Will MLB BOG Push For Salary Cap In Next CBA?

[sneakytitz]

If the Dodgers are just going to keep throwing tens of millions at whoever they want every season that gets pretty boring pretty quickly for fans of the league.

Except when they get bounced in the playoffs by the Braves, Padres, Diamondbacks (which has happened 3 of the last 4 seasons).

As with wrestling, you need the prospect of an over the top heel being surmounted by an improbable face to make things fun. Tomorrow, nearly all of America will root against the Chiefs for the same reason.

Look, I am a diehard Braves fan but I cannot fault the Dodgers for what they're doing. They spend a ton because they make a ton. But I love when they get knocked out of the playoffs by teams with a fraction of their payroll, which has happened more often than not. I loved it when the Diamondbacks did the same to the Yankees in '01 or the Marlins did it to the Yankees in '03. On paper, it takes the wind out of your sails but, way more often than not, the right team wins the World Series, payroll be damned.

 

[Bjorn Le]

The Dodgers that we have seen the last few years has been just the start. The way the Dodgers are constructed now, they have a significant leg up on everybody else and its only going to breed more resentment. If they win again next year, the anger among fans/other franchises will be deafening.

Look at it this way—the Dodgers have potentially five number 1 starting pitchers this year: Ohtani, Yamamoto, Sasaki, Snell, and Tyler Glasnow. They didn't develop a single one of those players, they bought every single one of them. Dodgers fans always talk about how they are an excellent development organization, and to be sure they are, but the majority of the team's stars are players they bought.

If the Dodgers are just going to keep throwing tens of millions at whoever they want every season that gets pretty boring pretty quickly for fans of the league.

I loved the savvy team construction of the 05 White Sox and the exciting rebuild coming to fruition for the 16 Cubs. I’d imagine they sort of thing is a lot more compelling than the Yankees and Dodgers throwing their money around and having 16 farm squads in the MLB developing players for them

I honestly think it's probably only the Dodgers and the Mets right now from the big market teams that would oppose a salary cap. Hank Steinbrenner is not like his dad and the free agent chases from the last few years suggest he is uncomfortable with dipping too far into the luxury tax. And perhaps Guggenheim Group/Walters and Cohen could be convinced too depending on the structure.

 

[eojsmada]

I think there will be a Cap. The 28 other owners will need to save themselves from the folks who simply have endless money.

 

[sneakytitz]

I think there will be a Cap. The 28 other owners will need to save themselves from the folks who simply have endless money.

Before a cap, there needs to be a salary floor IMO. Some of these teams aren't penalized for peddling out crappy teams year in and year out, in fact they're rewarded. Pittsburgh, the A's, Miami, etc.

Last year, profit sharing in the league generated roughly $200 million per team. Just by nature of existing and fielding a team, owners got $200 million. Only 10 teams had a payroll over $200 million. 5 teams spent under $100 million and half the league spent under $150 million.

Somehow, despite this, the MLB has excellent parity with regards to champions. It's not the NHL in this regard but it is a solid second. If they compelled these owners start spending inline with their profits, you'd see thrilling Octobers.

 

[eojsmada]

Before a cap, there needs to be a salary floor IMO. Some of these teams aren't penalized for peddling out crappy teams year in and year out, in fact they're rewarded. Pittsburgh, the A's, Miami, etc.

Last year, profit sharing in the league generated roughly $200 million per team. Just by nature of existing and fielding a team, owners got $200 million. Only 10 teams had a payroll over $200 million. 5 teams spent under $100 million and half the league spent under $150 million.

Somehow, despite this, the MLB has excellent parity with regards to champions. It's not the NHL in this regard but it is a solid second. If they compelled these owners start spending inline with their profits, you'd see thrilling Octobers.

Agree. I just figure that if a Cap goes in, that it would mean that MLB would put a floor in as well to stop owners being cheap. That would be the compromise.

With a Cap, I would love to see how they calculate revenues and whether TV rights would get bundled into a "National" tv deal like it is for the NHL with subsidiary rights given at the team level. That would make sense with how Manfred wants to claw back on all the individual team rights/platforms as was made apparent in the Orioles sale from last year. MLB wanted the MASN rights to revert back to the league so they could plan for a better situation in the future. It was pretty evident that it wasn't just a Nationals/Orioles thing, but that Manfred might have something else in mind for when the Diamond Sports rights deal ends, IIRC, after 2025 or 2026.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Before a cap, there needs to be a salary floor IMO. Some of these teams aren't penalized for peddling out crappy teams year in and year out, in fact they're rewarded. Pittsburgh, the A's, Miami, etc.

Last year, profit sharing in the league generated roughly $200 million per team. Just by nature of existing and fielding a team, owners got $200 million. Only 10 teams had a payroll over $200 million. 5 teams spent under $100 million and half the league spent under $150 million.

Somehow, despite this, the MLB has excellent parity with regards to champions. It's not the NHL in this regard but it is a solid second. If they compelled these owners start spending inline with their profits, you'd see thrilling Octobers.

When you install a cap, there usually is a salary floor, like the NHL.

 

[KevFu]

I think this thread sums up the reasons MLB won't go to the mattresses over cap/floor...

Everyone knows the system has problems, but the trade offs on how to fix it aren't even remotely close to being agreed to by anyone. Think about how binary the DH issue was, and THAT took 50 years to get everyone on the same page.

The tax serves as a cap, because even teams like the Dodgers/Mets strategically dip below it to reset the penalties.

A whole bunch of teams have proven that brains are equally as important as money, which is why the Angels are terrible and watch the Rays, Guardians and Brewers, and now Orioles and Royals and DBacks in the playoffs. Poor and smart can still win; Rich and dumb is just as horrible for fans as poor and dumb is; and rich and smart is wins in the regular season, but not always the playoffs.

All their tiny little fix attempts - like cutting OAK off from revenue sharing, and giving "small markets" extra draft picks, and having a draft lottery is all really stupid. As is the MLB share of WHERE the money collected from Luxury tax payments actually goes.

But it's borderline cosmetic compared to what that actually accomplishes. Replace all that with different cosmetic stuff that actually works, and you could revitalize baseball without a cap.


For example, create an index that's essentially rating teams from Poor and Stupid to Rich and Smart. So your poor dumb teams are at the bottom, then poor and smart, then rich and dumb and then rich and smart. (30 PIT to LAA to CLE to 1 LAD).

Use that index to give bonus draft picks to teams, AND to distribute the luxury tax payments from big spending teams FOR THE PURPOSE of scouting and development investment. Like use it to endow additional scouts.

Because what good is an extra draft pick if you're getting 0.3 WAR out of the #8 overall draft pick, and the Dodgers are getting 21.2 WAR out of the #18 overall draft pick (That's Mark Appel vs Corey Seager, 2011 BTW), and what good is the money if the owner just pockets profits and the team still sucks?

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

There are many MLB owners, big market and small market, that would support a salary cap. Excepting small market teams that are experts in player development (Tampa) or hit home runs in the draft (Kansas City, Baltimore), there isn’t much incentive to compete for the small market teams. For big market teams, owner’s are increasing uncomfortable with the salary demands of the superstars you need to win. I imagine there are only a handful of teams that would genuinely oppose a salary cap: e.g. the Dodgers who are so big market they make lots of money even when paying a heavy luxury tax and the Pirates who would oppose a salary floor.

The real opposition will come from the players who have benefited immensely from elevated salaries. While the lower tier players might benefit from a salary floor, overall the current system benefits players the most.

The small market teams arent going to approve a cap/floor because it hurts them 2 ways. They'd lose the $50+ million a year they get from revenue sharing (guarantee that gets axed as a compromise to big market teams in a cap negotiation) and they'd have to likely spend more on payroll to make the floor

 

[eojsmada]

I think this thread sums up the reasons MLB won't go to the mattresses over cap/floor...

Everyone knows the system has problems, but the trade offs on how to fix it aren't even remotely close to being agreed to by anyone. Think about how binary the DH issue was, and THAT took 50 years to get everyone on the same page.

The tax serves as a cap, because even teams like the Dodgers/Mets strategically dip below it to reset the penalties.

A whole bunch of teams have proven that brains are equally as important as money, which is why the Angels are terrible and watch the Rays, Guardians and Brewers, and now Orioles and Royals and DBacks in the playoffs. Poor and smart can still win; Rich and dumb is just as horrible for fans as poor and dumb is; and rich and smart is wins in the regular season, but not always the playoffs.

All their tiny little fix attempts - like cutting OAK off from revenue sharing, and giving "small markets" extra draft picks, and having a draft lottery is all really stupid. As is the MLB share of WHERE the money collected from Luxury tax payments actually goes.

But it's borderline cosmetic compared to what that actually accomplishes. Replace all that with different cosmetic stuff that actually works, and you could revitalize baseball without a cap.


For example, create an index that's essentially rating teams from Poor and Stupid to Rich and Smart. So your poor dumb teams are at the bottom, then poor and smart, then rich and dumb and then rich and smart. (30 PIT to LAA to CLE to 1 LAD).

Use that index to give bonus draft picks to teams, AND to distribute the luxury tax payments from big spending teams FOR THE PURPOSE of scouting and development investment. Like use it to endow additional scouts.

Because what good is an extra draft pick if you're getting 0.3 WAR out of the #8 overall draft pick, and the Dodgers are getting 21.2 WAR out of the #18 overall draft pick (That's Mark Appel vs Corey Seager, 2011 BTW), and what good is the money if the owner just pockets profits and the team still sucks?

Totally agree that there are ways of fixing the issue that would actually penalize teams. Instead of a fine of which half the money goes into a "discretionary fund" to be used by the commissioner.

I would propose that once you go past the luxury tax threshold, instead of losing 10 spots relative to your draft position, that you would, instead, forfeit your first round pick. The next threshold would see you lose your international signing money at a 2:1 ratio and begin to claw back on your draft signing pool. The next threshold would see you lose all of your international money plus your 2nd round pick and claw back further on draft signing pool. Is it punitive...absolutely. Would it stop a team like the Dodgers from how they spent their offseason. Maybe. Well, for one, they potentially wouldn't have been able to sign Sasaki with no international money. And it would put a serious damper on their ability to develop high-end prospects since they would be starting with a lower caliber of potential. But I think they would figure out a way to still outspend every other team.

I think, in the end, the worst that will happen in the CBA is that they will close the deferred money "loophole" and call it a day, not willing to die on a hill for anything more punitive.