Do fans agree with these "truths"?

[mattmitchl44]

1. As fans, we want to see MLB be a competitive environment where every team (in particular the one we root for) has the opportunity to regularly rise to significance, make the playoffs, and maybe win a World Series.

Seemingly, it makes for a better overall product for the fans to consume when more games are played between teams which are competitive with one another. It makes the quality of regular season and postseason games better.

2. (1.) can only be achieved if it is inherent within baseball for talent to be distributed rather evenly around the league.

Talent is, obviously, the bedrock of being competitive. The more evenly talent can be distributed throughout baseball, the more uniformly competitive the environment will be.

3. Talent is only distributed as evenly as it is today because of the MLB draft, international signings, and the suppression of player salaries through six years of pre-arbitration and arbitration team control.

Because MLB teams, from the Dodgers/Yankees down to the Marlins/Rays, have significantly different resources to draw on, MLB currently enforces some distribution of talent to the small market (and mid-market) teams by ensuring that those teams have access to a somewhat "captive workforce" - the ability to have young talented players who they can pay a minimal amount of money to.

4. As fans, however, we believe that players should be paid justly based on their talent and how much they do to help their teams win.

If we believe in fairness, we should believe that all players should be paid as best possible relative based on their talent and what they contribute to helping their team be successful.

If we believe in these four "truths" or assertions, it starts to explain why the current system is broken and in need of a full reset.

Even if you believe the current system achieves (1.) and (2.) (and given the direction MLB has been going to the last few years and the path it appears to be on into the future, that might be dubious), it can only achieve that through (3.). But (3.) inherently conflicts with (4.).

This is why some of us call for a salary cap/floor system. A salary cap/floor system (with additional revenue sharing among teams if necessary) would help to achieve (2.) (and hence (1.)) without being so dependent on the suppression of money going to that "captive workforce" of young players through the mechanisms of (3.).

If MLB, in particular via a salary floor for small market teams, becomes less dependent on (3.) in order to achieve (2.), the "protections" of (3.) that prop up the competitiveness of small/mid market teams can be rolled back and MLB can do a better job of achieving (4.) where all players can be paid more appropriately based on their talent.

[Red7]

The answer is to flood the market. Eliminate arbitration and players become UFA’s after Year 1. The greater the supply, the lower the cost.

[Goldfan]

Eliminate 4 teams
Get Black athlete back in game.
Share local revs at 70%
Set minimum spend level

[HorseTrader]

Those playing CT fantasy baseball with Matt remind him of number 2 if he's winning.


2. (1.) can only be achieved if it is inherent within baseball for talent to be distributed rather evenly around the league.

Talent is, obviously, the bedrock of being competitive. The more evenly talent can be distributed throughout baseball, the more uniformly competitive the environment will be.

[mattmitchl44]

The answer is to flood the market. Eliminate arbitration and players become UFA’s after Year 1. The greater the supply, the lower the cost.

That would just ensure that, if the Dodgers/Yankees have 4x, 5x, etc. the ML payroll as the Marlins/Rays, they would also presumably have 4x, 5x, etc. the talent.

[mattmitchl44]

Those playing CT fantasy baseball with Matt remind him of number 2 if he's winning.

2. (1.) can only be achieved if it is inherent within baseball for talent to be distributed rather evenly around the league.

Talent is, obviously, the bedrock of being competitive. The more evenly talent can be distributed throughout baseball, the more uniformly competitive the environment will be.

Our draft ensures that talent should be evenly distributed around the league - if owners were equally good at drafting.

[Melville]

End MLB's blatantly illegal anti-trust exemption.
Solves all problems.

[passthebuck]

How did teams compete historically? Yankees, 41 appearances and 27 championships. Cardinals: 19 and 11. Dodgers 26 and 9
Giants: 20 and 8. So is the problem DeWitt is upset his greed killed the golden goose, or the rest of the league caught up?

[passthebuck]

Any salary cap should include a revenue cap, and cost limits for fans attending and watching via streaming.

[Cardinals4Life]

1. As fans, we want to see MLB be a competitive environment where every team (in particular the one we root for) has the opportunity to regularly rise to significance, make the playoffs, and maybe win a World Series.

Seemingly, it makes for a better overall product for the fans to consume when more games are played between teams which are competitive with one another. It makes the quality of regular season and postseason games better.

2. (1.) can only be achieved if it is inherent within baseball for talent to be distributed rather evenly around the league.

Talent is, obviously, the bedrock of being competitive. The more evenly talent can be distributed throughout baseball, the more uniformly competitive the environment will be.

3. Talent is only distributed as evenly as it is today because of the MLB draft, international signings, and the suppression of player salaries through six years of pre-arbitration and arbitration team control.

Because MLB teams, from the Dodgers/Yankees down to the Marlins/Rays, have significantly different resources to draw on, MLB currently enforces some distribution of talent to the small market (and mid-market) teams by ensuring that those teams have access to a somewhat "captive workforce" - the ability to have young talented players who they can pay a minimal amount of money to.

4. As fans, however, we believe that players should be paid justly based on their talent and how much they do to help their teams win.

If we believe in fairness, we should believe that all players should be paid as best possible relative based on their talent and what they contribute to helping their team be successful.

If we believe in these four "truths" or assertions, it starts to explain why the current system is broken and in need of a full reset.

Even if you believe the current system achieves (1.) and (2.) (and given the direction MLB has been going to the last few years and the path it appears to be on into the future, that might be dubious), it can only achieve that through (3.). But (3.) inherently conflicts with (4.).

This is why some of us call for a salary cap/floor system. A salary cap/floor system (with additional revenue sharing among teams if necessary) would help to achieve (2.) (and hence (1.)) without being so dependent on the suppression of money going to that "captive workforce" of young players through the mechanisms of (3.).

If MLB, in particular via a salary floor for small market teams, becomes less dependent on (3.) in order to achieve (2.), the "protections" of (3.) that prop up the competitiveness of small/mid market teams can be rolled back and MLB can do a better job of achieving (4.) where all players can be paid more appropriately based on their talent.

Is this the MLB Socialist Manifesto?

[mattmitchl44]

1. As fans, we want to see MLB be a competitive environment where every team (in particular the one we root for) has the opportunity to regularly rise to significance, make the playoffs, and maybe win a World Series.

Seemingly, it makes for a better overall product for the fans to consume when more games are played between teams which are competitive with one another. It makes the quality of regular season and postseason games better.

2. (1.) can only be achieved if it is inherent within baseball for talent to be distributed rather evenly around the league.

Talent is, obviously, the bedrock of being competitive. The more evenly talent can be distributed throughout baseball, the more uniformly competitive the environment will be.

3. Talent is only distributed as evenly as it is today because of the MLB draft, international signings, and the suppression of player salaries through six years of pre-arbitration and arbitration team control.

Because MLB teams, from the Dodgers/Yankees down to the Marlins/Rays, have significantly different resources to draw on, MLB currently enforces some distribution of talent to the small market (and mid-market) teams by ensuring that those teams have access to a somewhat "captive workforce" - the ability to have young talented players who they can pay a minimal amount of money to.

4. As fans, however, we believe that players should be paid justly based on their talent and how much they do to help their teams win.

If we believe in fairness, we should believe that all players should be paid as best possible relative based on their talent and what they contribute to helping their team be successful.

If we believe in these four "truths" or assertions, it starts to explain why the current system is broken and in need of a full reset.

Even if you believe the current system achieves (1.) and (2.) (and given the direction MLB has been going to the last few years and the path it appears to be on into the future, that might be dubious), it can only achieve that through (3.). But (3.) inherently conflicts with (4.).

This is why some of us call for a salary cap/floor system. A salary cap/floor system (with additional revenue sharing among teams if necessary) would help to achieve (2.) (and hence (1.)) without being so dependent on the suppression of money going to that "captive workforce" of young players through the mechanisms of (3.).

If MLB, in particular via a salary floor for small market teams, becomes less dependent on (3.) in order to achieve (2.), the "protections" of (3.) that prop up the competitiveness of small/mid market teams can be rolled back and MLB can do a better job of achieving (4.) where all players can be paid more appropriately based on their talent.

Is this the MLB Socialist Manifesto?

Which do you disagree with?

The only thing "socialist" about a salary cap/floor system would be saying we prioritize MLB doing a better job of paying many young players closer to what their production is actually worth instead of prioritizing a system which protects the "right" of Juan Soto to sign a $700+ million contract instead of "just" a $500+ million one.

[rockondlouie]

ZERO chance MLBPA ever accepts a salary cap.

ZERO chance owners ever accepts a payroll floor.

You can post it all you want, it's never happening.

JMO

[CCard]

1. As fans, we want to see MLB be a competitive environment where every team (in particular the one we root for) has the opportunity to regularly rise to significance, make the playoffs, and maybe win a World Series.

Seemingly, it makes for a better overall product for the fans to consume when more games are played between teams which are competitive with one another. It makes the quality of regular season and postseason games better.

2. (1.) can only be achieved if it is inherent within baseball for talent to be distributed rather evenly around the league.

Talent is, obviously, the bedrock of being competitive. The more evenly talent can be distributed throughout baseball, the more uniformly competitive the environment will be.

3. Talent is only distributed as evenly as it is today because of the MLB draft, international signings, and the suppression of player salaries through six years of pre-arbitration and arbitration team control.

Because MLB teams, from the Dodgers/Yankees down to the Marlins/Rays, have significantly different resources to draw on, MLB currently enforces some distribution of talent to the small market (and mid-market) teams by ensuring that those teams have access to a somewhat "captive workforce" - the ability to have young talented players who they can pay a minimal amount of money to.

4. As fans, however, we believe that players should be paid justly based on their talent and how much they do to help their teams win.

If we believe in fairness, we should believe that all players should be paid as best possible relative based on their talent and what they contribute to helping their team be successful.

If we believe in these four "truths" or assertions, it starts to explain why the current system is broken and in need of a full reset.

Even if you believe the current system achieves (1.) and (2.) (and given the direction MLB has been going to the last few years and the path it appears to be on into the future, that might be dubious), it can only achieve that through (3.). But (3.) inherently conflicts with (4.).

This is why some of us call for a salary cap/floor system. A salary cap/floor system (with additional revenue sharing among teams if necessary) would help to achieve (2.) (and hence (1.)) without being so dependent on the suppression of money going to that "captive workforce" of young players through the mechanisms of (3.).

If MLB, in particular via a salary floor for small market teams, becomes less dependent on (3.) in order to achieve (2.), the "protections" of (3.) that prop up the competitiveness of small/mid market teams can be rolled back and MLB can do a better job of achieving (4.) where all players can be paid more appropriately based on their talent.

Here's the thing from the players perspective though. Why would you vote to cap your own earnings. You have finite skills and a finite time to market those skills, why should it fall on you to lay down for the profit of billionaires? They can obviously afford to pay these crazy contracts but it's the players and their livelihoods that everywhere talks about capping. When was the last time you heard someone talk about capping a businesses profits or a billionaires profits (though they should have a wealth based tax in my opinion)? Is it really contingent on the players to save the game from the owners? Most players work their whole lives to get to the point of making enough wealth to set up their families and pay back the people that helped them along the way, they weren't born with a silver spoon as most of the owners were. Maybe there should be a system where it's all divided right down the middle and there is no Dodger extravagance or Miami cheapness. Owners wouldn't go for that I'm sure. I don't know about a ceiling but there definitely needs to be a higher floor.

[jcgmoi]

ZERO chance MLBPA ever accepts a salary cap.

ZERO chance owners ever accepts a payroll floor.

Agreed. Owners push the cap/floor buzz before every new contract is due to expire. It's not happening.

I expect the new agreement will treat deferred money differently so it counts against current payroll. Maybe the owners will limit the Dodgers' sweet TV deal and push the Marlins and Rays of the world to start spending more of their shared money but that's about it.

One other thing: everyone assumes there will be a lockout and loss of games when the CBA expires but there's no reason players and owners couldn't continue under the same rules while continuing to negotiate.

[CorneliusWolfe]

Any salary cap should include a revenue cap, and cost limits for fans attending and watching via streaming.

I agree with the heart of your idea but a revenue cap by regulation sounds a bit too much like communism. I admit thought if my boss was making billions off my work, I’d want several million too. It becomes inherent greed.

The only way to get something like what you suggest would be fan rebellion. Stop paying so much for the product and decrease the demand to decrease its overall value. Ball players should not make more than highly skilled surgeons. We pay too much and leave owners and players fighting over our money because there’s too much of it made available to them. Then we just pick a side and align ourselves with those ripping us off.

[45s]

Any salary cap should include a revenue cap, and cost limits for fans attending and watching via streaming.

I agree with the heart of your idea but a revenue cap by regulation sounds a bit too much like communism. I admit thought if my boss was making billions off my work, I’d want several million too. It becomes inherent greed.

The only way to get something like what you suggest would be fan rebellion. Stop paying so much for the product and decrease the demand to decrease its overall value. Ball players should not make more than highly skilled surgeons. We pay too much and leave owners and players fighting over our money because there’s too much of it made available to them. Then we just pick a side and align ourselves with those ripping us off.

Good observations…

but some of our friends complain about the system while they are sitting in their season ticket seats..

Can’t make it up…