GatewayRedbirds.com

I'm mixed on having a cap and lean against it. Everyone talks about the Dodgers as if that's something permanent, but they have maybe the best baseball player ever and they're backing him up to make sure they win championships. Which is what they should do. On top of that they have one of the best draft and development systems. Their current World Series run is now 2 years old unless you count 2020, which I wouldn't. I get why that frustrates some people, but the proposed system still essentially allows them to do that. There's only 6 teams above the proposed cap.

It also would allow the Pirates to keep acting like the Pirates, who are currently above the proposed floor. So what should be the best argument FOR it - keeping teams like the Pirates and Reds from sliding into obscurity and losing baseball fans over time - doesn't seem well addressed in this plan. It's the owners of those teams who allowed it to happen, and these are the same people who decide what happens in the league. They choose the commissioner, which is frankly ridiculous. It's not a great system and I'm most suspicious of whatever it is they claim to want.

I don't have any problem with players getting rich, except to whatever extent they fail to look after minor leaguers and young players. Though that ultimately should be the owners' responsibility. It's a short career and choosing between guys who can potentially make millions for a maximum of 18 years and the billionaire owners who already run things is an easy choice to make. Ohtani's full contract is $700M and it's income that'll be taxed. Bryan Torres will make some percentage of $780,000 depending on how long he stays up. DeWitt's current "worth" in 2022 was about $4B and that money largely sits and accumulates. Not to be naive like Ohtani isn't a 1 percenter, but the difference in scale is pretty important imo.

For me in an ideal world, local and maybe federal government should be involved in sports to some extent with citizen influence. Not operationally on the federal side, but establishing some rules and regulations. Forcing some kind of real commission like they used to have, only better. Also restrictions on tax breaks, stadium deals, or calling yourself the Chicago Bears when you move to Hammond, Indiana.

The Dodgers haven't won fewer than 90 games since 2012 and they've won 100 games four times during that stretch. This isn't a short-term problem.

I don't think I agree it's a problem. I think they're well run with an owner willing to spend.



I guess to be fair, the Pirates are doing pretty well with the modest payroll increase. Hadn't noticed they jumped into second place. Not sure if I buy that being for real over the season, but that's more an argument for a floor which I'm fine with.

ghostrunner wrote: ↑

June 3 26, 9:22 am

It also would allow the Pirates to keep acting like the Pirates, who are currently above the proposed floor.

the proposed floor is 171 million; the prates active 26 man payroll is 95 mil so they'd almost have to double it to reach the floor.

(don't know if they want the active or total payrolls, but theirs isn't much more that their 26 man active, at 103 mil)

I don’t think the Dodgers specifically are a problem. I think that MLB as a league has a huge problem with revenue disparity, in a sport where spending money has a pretty direct correlation with winning, and is much more difficult to achieve parity through the draft because prospects are years away from impact.

If they don’t fix the revenue sharing, they will have to be careful with how they structure the salary cap. Because the largest markets will try to exploit ways to spend their extra money through non-salary perks to lure players.

cardsfantx wrote: ↑

June 3 26, 11:57 am

ghostrunner wrote: ↑

June 3 26, 9:22 am

It also would allow the Pirates to keep acting like the Pirates, who are currently above the proposed floor.

the proposed floor is 171 million; the prates active 26 man payroll is 95 mil so they'd almost have to double it to reach the floor.

(don't know if they want the active or total payrolls, but theirs isn't much more that their 26 man active, at 103 mil)

Doh, for some reason I had $127 as the floor in my head. So fair enough. That's a lot higher. Still not sure that convinces me, but then I wonder why they're able to do that after a cap with revenue sharing if not before. Seems like all the revenue change would be in TV revenue sharing vs payroll tax. Is that enough of a difference?

From what I can tell it seems like they use Total Pre-Tax Payroll for this, and the Pirates currently show there as being $135M, per Spotrac. But another site shows $120M, and then Fangraphs shows $107M. Seems like that number is all over the place.

The Padres have recently made a good faith effort to build the best roster they can and they haven’t won the division in 20 years.

2021 is the first year in recent memory the Padres had a payroll higher than the Cardinals. They had a higher payroll than the Dodgers in 2023 and placed 3rd. Then the Dodgers got Ohtani and went all in.

Anyway, I'm not suggesting payroll doesn't help teams be successful. The Dodgers have generally been at or near the top except for a few times since 2013, and that obviously helps. I'm just wondering why we should buy that these poor teams are legitimately this poor. How are they suddenly meeting the new floor? How do we know what the new proposal fixes when we don't know how the money flows now?

Just seems worth keeping in mind who the owners are and how much control they have over the game, with the players as the only force in real opposition. I don't see any reason to take what they say on faith and I'm suspicious of changes they want, and that's partly because they want it.

who really knows, but the TV revenue would be shared and would think that's the majority of it would come from...meaning the LA, CHI and NY teams would be sharing their revenue with the lower TV revenue teams. they obv would agree with it, because leagues with salary caps see their values soar due to the fixed cost. no owner needs the steady income from their teams on a yearly basis; they're all billionaires. but when it comes time to sell, they'll see those values shoot up.

jagtrader wrote: ↑

June 3 26, 12:38 pm

The Padres have recently made a good faith effort to build the best roster they can and they haven’t won the division in 20 years.

They're also $300 million debt, sold to a new ownership group, and the previous owner was the one who made the aggressive decision to spend before passing away. Additionally, their RSN was tied to Diamond Sport.

They're the exception, not the norm.

That being said, I do think the biggest way to incentivize teams to spend is to improve revenue sharing from RSNs. I don't think a cap is needed for that.