Everytime someone mentions something about banging trash cans

This is 100% the issue and likely the best answer.

 

Excellent post.

But rather than a hard salary cap I actually think the solution is more revenue sharing and a hard floor. Maybe a controversial opinion but I think the NY and LA teams should really be in a revenue sharing tier by themselves and single handedly subsidizing the 5 smallest revenue reasons to give them a chance. There may need to be a 2nd revenue sharing tier and 2nd revenue sharing recipient tier, but really ~20 of the teams are roughly in the same competitive tier, with 3-5 way out earning the rest and 3-5 with nowhere near enough revenue to be competitive.

I don’t like a salary cap for 2 reasons: first, the only way it happens is with a very long lockout and at least one completely lost season (maybe more), and I like the idea of teams being able to go all-in on a season of two if they feel like their window is open; it just shouldn’t be sustainable (which it is for NY and LA).

 

Not a bad idea for the revenue sharing from NY and LA teams. They could easily afford to do that.

 

This is all true, to a degree. But none of these owners are poor. They're generating revenue and team values are going up - way up - and certainly not down.

And yet, they use the revenue disparity as an excuse to do nothing. There are more teams spending >$100M this year (8) than teams spending $300MM (2). The average payroll in '25 is ~$158M - more than 1/2 the league (17 teams) is below that average.

So, fair: the Dodgers and Mets are setting their own standard. There is still PLENTY of money for teams to spend, and the their owners refuse. And those same owners are thrilled everyone is griping about the Dodgers and Mets.

 

My intended point is a little broader - there are no restrictions when it comes to spending - there's no salary cap and the CBT penalties are not harsh. These owners can spend whatever they want. And whatever the revenue disparity, there's no excuse for owners to claim poverty. They are all making money. But they are *choosing* to not spend.

I don't lump Crane into this mix, BTW - I think he's genuinely trying to run a competitive, sustainable product.

 

They need to implement this. If a lockout is cause by this talking point, for the future of the sports, I'll accept it as long as they get this done.

 

I don't see how anyone likes his posts.

 

Bang!?

 

BangBang?!?!

 

Right. There are 8 teams projected to spend less than $100M this year; only 2 are projected to spend $300+M. Average spending is $158M - 17 teams will spend less than that.

Why are we upset at the two teams spending? It makes no sense to me.

 

Because there is only one champion, so two teams spending makes the odds dramatically lower for that one championship.

If you are running a marathon and only 1-2 people take a taxi to the finish line, would you be satisfied?

I have absolutely no idea how you could see two teams spending 2x the average as anything other than a problem for competitiveness in a competitive sport.

 

The Mets haven't won a championship in nearly 40 years. Until last year, this Dodgers' run has mostly been marked by them specifically *not* winning a (legitimate/non-COVID) ring. The top 4 payrolls this year - excluding the Dodgers - have zero championships and just two pennants since 2010.

Spending doesn't guarantee success.

Because there's no restriction on how much teams can spend.

In your analogy, there's nothing stopping other runners from grabbing faster modes of transportation to lessen the gap and keep them in contention for when the taxi takes a wrong turn or has an accident.

If there was a salary cap, and the two teams were finding loopholes to spend 2x more than everyone else, that would be an issue. And if the deferrals are allowing those teams to pay a less restrictive fine, that is absolutely an issue.

But as I've pointed out repeatedly, there are far more teams spending less than $100M than there are teams spending more than $300M. In fact, there are 8 teams spending less than $100M and only 7 teams spending more than $200M.

Until we find a way to mitigate these billionaires pocketing tens of millions of dollars while fielding sub-mediocre teams, I just don't really want to hear about two - 2! - teams that are spending a lot of money in a salary cap-less sport.

 

It's gonna be so fun in a year or so when the PA and the Owners mutually decide to destroy MLB.

 

To extend the analysis, this is also why big corps actually like regulations: they can afford to comply while the regulations serve as a competitive barrier to new companies.

 

I don’t know how much these owners actually make. I know the values of sports teams always go up, but I don’t know how much they actually make each year. Hard for me to know if an owner is being cheap or not when I don’t know what they are actually making.

What I do know is that it’s getting expensive for fans. Too expensive in my opinion. I get the whole supply and demand thing. Owners are going to charge as much as they can get, just like any other business. But, something seems wrong about the cost for a family to go to a game. I guess I didn’t know how good we had it back in the 70’s when games were on TV for free, and you could go to a game for a very reasonable price.

 

The issue I think is that for a team like Pittsburgh, there's no real marginal benefit to spend. They can't compete with $300MM whether they spend $50MM or $100MM or $150MM. So what's the point?

If the top teams can only spend $200MM, there's more incentive for a team to be well-run and spend $150MM when the opportunity arises to compete. But if you know that if you go from spending $50MM to $150MM, the Dodgers will just add $100MM to their own payroll, it seems sort of pointless as you'll be in the same competitive position, but $100MM poorer. You're either going to sign 1 or 2 of your stars and not be able to field a team around them, or they'll go to FA and sign with one of the giant spenders.

 

It's really amazing that dipshits still single out the Astros years later when we know other (most?) teams had/have been doing similar things for decades.



"What the Giants allegedly would do was use a telescope or binoculars in the clubhouse behind center field and steal the catcher’s signs. That person would relay to the sign to the bullpen, who would then relay the sign to the hitter."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2020/02/13/giants-cheating-home-run-1951/

In 1898!

"The Giants were not the first team to conceive of elaborate mechanical means to take advantage of stolen signs. The first discovered case was probably that of the Philadelphia Phillies of 1898. The Quaker City boys had an underground wire leading from the clubhouse in center field to the first-base coach’s box. A confederate stationed in the clubhouse would send an electrical signal. Depending upon the vibration the coach felt, he would signal to his batters what pitch was coming. The scheme unraveled late in the season when an opposing team’s player got his spikes tangled in what he at first thought were tree roots."

https://sabr.org/journal/article/focus-on-the-giants-cheating-scandal-of-1951/