Dallas Cowboys. Kansas City has been getting hammered with the affects of the cap, they've just done an excellent job with pivoting. We had to lose one of the best guards in football due to salary, we've had to flip Trent McDuffie due to cap who we acquired from flipping Tyreek Hill..... Due to cap.
The con with kicking the can down the road is that you eventually have to pay up. The Saints themselves are a great example given how brutal the caps been to them the past few years
Even then though, even if you're fully correct with front offices now having to be the ones fighting against the big front offices I'd argue that's a better scenario than fighting to stay at 80 million while the Dodgers/Mets front office plays with unlimited funds.
1
u/Electrical_Doctor305 Aug 21 '26
I think it’s difficult to really compare these leagues and their CBA’s due to the differences in the power dynamics in the league. The NBA is definitely a players league, whereas the others tend to be dominated by the owners. There’s less people and the superstar dynamic is absolutely impossible to ignore. The NFL is chaos, with constant overhaul from injuries and salary cap casualties, and the draft. You can really turn around your team with a solid draft. In the MLB that’s a long haul game, I don’t think many MLB draft picks ever make immediate impact in the way first round NFL draft picks do.
I could be wrong about when the salary cap was implemented for the NFL. But it seems like things kind of are what they are in the NFL hard cap or not, it’s hard to maintain success without the best front office and coaching combinations. It’s less about money and more about viability of the team over 17 games. It’s not uncommon for them to pick up people for peanuts during the season who can make in immediate impact.
Overall, while I don’t love the dodgers and Mets operating like a bank, I don’t think it’s really in the best interest to try to punish them with things that could also end up being worse for the smaller market teams overall. Clearly whatever this is isn’t going to work either though, there has to be changes made. Definitely agree there.
3
u/alwaysleafyintoronto MLB Players Association Aug 21 '26
Hard to believe it's been 4 years since the Cardinals won the division. Poor Cardinals fans have 2 World Series wins and 7 division titles in the last 20 years, oh the humanity
1
u/Jimmykindaexists St. Louis Cardinals Aug 21 '26
I'm sorry that I'm defending teams like the Royals, Pirates, and Reds? I didn't enjoy watching the Royals completely collapse within the state because they couldn't afford to keep the talent around. The Cardinals are the most successful small market team, but even we're beginning to feel the heat of that status. Jeff Lunhow the man who built the Astros was actually our GM prior, he left for extra resources.
1
1
u/Yanks1813 New York Yankees Aug 21 '26
If you've paid any attention to the labor dispute in Major League Baseball since its inception you would not be pro owner.
The union is as strong as it is because generations were getting fucked over on labor
1
u/pargofan Los Angeles Dodgers • World Series Tr… Aug 21 '26
Because there's so many existing rules fucking over labor.
The initial contract then 2 years or arbitration fucks them. And there's ways to manipulate MLB years to delay it further. Toronto did that with Vladdy. And it's the nature of baseball that a player doesn't get really good until 23+ or so.
That's why so many don't see free agency until they're 28-30. So they only have 1 real shot at big money.
That doesn't exist in NFL where rookies are usually good at 20 or so. And in the NBA players start being good at 18 or so. And neither has a minor league system where you can mothball good players and waste their development years.
So in that backdrop in mind, I can see why players are so resistant to salary cap -- something that artificially reduces their market value.
3
u/Jimmykindaexists St. Louis Cardinals Aug 21 '26
Honestly this is the most fair take I've seen so far. They definitely should rework contracts if the system changes. That's something that the players should absolutely be fighting for. Players should be hitting FA in that 25-26 range if we do get a Cap/Floor. That's the sort of fight I'm fully sympathetic to. But the idea of a cap being outrageous? It's an impossible sell for me as someone who's watched small market teams have to collapse due to the weight of the current system.
→ More replies (3)
40
u/FoppyIn28 Aug 21 '26
The owners will drive a hard bargin until April. Their greed probably outweighs any of the players' financial needs.
-2
u/PFunk224 Chicago White Sox Aug 21 '26
The owners know that there are guys in the minors just barely getting by, who they are going to lean on to try and break the union so that the owners can get a bigger piece of the pie. They will see a lost season as just the cost of a higher long-term gain.
36
u/asteriskmos Seattle Mariners Aug 21 '26
Minor league players are on a separate CBA. As a whole, those players are not affected and milb games won't be disrupted next year.
I'm not sure where AAAA players fall. But to be honest, if I was making league minimum 800k right now, I'd be anti cap because arbitration uses market rates as one of its main basis. No cap, more likely to get good money in a few years.
12
u/c4ctus Chicago Cubs • Rocket City Trash… Aug 21 '26
I think I read that if they're on the 40 man, they won't play if there's a lockout.
→ More replies (2)1
u/alwaysleafyintoronto MLB Players Association Aug 21 '26
Be interesting to see if milb ends up broadcast during the lockout to fill some of the air time. Degens are gonna gamble regardless, and if they've got money on a game they'll watch it.
AAAA players being guys in a 40-man should be ok to play minor league games, they just can't use major league facilities during the strike/lockout
1
u/FoppyIn28 Aug 21 '26 edited Aug 21 '26
The union should pay their way and demand restitution as any condition in starting talks. Unions that violate the Taylor Law prevent the fine by using this mauever all the time.
50
u/Least-Sherbert954 Chicago White Sox Aug 21 '26
Be prepared to lose a ton of market share to Banana ball.
Wouldn't be shocked if they take the opportunity to expand the league and add a ton more games.
22
u/oogieball Dumpster Fire • New York Mets Aug 21 '26
Best thing that could happen to the women's league as well.
20
Aug 21 '26
[deleted]
5
u/Better_Goose_431 Dumpster Fire Aug 21 '26
They really picked the worst spot they could think of
11
u/DominicB547 Chaos Bandwagon • MLB Players Associat… Aug 21 '26
It was probably really cheap and they thought central would mean not long plane rides and the drive from Chicago is enough. LA and NYC have plenty of other things to do and would have been expensive.
17
u/FoppyIn28 Aug 21 '26
Sounds good actually
1
u/Least-Sherbert954 Chicago White Sox Aug 21 '26
Yep. Screw all these greedy a-holes.
Bananaball thriving (more than it already is) would be the biggest shocked Pikachu face from MLB and MLBPA
17
u/bitorontoguy Aug 21 '26 edited Aug 21 '26
How is Bananaball any less greedy than the MLBPA?
They’re just also a capitalist business? Returning that capital to their owners?
Including having significant issues with their non-profit they started as marketing
3
u/iiamthepalmtree Chicago White Sox Aug 21 '26
I’ve also heard it’s kind of boring live. Like they do all the dances for their tik tok audience and not the fans in the crowd.
2
u/Least-Sherbert954 Chicago White Sox Aug 21 '26
I dont know what you're looking for from me. I never stood up Bananaball as the pinnacle of anti-capitalistic customer-first companies that you are trying to start an argument about. My commentary about the greed of the MLB and MLBPA was not a disguised praise for Bananaball.
6
u/bitorontoguy Aug 21 '26
You said screw those greedy a-holes? How would that critique not apply equally to the capitalist owners of Bananaball?
All the MLBPA is doing is trying to get a fair share of all the revenue that they produce? They don’t set ticket prices or beer prices or media rights deals?
So how are they greedy a-holes exactly? Asking that all the money that gets generated off of their performances goes to them and not to the capitalist owners is greedy?
10
u/JoeSicko Aug 21 '26
People seriously watch that more than once?
6
u/carpy22 United States Aug 21 '26
It's really easy to watch between their streaming and TV deals. Think of it like the Harlem Globetrotters and not a real baseball game.
2
u/bdillathebeatkilla Aug 21 '26
Proliferation of bananaball would be the worst possible outcome of this
→ More replies (1)5
1
u/rwbeckman Anaheim Angels Aug 21 '26
I would hope they show up at a college field then, because the last Banana ball that I missed was at Angel Stadium, beacuse the Angels still make money from any non-mlb events anyhow.
1
u/UnsealedMTG Portland Pickles • Seattle Mariners Aug 21 '26
Doesn't start until June, but I'll give a big shoutout to West Coast League baseball. All of the games are streamed on YouTube, and the Portland Pickles broadcasts are great. Other team feeds vary in effort level, but there's always a good one somewhere. I find it more fun to watch than MLB, just because messier baseball makes for more interesting stuff happening. I assume other college summer wood bat leagues around the country have similar things.
There's also the Pioneer League and other independent leagues.
Honestly, if there's a lockout I'd love to see a serious look at MLB's antitrust exemption. Especially if MLB is trying to chop down the minor leagues, there should be more room for baseball outside of the MLB tower.
20
u/Pro_Reserve Aug 21 '26
Plenty of mens leagues out there. We could use 3 to 4 more fans.
22
u/alwaysleafyintoronto MLB Players Association Aug 21 '26
Best we can do is gambling on Little League, sorry
29
u/BuyerAlive5271 Houston Astros • Round Rock Express Aug 21 '26
The fact that just existing as a small market team nets the owner guaranteed 140 million is all we need to know about this.
The owners are making a ton of money and it’s not enough for them. If it’s such a problem sell your team. (Spoiler no one will because it’s easy, guaranteed money)
6
u/floppyfare Chicago White Sox Aug 21 '26
The Braves books are open and it costs ~$200M expenses just to run the team, not counting player payrolls.
21
u/pargofan Los Angeles Dodgers • World Series Tr… Aug 21 '26
If MLB ownership is such a terrible investment, then why aren't they selling?
Instead why are people paying $3.9B to buy supposedly a loser business???
12
u/floppyfare Chicago White Sox Aug 21 '26
Its not a terrible investment, its just not a great source of profit. The scarcity and prestige of owning a team pumps up valuations, which is primarily how the investment pays off.
But to pretend that the small market teams getting $140M in revenue sharing is them just getting free money for their pockets when the regular expenses just to run a team far exceed that is silly.
-5
u/pargofan Los Angeles Dodgers • World Series Tr… Aug 21 '26
Who cares.
If you're sitting on something worth $3,900,000,000 then you have no right to grumble if it doesn't make money.
IDC if it loses $50M a year. Don't like it? SELL THE TEAM!!! Take your $3.9B and quit your whining.
-3
u/DarkGreenMazda Cleveland Guardians Aug 21 '26
Franchise values, how much owners make, and how much players make are irrelevant to me. I just want a fair system.
5
u/pargofan Los Angeles Dodgers • World Series Tr… Aug 21 '26
Honestly, I bet the players would be fine with revenue sharing among the owners. Just share all their revenue. Put every dime they make and divide it equally by 30.
But that's un-American, right? Unlike suppressing wages through a cap which isn't?
0
u/DarkGreenMazda Cleveland Guardians Aug 21 '26
Sports leagues are some of the most socialistic entities in modern society. The NFL has the most revenue sharing, and is the biggest league in the country, by far.
I promise you that if and when a salary cap comes, the players will be fine. In fact, it's likely most players will make more money.
1
u/SuperGr00valistic Aug 22 '26
There's still massive disparities in NFL team spending on payroll/salaries and in competitive balance --- despite the cap and revenue sharing.
Don't like salary deferments? You don't want a cap.
Every offseason is fresh load of contract renegotiations and restructuring bonuses and deferments. Additional manipulation from injury designation --- the Browns Watson contract didn't count against the cap during his IL time -- so they get those $$ back in cap space. It's all accounting shenanigans.
The Rams have the same preseason SB odds as the Dodgers had for the WS.
They were already maxxed out on the cap when they added Myles Garrett --- but after some accounting, magically, they're back under.
The cap is crap. It's just an excuse for owners to point to not signing or paying players.
Owners will always spend what owners want to spend.
→ More replies (5)5
u/GoldandBlue Los Angeles Dodgers Aug 21 '26
OK, lets say that's true of all teams. It costs the Marlins $200M just for expenses. But they are guaranteed $140M without doing anything?
So those expenses are only -$60M before a game is even played. Before a single ticket sale, jersey sale, hot dog sale, parking, whatever other promotion and sponsorship deals they have.
None of these owners are losing money.
→ More replies (6)5
u/SuperGr00valistic Aug 21 '26
Correct -- and revenue is what exceeds expenses to create profits....
Revenue and profits are at all-time highs.
Revenue streams beyond ticket sales have just begun to be truly harvested.
Teams that own their own networks (like the Yankees and Braves) -- that revenue doesn't get subjected to revenue sharing or luxury tax -- so they get to keep all of it...
TV revenue from MLB streaming and event deals continues to grow.
The biggest opportunity is REAL ESTATE --- that play is massive and few teams have truly developed the areas around their stadium. Owners get to keep all that -- and it's the biggest opportunity that private equity sees.
Private Equity doesn't spend $Billions to purchase businesses that don't make a healthy profit and don't have a clear, high confidence projection to grow that margin and total value for a 5-10 year exit.
Final anecdote, private equity margins are usually 30%.... Baseball is profitable and fine.
This entire lockout are the owners trying to extract more revenue by capping player salaries.
5
u/BuyerAlive5271 Houston Astros • Round Rock Express Aug 21 '26
People need to open their eyes and realize that the rich are reaching into our pockets every single chance they can get.
We have people in this country that are addicted to accumulating wealth like a drug and so many people shrug it off but then turn around and criticize heroin addicts.
I’d say both heroin addicts and wealth addicts are bad for our communities. I’d also say wealth addicts are more detrimental to our society than heroin addicts.
3
u/SuperGr00valistic Aug 21 '26
It's never enough. If we don't have an MLB season - it's absolutely on the owners.
3
u/floppyfare Chicago White Sox Aug 21 '26
Revenue and profits are at all-time highs.
For some. Other teams are starving as their TV deals fall apart. Its why we need FULL revenue sharing, and a cap and floor that is set at a high enough percentage of revenue that the players make more money than they currently are making.
3
u/ih-unh-unh Los Angeles Dodgers Aug 21 '26
Sharing TV revenue is understandable since MLB doesn't have a large national TV contract, but why should teams share 100% of other revenue streams? Currently, I believe teams contribute 48% of their local revenues after expenses.
Is it the Padres fault they built a great stadium that sells out every night but the Marlins don't?
3
u/floppyfare Chicago White Sox Aug 22 '26
Because its the only way to put all teams on an even financial footing. Otherwise factors outside of the team's control like the size of the city, size of the media market, other teams in the city competing for fandom effect how much money each individual team makes. The system as it exists today creates an unfair advantage for teams that are in larger media markets, allowing them to spend more money on payroll than most teams make in revenue.
And the Padres went into financial distress trying to spend like a big market team.
3
u/SuperGr00valistic Aug 21 '26
If the Pirates or Marlins qualify as starving, sign me up.
BC they're private, we don't know exactly.
However, we can use logic.
(1) MLB has rules on debt and cash reserves. If any MLB team was close to being in danger of not making payroll, there would be action taken. If the definition of starving is not being able to meet operating expenses -- there's zero MLB franchises that meet this definition.
(2) Market demand for franchises. Recent sport franchise sales show that there is a strong market demand for selling pro teams. Owners are businessmen. If they were losing money or even making below average market returns (8%), they'd sell. Conversely, why would private equity buy franchises if they didn't expect a return better than 8%?
(3) MLB has six cities stadium plan/proposals in hand --- with most cities have more than one ownership groups vying for the opportunity. NBA expansion will generate $7-10 billion per team in new franchise fees to be split among the 30 owners. MLB has waited on expansion to make it a negotiating tool in the CBA, twisting it as an "increase in jobs" -- but make no mistake, MLB owners will bank $250M to $500M each in expansion fees from new owners. That's exactly why the Pohlads decided not to sell the franchise -- bc that massive cash windfall is right around the corner.
In short, if owning even the poorest, most "starving" franchise was not more profitable than the stock market --- why would PE and people be lining up them or to buy expansion franchises?
3
u/floppyfare Chicago White Sox Aug 21 '26
MLB teams make their money through valuation increases due to the scarcity and prestige of owning a team, not from yearly profits.
But none of that really matters. The only thing that matters is, under the current MLB structure, could the Marlins spend $600M on payroll like the Dodgers are doing every year? The answer is no.
That is the problem.
1
u/SuperGr00valistic Aug 21 '26
Yes - they make the *most* money at exit on the valuation increase -- that's literally *every* business enterprise. You make the most on the sale of the whole business at the end --- that's how the world works.
First you say that they're starving.
When demonstrated that they're not, in fact, starving --- you change your argument to say the only thing that matters is spending equality.
That's called moving the goal posts.
Expecting all 30 competing organizations in a market to have the same spending behavior is not realistic. It's not how business, economics or basic game theory operate.
Even with an NFL revenue sharing model, there's still massive differences in spending and competitive strategy.
The pre-season odds of the Rams winning the SB are the same as the Dodgers.
What you call a "problem" is simply not in the evidence. MLB has more teams making the playoffs and greater variance in winning the championship over the last three decades than all other pro sports.
MLB propaganda plays on emotions to convince fans that if they're not the Dodgers, it's not fair. Sounds like you fell for it --- when the proof is right there that spending doesn't equate to winning. If it did, you'd be calling the Mets and Giants a problem.
Cap will do nothing but depress salaries. It's manipulable.
Owners will spend what they want to spend.
Differences will always exist in revenue, strategy and organizational competence.
Q.E.D.
→ More replies (1)
7
6
4
6
u/BoJericho Baltimore Orioles Aug 21 '26
Sounds like these owners don't understand what tipping pitches is all about
1
4
u/No_Listen7457 Aug 21 '26
as a die hard baseball fan for over 40 years, who attends at least 20 games per season in Seattle and also visit other MLB stadiums whenever I travel, I vow to never step foot inside another MLB stadium if they miss the 2027 season due to a lockout or strike
9
u/reubendevries Seattle Mariners Aug 21 '26
It's going to be lockout, it will probably be for the entire season. It will be the billionaire owner class, who demand a larger share of the money we give the sport that we love. It's always important to remember, we don't see the Mariners because we love John Stanton, we see the Mariners because we love Cal Raleigh, J.P. Crawford, Josh Naylor, Randy Arozarena, Julio Rodríguez, Bryce Miller, Gilbert Logan, Bryan Woo, and George Kirby.
11
u/smauryholmes Los Angeles Angels Aug 21 '26
MPU is a slop machine. Most of their analysis is bad. Take everything they produce with a grain of salt.
12
u/jujubats10 Los Angeles Dodgers Aug 21 '26
I’ve liked a few of their videos. But a lot of them come down to “do you know this business is pricing their goods/services in a way that will net them the greatest profit? And they don’t really care about saving their consumers money?”
Wow. Did you really need to do a full “investigation” to get to this basic economic principle?
2
u/IllogicalBarnacle Milwaukee Brewers Aug 21 '26
theyre one of those youtubers that frame very common knowledge things as a conspiracy or a hidden secret the "industry doesnt want you to know"
1
u/exotic_tit Los Angeles Dodgers • World Series T… Aug 21 '26
Yes, many people are ignorant of very basic things. If you understand the things they are talking about beforehand, you are not the target audience lol.
4
u/Knightbear49 Minnesota Twins • Dinger Aug 21 '26
Good thing this was Bobby Wagner of Tipping Pitches
-6
u/samthewisetarly New York Yankees Aug 21 '26
Bised, yes. Slop, absolutely not
1
u/Rude_Money3360 Major League Baseball Aug 21 '26
There are outlets that have an ideological bent but produce well-researched, intellectually-curious content. MPU reaches a conclusion first (usually that some singular, easily-identifiable villain is mostly or wholly responsible for a problem or problems) and works backwards to fill it.
Their videos are slick and compelling but often contain information that is either grossly misleading or straight-up incorrect.
2
u/pattperin Toronto Blue Jays Aug 21 '26
So, if there is x amount of revenue sharing as a minimum guaranteed amount, couldn’t this basically be fixed by tying next years salary floor to a % of the revenue sharing payments each team gets? You wouldn’t need a cap then, but you could still force teams like Pittsburgh to spend more money
4
u/Temporary_Art8635 Cleveland Guardians Aug 21 '26
Well plenty of valid points are made, this kind of feels like propaganda to me.
Team front offices are smart and realize that under the current system, the most valuable assets are controllable young talented players because they make $800K a year. That is moneyball, not "paying players less than they are worth." One of the major goals should be getting more money into younger players pockets. The current system also makes it impossible for small market teams to retain their top talent, unless they take a deal that is seen as "team friendly," because the Dodgers can simply offer more than anyone else.
Cap or No Cap, the goal should be to fix player salary disparity and allow teams to retain homegrown talent at a salary that is fair to both the player and team.
5
u/Redbubble89 Boston Red Sox Aug 21 '26
The Dodgers are possibly running a ponzi scheme and have operated on a different set of rules than everyone else.
11 teams have a lower tax payroll than the Memphis Grizzlies. 2 teams are spending less on their team than the Winnepeg Jets. MLB is about equal to the NBA in terms of revenue and dealing with the same RSN issues. MLB has twice as many games, stronger profit sharing, larger tv contracts, and they are spending around that of a small market NHL team.
Both ideas can be true.
No salary cap and spend.
9
u/pargofan Los Angeles Dodgers • World Series Tr… Aug 21 '26
If MLB ownership were such a terrible business, this would never happen.
4
u/DarkGreenMazda Cleveland Guardians Aug 21 '26
Since when is anyone claiming that MLB is a terrible business. Those of us who advocate for a salary cap/floor - even at the expense of the 2027 season - want a fair system.
3
u/pargofan Los Angeles Dodgers • World Series Tr… Aug 21 '26
Owners are claiming they can't spend more money.
Boo-fucking-hoo.
Sell the team then and walk away with your billions.
Otherwise, quit screaming poverty.
3
u/DarkGreenMazda Cleveland Guardians Aug 21 '26
Yes, lower revenue teams can't spend nearly as much as higher revenue teams when payroll is based on individual team revenue. In all other North American sports, with salary caps and floors, its a fair system where payrolls aren't based on team revenue.
Selling the team doesn't solve the issues.
The issue isn't that it's a terrible business, but not an unfair system.
0
u/pargofan Los Angeles Dodgers • World Series Tr… Aug 21 '26
Higher payroll doesn't matter as much as people think - especially in baseball. Teams have significant player control. Pitchers get injured all the time. And player development is far, far more important than free agency.
If a team is in the top half, then they're fine. And plenty of bottom half teams are successful.
2
u/DarkGreenMazda Cleveland Guardians Aug 21 '26
Facts disagree with you regarding payroll in MLB and its correlation to winning championships.
Teams like Cleveland, Milwaukee and Tampa Bay can't and don't sign their stars, so they are always trading them away. And if the teams do sign free agents and it's a miss, they are fucked. Big market teams can sign free agents - and if they are miss (like Kyle Tucker), and it's irrelevant.
2
u/pargofan Los Angeles Dodgers • World Series Tr… Aug 21 '26
Facts disagree with you regarding payroll in MLB and its correlation to winning championships.
How so? Lots of spending teams don't win:
Dodgers went 30 years before winning in 2020.
Yankees have been to the WS 3 times and won 1 time since 2001.
Mets haven't won since 1986.
In the meantime, middle market teams like St. Louis and San Francisco have been to 4 World Series with 2+ titles in this century.
And again, good teams spend more. Bad teams spend less. So of course spending will have some relationship to winning.
1
u/DarkGreenMazda Cleveland Guardians Aug 21 '26
You're very close to seeing the light. No one is claiming spending guarantees a title. But not having at least a league average payroll in baseball makes it almost impossible not win a championship.
Every other North American sport has a salary cap/floor, and many small and mid markets win championships. Elite players resign with their clubs, and even sometimes to go to non big markets. That doesn't happen in baseball.
That's why a salary cap/floor is needed, even if 2027 is lost.
2
u/pargofan Los Angeles Dodgers • World Series Tr… Aug 21 '26
But not having at least a league average payroll in baseball makes it almost impossible not win a championship.
Tampa, Cleveland, White Sox, Milwaukee, Minn, St Louis, Baltimore, Seattle, Miami, all have a shot at making playoffs and are in the bottom half of payroll.
Elite players resign with their clubs, and even sometimes to go to non big markets. That doesn't happen in baseball.
Bobby Witt Jr. signed a long-term deal with KC. Jose Ramirez signed with Cleveland. Arizona signed Corbin Buress last year.
→ More replies (0)10
u/DaBusDriva2 Los Angeles Dodgers Aug 21 '26
Dodgers ownership walked in and immediately took on every bad contract the Red Sox had. They can afford their payroll without Walter's crazy activities just fine
7
u/pargofan Los Angeles Dodgers • World Series Tr… Aug 21 '26
And it cost them.
They couldn't sign players like Corey Seager and Cory Bellinger in later years.
They went below the luxury tax a few times in the 10s and ditched contracts to do so.
12
u/PrinceofRavens_1217 Aug 21 '26
Dodgers ownership also gets a massive media rights deal that's exempt from revenue sharing that allows them to outspend the entire league with ease.
-5
u/Redbubble89 Boston Red Sox Aug 21 '26
Other teams don't give themselves $20 billion in loans from themselves. NESN and YES follow the rules and they are open to leveling the playing field. I also trust FSG and Steinbrenner don't commit fraud. I have read this week can be a potential scandal. There is something very fishy with how the Dodgers fund their empire.
-8
u/Redbubble89 Boston Red Sox Aug 21 '26
The guy bought the team from insurance loans. Handed out a billion in differals. Now he has to show he has $20 billion somewhere and has to prove that he isn't moving it around. The Dodgers are making money but there is something fishy with the infinate money glitch. I only know the key points but I don't think it's registered how screwed Walter could possibly be if all of this is true.
11
u/megacia Boston Red Sox Aug 21 '26
That’s not how deferrals work. The dodgers pay that money into escrow every year per the cba. Ohtani isn’t getting a check but the money is in a separate account set aside.
8
u/jujubats10 Los Angeles Dodgers Aug 21 '26
It really is amazing how passionately people will comment on this without knowing what they’re talking about.
The deferred salary going into escrow thing in particular. So many people are ignorant to this, but somehow have very strong feelings about it
→ More replies (1)10
u/DaBusDriva2 Los Angeles Dodgers Aug 21 '26
The sale price in 2012 was 2.15 billion. If you dont think Guggenheim legitimately had that amount of money I dont know what to tell you.
4
u/IllogicalBarnacle Milwaukee Brewers Aug 21 '26
The dodgers make 4-5x the revenue of every small market team, and 2x the other big markets
They could afford their spending without their ownership committing fraud. The system is broken
We’d need a cap and a floor without their ownership committing fraud
13
u/bitorontoguy Aug 21 '26
How wouldn’t greater revenue sharing also address this?
The owners present you that a cap is the only solution because capping the pay to labor makes them significantly more money?
The system is broken
Six teams have won in the last decade? More than other sports?
2/3rds of the league is within three games of the playoffs?
If it’s broken now….when was it ever not broken?
5
u/pargofan Los Angeles Dodgers • World Series Tr… Aug 21 '26
It's far better than it ever was.
In 2003, the Onion parody newspaper joked that the NY Yankees were buying every MLB player
By 2005, the Onion wasn't far from the truth.
The NY Yankees had a payroll that was higher than the 3rd and 4th highest payrolls COMBINED.
The system is far better now, then it was then.
→ More replies (6)1
u/CosmicMiru Los Angeles Dodgers • Los Angeles Angels Aug 21 '26
It only got broken when Dodgers started making more money than Jesus himself and used that money to reinvest in the team more heavily than any other team ever. Yankees came close though
3
u/pargofan Los Angeles Dodgers • World Series Tr… Aug 21 '26
It was far worse before.
In 2005, the NY Yankees had a payroll that was higher than the 3rd and 4th highest payrolls COMBINED.
4
u/bitorontoguy Aug 21 '26 edited Aug 21 '26
Right, the entire history of the sport is teams building dynasties?
If it wasn’t broken then, when the Red Sox, Yankees (they won TWENTY times in 44 years), Reds, A’s, Blue Jays and on and on and on used their advantages to win multiple championships, then why is it broken now?
Because the CBA is up and the owners want to redistribute more wealth to themselves?
1
u/Lobster_fest Seattle Mariners • Atlanta Braves Aug 21 '26
Red Sox, Yankees, Reds, A’s, Blue Jays
One of these is not like the other
And the answer is it was broken then, but it has been significantly exacerbated by both free agency (didnt exist for the yankees biggest dynasty) and cheap/poor ownership groups that literally cannot afford to spend how the dodgers have spent.
I don't want a salary cap, but what the Dodgers are doing is still breaking the parity of the sport. Especially if theres fraud involved.
1
u/bitorontoguy Aug 21 '26
Right. If you’re saying baseball has always been broken why is it demanded that NOW is the time we have to fix it?
When we have higher parity now than ever before?
breaking the parity of the sport
It’s higher now than ever before? And the Union is STILL meeting the demand to increase it further by further increasing revenue sharing.
3
u/omegaorb Los Angeles Dodgers Aug 21 '26
You'll never beat the parity parrots. They just squak about it because it's a fun buzzword and when you reveal actual facts about parity between leagues they just stop replying and go to another comment section to squak at someone else about it.
3
u/vishuno Los Angeles Dodgers Aug 21 '26
Every team gets around $200 million in revenue sharing per season, yet more than half the teams spend less than that on payroll. That $200 million also doesn't include the money from teams exceeding the CBT thresholds. I'm all for a salary floor to prevent these parasitic owners from hoarding their money, but a cap will do nothing but shift money from players to owners. The Brewers owners are making money hand over fist and they've fooled you into thinking they're broke and can't afford to spend more on the team.
→ More replies (3)3
u/pargofan Los Angeles Dodgers • World Series Tr… Aug 21 '26
And yet despite all that, the Padres sold for $3.9B
If a baseball team is such a terrible business, then why would anyone pay a dime? Let alone 39,000,000,000 dimes?
→ More replies (2)1
u/DarkGreenMazda Cleveland Guardians Aug 21 '26
Nobody in this thread or that video has said owning a MLB is a terrible business. You've posted this multiple times for whatever reason.
3
u/Lobster_fest Seattle Mariners • Atlanta Braves Aug 21 '26
Yeah let's move money away from labor and into ownership.
→ More replies (12)2
u/Redbubble89 Boston Red Sox Aug 21 '26 edited Aug 21 '26
FSG, Cohen, Rogers, and Steinbrenner have agreed to level the RSNs and that side of the playing field. The Dodgers could be doing something very shady. I am not saying more until it plays out.
Jerry Reinsdorf and Bob Nutting have openly fought free agency since they have bought their franchise. Nutting until this past year hasn't signed a free agent for more than 2 years. The Braves largest free agent deal is still BJ Upton from 2012 for $75 million and the Braves are a large market team. It was a fight to get free agency in the 70s and it's this 6 year service time clock that they continually manipulate. Do you think that the owners will actually do the right thing? No. They and a lot of other owners want to pay players as little as possible and to screw the sport. A cap only punishes the 25% of players that are fortunate to stick 6 years in the league and the 1-2 that are future hall of famers that got paid next to nothing until they are 30. Bryce Harper got paid $45 million on the Nationals over 8 years so of course, he was looking for more. Pete Alonso made $33 million on the Mets for 7 years and fought to get $30 million for 2025. The good players under the current system are not getting paid market.
A cap helps the owners increase the value of the franchise and surpress player wages who have fought to earn it. Everyone in MLB should be able to have a $200 million payroll and operate in the black but most small market teams haven't increased payroll in 10-20 years.
They don't want to draft high school players. They want to remove more minor league teams. Owners don't have the best interest of the sport and the cap is one of them.
Edit: I am from DC. Even with the NBA and NFL, I have only seen one good year of the Wizards and maybe 3-4 really good Redskins teams in the last 30-35 years. I was too young for the first Joe Gibbs wins. No system will ever make it even. No owner is poor in American sports. 2nd and 3rd division football teams go under in Europe all the time. Top flight French and Scottish clubs have gone into administration and some have dissolved. The American closed league system already coddles these billionaires to high heaven. They are moaning that they aren't making enough money when the Padres are selling for nearly $4bn. I don't buy it.
1
2
u/Jazzlike_Athlete8796 Toronto Blue Jays Aug 21 '26
There will 100% be a season next year. It's just a question of how long we end up waiting for it to start.
Only twice at the major league level has a season been canceled and both involved existential threats. 1994 when MLB owners attempted to impose a CBA that would have rendered the union moot. 2004-05 when it turned out that NHL owners weren't bullshitting about the dire financial straits of the league.
The growing financial inequality problems MLB faces is a problem. It is one that I think will ultimately see baseball follow the lead of the NFL, NHL and NBA into salary caps. But are we at the point where owners need this for the business to be viable? Absolutely not.
What I do expect is that this fight will more resemble a typical old-school NHL labour dispute rather than past MLB disputes: About half the season will be canceled as talks drag on (or don't happen), deadlines will be set. The owners will say a deal has to be reached by lets say mid July or the season is canceled, and they make an 11th hour deal that doesn't really satisfy anyone.
Right now, we are at the point where there's no pressure so it is easy for both sides to throw up a unified front. But on the owners's side, there are too many teams at the top or the bottom of the scale that make too much money in the current system to hold out for a full season. The teams in the middle that most need a proper cap and floor system won't have the votes to go nuclear.
If I had a bet, we have a 90-100 game season next year
0
1
u/JA_MD_311 New York Mets Aug 21 '26
I have no doubt there are a few owners that would gladly spike the 2027 season to get the MLBPA to fold. There might even be, currently, 8 votes to block any CBA that doesn't include a very low salary floor and a very stringent salary cap.
As time goes on and the social media voices grow louder and actual games are missed I expect a deal to come through.
I don't think we're getting a whole 162, but something around 140ish with the season starting mid to late May and going to mid November.
1
u/I3oomer Baltimore Orioles • Bowie Baysox Aug 22 '26
March and April will be lost, they will settle and ramp in May and the first games will be mid to late June. they will play 65-90 games.
1
u/Prestigious_Coast_65 Sep 04 '26
Lol I love how Moreno and Ballmer both make an appearance in this video published 2 weeks ago before Moreno sold and Ballmer got caught.
-1
u/Error262_USRnotfound Aug 21 '26
50yr+ fan here...i hope this lockout wipes out the whole 2027 season.
141
u/ajteitel Arizona Diamondbacks Aug 21 '26
Winning by losing
I should rewatch the producers again