Russillo and Passan on Baseball Spending

[Pura Vida]

Nail on the head for the floor argument.
https://x.com/TheRyenRussillo/status/20 ... 7266977036

IMO, there is also an argument for a ceiling because not every owner runs Guggenheim

Spot on!

[RamFan08NY]

NFL, NBA and NHL all have salary floors. Has a floor negatively affected those leagues?

They also have caps

Yep. A floor with no cap makes zero sense and won't help the current issue of the super team.

Super teams are good for sports.

Not when over half the league has zero chance to win.

Sure, the Chiefs are good for the NFL, but:
#1 - they are a small market team, so their situation could never happen under the current MLB model
#2 - all other NFL team fans know they at least have a chance if they build a team smartly (and under the same rules as every other NFL team) to have that dynasty. All fans of small market teams in MLB know is that their stars will bolt for LA or NY as soon as they can become free agents. This does not happen in the NFL.

TV ratings for the playoffs were up 28% last year. Its not the Dodgers fault billionaires won't spend money on their teams. I don't believe in corporate welfare and a salary cap is corporate welfare.

Not good for the long term health of the sport. If nothing changes in the next 5 years and the Dodgers just keep winning title after title, will viewership still increase? Will fans in over half the markets even care about their teams any more?

People said the same thing about the Yankees 25 years ago.

25 years ago the Yankees payroll was $112 million. The lowest payroll in the league was the Twins at $24 million. Difference of $88 million.

Currently the Dodgers have a payroll of $390 million. The lowest payroll in the league is the Marlins at $78 million. Difference of $312 million.

There is a bit of a difference between now and 25 years ago.

The Dodgers arent the problem, teams like the Marlins are the problem.

Disagree. What would you like the Marlins to do? What big free agents are they grabbing to become even with a team like the Dodgers that is in the 2nd biggest market in the country and offers great weather year round. You're in the camp that small market teams should just spend to spend? So if the Cards just grabbed up Starling Marte and paid him $20 million a year just to raise their total payroll, you'd be happy with that?

Only a certain # of players in the league deserve big time $$$ and the big market teams have the market almost completely cornered on them, forcing small market teams to operate at a completely different level in order to just compete.

Spend some money. Don't buy a pro sports team if you don't want to compete.

Not that easy. The Dodgers offered Tucker 60 mil. Do you think Tucker is going to the Marlins for 65 mil? I doubt it. The Marlins might have to offer 80 mil to sway him from tinsel town, and a probable WS ring.

[alw80]

Super teams are good for sports.

Not when over half the league has zero chance to win.

Sure, the Chiefs are good for the NFL, but:
#1 - they are a small market team, so their situation could never happen under the current MLB model
#2 - all other NFL team fans know they at least have a chance if they build a team smartly (and under the same rules as every other NFL team) to have that dynasty. All fans of small market teams in MLB know is that their stars will bolt for LA or NY as soon as they can become free agents. This does not happen in the NFL.

TV ratings for the playoffs were up 28% last year. Its not the Dodgers fault billionaires won't spend money on their teams. I don't believe in corporate welfare and a salary cap is corporate welfare.

Not good for the long term health of the sport. If nothing changes in the next 5 years and the Dodgers just keep winning title after title, will viewership still increase? Will fans in over half the markets even care about their teams any more?

People said the same thing about the Yankees 25 years ago.

25 years ago the Yankees payroll was $112 million. The lowest payroll in the league was the Twins at $24 million. Difference of $88 million.

Currently the Dodgers have a payroll of $390 million. The lowest payroll in the league is the Marlins at $78 million. Difference of $312 million.

There is a bit of a difference between now and 25 years ago.

The Dodgers arent the problem, teams like the Marlins are the problem.

Disagree. What would you like the Marlins to do? What big free agents are they grabbing to become even with a team like the Dodgers that is in the 2nd biggest market in the country and offers great weather year round. You're in the camp that small market teams should just spend to spend? So if the Cards just grabbed up Starling Marte and paid him $20 million a year just to raise their total payroll, you'd be happy with that?

Only a certain # of players in the league deserve big time $$$ and the big market teams have the market almost completely cornered on them, forcing small market teams to operate at a completely different level in order to just compete.

Spend some money. Don't buy a pro sports team if you don't want to compete.

Which big free agents are going to a small market team over the Dodgers? The Dodgers will outbid any team they want for any player they want.

So small market teams should overpay lesser players, still not be close to the same level as the Dodgers, just to say they spent more money?

They will go to who pays them. How would a salary cap change anything then? Why would a star go to a small market who only pays up to the floor?

Again, the Dodgers will outbid any team for a player they want.

With a cap, the Dodgers will only be able to spend a certain amount of $. This will force players down the chain to other teams, spreading out the talent and making it more of a how well do you run your franchise sport as opposed to how much money do you have to spend to buy championships sport.

The Dodgers cant have everyone.

[alw80]

They also have caps

Yep. A floor with no cap makes zero sense and won't help the current issue of the super team.

Super teams are good for sports.

Not when over half the league has zero chance to win.

Sure, the Chiefs are good for the NFL, but:
#1 - they are a small market team, so their situation could never happen under the current MLB model
#2 - all other NFL team fans know they at least have a chance if they build a team smartly (and under the same rules as every other NFL team) to have that dynasty. All fans of small market teams in MLB know is that their stars will bolt for LA or NY as soon as they can become free agents. This does not happen in the NFL.

TV ratings for the playoffs were up 28% last year. Its not the Dodgers fault billionaires won't spend money on their teams. I don't believe in corporate welfare and a salary cap is corporate welfare.

Not good for the long term health of the sport. If nothing changes in the next 5 years and the Dodgers just keep winning title after title, will viewership still increase? Will fans in over half the markets even care about their teams any more?

People said the same thing about the Yankees 25 years ago.

25 years ago the Yankees payroll was $112 million. The lowest payroll in the league was the Twins at $24 million. Difference of $88 million.

Currently the Dodgers have a payroll of $390 million. The lowest payroll in the league is the Marlins at $78 million. Difference of $312 million.

There is a bit of a difference between now and 25 years ago.

The Dodgers arent the problem, teams like the Marlins are the problem.

Disagree. What would you like the Marlins to do? What big free agents are they grabbing to become even with a team like the Dodgers that is in the 2nd biggest market in the country and offers great weather year round. You're in the camp that small market teams should just spend to spend? So if the Cards just grabbed up Starling Marte and paid him $20 million a year just to raise their total payroll, you'd be happy with that?

Only a certain # of players in the league deserve big time $$$ and the big market teams have the market almost completely cornered on them, forcing small market teams to operate at a completely different level in order to just compete.

Spend some money. Don't buy a pro sports team if you don't want to compete.

Not that easy. The Dodgers offered Tucker 60 mil. Do you think Tucker is going to the Marlins for 65 mil? I doubt it. The Marlins might have to offer 80 mil to sway him from tinsel town, and a probable WS ring.

If the Marlins actually tried to compete and also signed other good players then yes a guy like Tucker will go there.

[renostl]

It would be inflationary….

bad players being paid more than they worth ..

NFL, NBA and NHL all have salary floors. Has a floor negatively affected those leagues?

They also have caps

Yep. A floor with no cap makes zero sense and won't help the current issue of the super team.

Super teams are good for sports.

Not when over half the league has zero chance to win.

Sure, the Chiefs are good for the NFL, but:
#1 - they are a small market team, so their situation could never happen under the current MLB model
#2 - all other NFL team fans know they at least have a chance if they build a team smartly (and under the same rules as every other NFL team) to have that dynasty. All fans of small market teams in MLB know is that their stars will bolt for LA or NY as soon as they can become free agents. This does not happen in the NFL.

TV ratings for the playoffs were up 28% last year. Its not the Dodgers fault billionaires won't spend money on their teams. I don't believe in corporate welfare and a salary cap is corporate welfare.

Factually, the Dodgers are benefitted by corporate welfare more than any professional sports team in America.

Please don't leave us hanging without explaining this fact( actually farce statement)

I suspect it is related to Guggenheim Partners being the financial engine behind the Dodgers. Guggenheim pulls its sizale worth from investment and trading. Guggenheim business is good, in part, due to various forms of corporate welfare adding value to large corporations.
To illustrate further, multibillion dollar corporations pay low level employees minimum wage and the federal government (read: tax payers) supplements a non-livable wage with housing vouchers, utilities support, etc. A very, very downstream effect of this is that the Dodgers can afford to pay Kyle Tucker $60mil/yr.

What a world

The rules do not work if they are not enforced. There are already rules for teams to spend 1.5 x
the revenue received in sharing on their team. It's vague. A teams can spend it on baseballs instead of the roster.

Guggenheim does have incredibly deep pockets but he never ever has to touch that.

They have exclusive rights to their packages is the deal. LAD should be entitled to gate receipts, differences
in the geographic economies, and all local merchandizing they have earned.

There's loopholes at the top too. They cap what is shared. Owning the TV broadcasts are investments. Deferred
monies create more loopholes. This all can be even out without caps and caps aren't some silver bullet anyway.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/704365 ... y-lockout/