Dodgers' Luxury Tax

[makesnosense]

lA has been a huge market since forever. When Fox and later when McCourt owned the team they sucked.

It took smart owners with deep pockets to develop the revenue that had been sitting there untapped.

The argument about the market is a bit odd given they’ve been good for about 8-10 years but LA has been a huge market far longer. The key to the dodgers is not money alone and I would go so far as to say their brain trust is far more valuable than their checkbook.

Baseball is broke. But not likely to be fixed. Strike or no strike. Lockout or no lockout. The brewers are in a horrible market and still can compete. If that’s possible why can’t the cardinals?

With Dodger/Yankee money, the owner has to be stupid not to win.

Yeah, the Dodgers stopped their stupid and are actually using their unfair advantage. Congrats to them.

The system needs to be fixed we can't rely on all the largest markets being stupid in order to give the poorest 15 teams a fighting chance.

St Louis and Kansas City are the only metro areas smaller than 4.5M to win a World Series in the past 28 years (since MLB expanded to 30 teams).
Toronto and the New York Mets are the only metro areas larger than 4.5M not to win a World Series in the past 28 years.

I always love the " Dodgers use their unfair advantage" They do not have an unfair advantage, but are the best run organization in baseball , if not of all sports.

Huh? Lol.

The only people I've seen say this the past few years are Dodgers fans and a few liars who for whatever reason, can't admit the rules are broken. Which one are you?

Well you should read more. I never said the rules are good or bad. I just state the fact that it it is not an unfair advantage. Any team can do what the Dodgers do. Harder for most for sure, but possible. Are do you mean the unfair advantage of playing in a destination city that offers numerous opportunities to better your individual brand?

That's exactly what the delusional Dodgers fans say on X. "Your team is just cheap. Anyone can do this".

No, not every team can do this due to local TV money. The convo ends there.

Many can so I guess the convo starts there.

Many teams can defer almost a billion in contract money? No I don't think that's accurate at all.

Many teams can have almost a 400 million dollar payroll? No I'm pretty sure they can't

Many teams can pay a 169 million luxury tax on top of the payroll? Again I'm pretty sure that's not correct.

No many teams can't do what the Dodgers are doing. There's maybe 2-3 other teams and that's pretty much it.

They all can do it. Baseball teams aren't owned by the local diner. They are owned by billionaires who have and make a lot of money. It comes down to how much money they want want to clear owning a team. Most owners don't care about winning as much as they like making money.

(drat) you were making progress before, but now went back to "they all can do it". What happened to "many can"?

"They are owned by billionaires who have and make a lot money". Are all billionaires the same? Markets, local TV revenue, etc?

All billionaires are the same in that they are billionaires. I apologize for the "most" typo. All can. Where they differ in why they own the team. Again , I never have said the system doesn't need some change. Revenue sharing is a good starting point for fans to debate. I don't think owners care or not.

[Cardinals1964]

lA has been a huge market since forever. When Fox and later when McCourt owned the team they sucked.

It took smart owners with deep pockets to develop the revenue that had been sitting there untapped.

The argument about the market is a bit odd given they’ve been good for about 8-10 years but LA has been a huge market far longer. The key to the dodgers is not money alone and I would go so far as to say their brain trust is far more valuable than their checkbook.

Baseball is broke. But not likely to be fixed. Strike or no strike. Lockout or no lockout. The brewers are in a horrible market and still can compete. If that’s possible why can’t the cardinals?

With Dodger/Yankee money, the owner has to be stupid not to win.

Yeah, the Dodgers stopped their stupid and are actually using their unfair advantage. Congrats to them.

The system needs to be fixed we can't rely on all the largest markets being stupid in order to give the poorest 15 teams a fighting chance.

St Louis and Kansas City are the only metro areas smaller than 4.5M to win a World Series in the past 28 years (since MLB expanded to 30 teams).
Toronto and the New York Mets are the only metro areas larger than 4.5M not to win a World Series in the past 28 years.

I always love the " Dodgers use their unfair advantage" They do not have an unfair advantage, but are the best run organization in baseball , if not of all sports.

Huh? Lol.

The only people I've seen say this the past few years are Dodgers fans and a few liars who for whatever reason, can't admit the rules are broken. Which one are you?

Well you should read more. I never said the rules are good or bad. I just state the fact that it it is not an unfair advantage. Any team can do what the Dodgers do. Harder for most for sure, but possible. Are do you mean the unfair advantage of playing in a destination city that offers numerous opportunities to better your individual brand?

That's exactly what the delusional Dodgers fans say on X. "Your team is just cheap. Anyone can do this".

No, not every team can do this due to local TV money. The convo ends there.

Many can so I guess the convo starts there.

Many teams can defer almost a billion in contract money? No I don't think that's accurate at all.

Many teams can have almost a 400 million dollar payroll? No I'm pretty sure they can't

Many teams can pay a 169 million luxury tax on top of the payroll? Again I'm pretty sure that's not correct.

No many teams can't do what the Dodgers are doing. There's maybe 2-3 other teams and that's pretty much it.

They all can do it. Baseball teams aren't owned by the local diner. They are owned by billionaires who have and make a lot of money. It comes down to how much money they want want to clear owning a team. Most owners don't care about winning as much as they like making money.

(drat) you were making progress before, but now went back to "they all can do it". What happened to "many can"?

"They are owned by billionaires who have and make a lot money". Are all billionaires the same? Markets, local TV revenue, etc?

All billionaires are the same in that they are billionaires. I apologize for the "most" typo. All can. Where they differ in why they own the team. Again , I never have said the system doesn't need some change. Revenue sharing is a good starting point for fans to debate. I don't think owners care or not.

Those are your opinions. What facts did you base them on? Just a feeling or do you know each teams revenue?

[makesnosense]

lA has been a huge market since forever. When Fox and later when McCourt owned the team they sucked.

It took smart owners with deep pockets to develop the revenue that had been sitting there untapped.

The argument about the market is a bit odd given they’ve been good for about 8-10 years but LA has been a huge market far longer. The key to the dodgers is not money alone and I would go so far as to say their brain trust is far more valuable than their checkbook.

Baseball is broke. But not likely to be fixed. Strike or no strike. Lockout or no lockout. The brewers are in a horrible market and still can compete. If that’s possible why can’t the cardinals?

With Dodger/Yankee money, the owner has to be stupid not to win.

Yeah, the Dodgers stopped their stupid and are actually using their unfair advantage. Congrats to them.

The system needs to be fixed we can't rely on all the largest markets being stupid in order to give the poorest 15 teams a fighting chance.

St Louis and Kansas City are the only metro areas smaller than 4.5M to win a World Series in the past 28 years (since MLB expanded to 30 teams).
Toronto and the New York Mets are the only metro areas larger than 4.5M not to win a World Series in the past 28 years.

I always love the " Dodgers use their unfair advantage" They do not have an unfair advantage, but are the best run organization in baseball , if not of all sports.

Huh? Lol.

The only people I've seen say this the past few years are Dodgers fans and a few liars who for whatever reason, can't admit the rules are broken. Which one are you?

Well you should read more. I never said the rules are good or bad. I just state the fact that it it is not an unfair advantage. Any team can do what the Dodgers do. Harder for most for sure, but possible. Are do you mean the unfair advantage of playing in a destination city that offers numerous opportunities to better your individual brand?

That's exactly what the delusional Dodgers fans say on X. "Your team is just cheap. Anyone can do this".

No, not every team can do this due to local TV money. The convo ends there.

Many can so I guess the convo starts there.

Many teams can defer almost a billion in contract money? No I don't think that's accurate at all.

Many teams can have almost a 400 million dollar payroll? No I'm pretty sure they can't

Many teams can pay a 169 million luxury tax on top of the payroll? Again I'm pretty sure that's not correct.

No many teams can't do what the Dodgers are doing. There's maybe 2-3 other teams and that's pretty much it.

They all can do it. Baseball teams aren't owned by the local diner. They are owned by billionaires who have and make a lot of money. It comes down to how much money they want want to clear owning a team. Most owners don't care about winning as much as they like making money.

(drat) you were making progress before, but now went back to "they all can do it". What happened to "many can"?

"They are owned by billionaires who have and make a lot money". Are all billionaires the same? Markets, local TV revenue, etc?

All billionaires are the same in that they are billionaires. I apologize for the "most" typo. All can. Where they differ in why they own the team. Again , I never have said the system doesn't need some change. Revenue sharing is a good starting point for fans to debate. I don't think owners care or not.

Those are your opinions. What facts did you base them on? Just a feeling or do you know each teams revenue?

We don't know revenue for each team because teams won't open their books. That leads to speculation. And yes I only state my opinion. What facts do you have to dispute my opinion?

[CCard]

How about this. 10 times luxury tax. For every dollar over the tax threshold $10 assessed. If $10 million over is reached you forfeit your first round pick. Absolutely no deferred money. Payroll assessed annually. That might get the attention of the Dodgers and Mets of the world. Something with a little teeth in it.

I have a better option. Shared TV/streaming revenue. Average out the per game income from TV & streaming and whatever other media is in use, home team gets 60% of their revenue, visitors 40%. Reverse the percentages for the visiting team. Continue the fines for blowing up the "soft cap" while requiring each team to use an averaged salary for those with receiving yearly deferred payments larger than their average salary.

Problem solved, NO! But it is at least a step in the right direction.

Not sure you'll ever get the owners to open their books. I'm fine with the revenue sharing, with the caveat that teams must spend a certain amount on payroll. No cheap owners sucking at the teat of the richest owners without that.

That would lead to teams having to pay more for players that aren’t worth it.
Have a cheapskate tax. Any money under a certain limit goes to the players association and they could divide it amongst their members.

It's not up to you to decide if a player is worth it or not. The fans come to see the players. The players are the product, without them it would be an empty stadium. As I said, revenue sharing with the caveat that a certain amount must be spent on payroll.

[CCard]

The difference is not star power, it is population base. The Dodgers make more in local TV money than the Card's do from all sources. The team had a bad year and the "Cardinal Fans" stopped going to the games. The best fans in baseball deserted their team. At least 20 of the MLB teams can not spend like the Dodgers. What the players need to realize is that if they allow a payroll cap and floor, they will still get their money. It just won't be in NY or LA.
They may get their 25 million a year in KC or Minnesota, but they will still get it and the competition created by balanced salaries will lead to more teams competing and that means more TV money and packed stadiums which will generate even more money for salaries.

Would you vote to cap your salary? A salary cap offers nothing to the players. Are the owners capping their profits? Are the owners going to keep prices where they are and not raise them on things? Nope. So why would you expect the players to do that? Fans don't goe to the games to see the owners and they don't go to support the owners. Revenue sharing is the answer. But rich owners don't want to share the wealth. So here we are. Destined for another lock out.

No that's false. It's been proven that the salary cap actually increases salaries due to the salary floor. With a salary floor the teams like the marlins can't spend only 30 million, they'd need to spend (let's just say for arguments sake the floor is 110) they'd be overpaying a lot of average and below average players which would increase the money for the top guys.

What it does is forces the older players into retirement a lot earlier than 38.

1. Where was this proven? If it is, then why wouldn't the players be for it? Sounds like bull to me.
2. Who decides what a player's value is? This salary floor and cap both limit are arbitrary points. Who decides?

[Hofikebrucee]

I think the point I made has been missed.

Everyone is focused on the Dodgers, Mets and Yankees. But I mentioned earlier if the Brewers can compete and make the playoffs something like 40% of the time over the last ten years then why can’t the cardinals?

With MLB expanded playoffs a 500 team has a real shot. Just need to get hot at the right time. The dodgers keep getting cited as the example but they should not have won the WS. Somehow they won. I understand they have a great chance to get into the playoffs every year. Money helps with that but is not a guaranteed thing. Ask Mets fans.

Blaming everything on financial disparity is simply an excuse.

The nfl has financial parity and the same terribly run clubs continue to lose. It’s not all about money.

[TheJackBurton]

The difference is not star power, it is population base. The Dodgers make more in local TV money than the Card's do from all sources. The team had a bad year and the "Cardinal Fans" stopped going to the games. The best fans in baseball deserted their team. At least 20 of the MLB teams can not spend like the Dodgers. What the players need to realize is that if they allow a payroll cap and floor, they will still get their money. It just won't be in NY or LA.
They may get their 25 million a year in KC or Minnesota, but they will still get it and the competition created by balanced salaries will lead to more teams competing and that means more TV money and packed stadiums which will generate even more money for salaries.

Would you vote to cap your salary? A salary cap offers nothing to the players. Are the owners capping their profits? Are the owners going to keep prices where they are and not raise them on things? Nope. So why would you expect the players to do that? Fans don't goe to the games to see the owners and they don't go to support the owners. Revenue sharing is the answer. But rich owners don't want to share the wealth. So here we are. Destined for another lock out.

No that's false. It's been proven that the salary cap actually increases salaries due to the salary floor. With a salary floor the teams like the marlins can't spend only 30 million, they'd need to spend (let's just say for arguments sake the floor is 110) they'd be overpaying a lot of average and below average players which would increase the money for the top guys.

What it does is forces the older players into retirement a lot earlier than 38.

1. Where was this proven? If it is, then why wouldn't the players be for it? Sounds like bull to me.
2. Who decides what a player's value is? This salary floor and cap both limit are arbitrary points. Who decides?

the same people who have always decided what a player's value is: teams, players, agents.

did you completely skip over the part where I stated there would be a floor and teams would no longer be able to spend hundreds of millions less than others?

With a salary cap floor teams would no longer be able to field a minor league team all making league minimum. If they have to reach the salary floor they will either have to pay their younger guys more, or they'll have to overpay for average players. When the lower end makes more money the upper end makes more money.

It's pretty simple economics.

[TheJackBurton]

I think the point I made has been missed.

Everyone is focused on the Dodgers, Mets and Yankees. But I mentioned earlier if the Brewers can compete and make the playoffs something like 40% of the time over the last ten years then why can’t the cardinals?

With MLB expanded playoffs a 500 team has a real shot. Just need to get hot at the right time. The dodgers keep getting cited as the example but they should not have won the WS. Somehow they won. I understand they have a great chance to get into the playoffs every year. Money helps with that but is not a guaranteed thing. Ask Mets fans.

Blaming everything on financial disparity is simply an excuse.

The nfl has financial parity and the same terribly run clubs continue to lose. It’s not all about money.

because every division winner goes to the playoffs. All Milwaukee has to do is be better than the other teams in its division and quite frankly lately in the central that hasn't been that difficult.

Put them in the west and with the way teams are spending out there and they aren't doing what they are doing in the Central.

[TheJackBurton]

lA has been a huge market since forever. When Fox and later when McCourt owned the team they sucked.

It took smart owners with deep pockets to develop the revenue that had been sitting there untapped.

The argument about the market is a bit odd given they’ve been good for about 8-10 years but LA has been a huge market far longer. The key to the dodgers is not money alone and I would go so far as to say their brain trust is far more valuable than their checkbook.

Baseball is broke. But not likely to be fixed. Strike or no strike. Lockout or no lockout. The brewers are in a horrible market and still can compete. If that’s possible why can’t the cardinals?

With Dodger/Yankee money, the owner has to be stupid not to win.

Yeah, the Dodgers stopped their stupid and are actually using their unfair advantage. Congrats to them.

The system needs to be fixed we can't rely on all the largest markets being stupid in order to give the poorest 15 teams a fighting chance.

St Louis and Kansas City are the only metro areas smaller than 4.5M to win a World Series in the past 28 years (since MLB expanded to 30 teams).
Toronto and the New York Mets are the only metro areas larger than 4.5M not to win a World Series in the past 28 years.

I always love the " Dodgers use their unfair advantage" They do not have an unfair advantage, but are the best run organization in baseball , if not of all sports.

Huh? Lol.

The only people I've seen say this the past few years are Dodgers fans and a few liars who for whatever reason, can't admit the rules are broken. Which one are you?

Well you should read more. I never said the rules are good or bad. I just state the fact that it it is not an unfair advantage. Any team can do what the Dodgers do. Harder for most for sure, but possible. Are do you mean the unfair advantage of playing in a destination city that offers numerous opportunities to better your individual brand?

That's exactly what the delusional Dodgers fans say on X. "Your team is just cheap. Anyone can do this".

No, not every team can do this due to local TV money. The convo ends there.

Many can so I guess the convo starts there.

Many teams can defer almost a billion in contract money? No I don't think that's accurate at all.

Many teams can have almost a 400 million dollar payroll? No I'm pretty sure they can't

Many teams can pay a 169 million luxury tax on top of the payroll? Again I'm pretty sure that's not correct.

No many teams can't do what the Dodgers are doing. There's maybe 2-3 other teams and that's pretty much it.

They all can do it. Baseball teams aren't owned by the local diner. They are owned by billionaires who have and make a lot of money. It comes down to how much money they want want to clear owning a team. Most owners don't care about winning as much as they like making money.

this is not true at all. The DeWitts are billionaires in assets only and that's because of the Cards team and ballpark village. Eliminate the owning of the team and they are probably worth 50 -100 million. They can't defer that much money in contracts that will all pay out at the same time at one point because they don't have the multi-billion dollar asset machine that the Guggenheim group does.

Many owners are "billionaires" because of the team valuations, not because they are actual billionaires. The Dodgers get 335 million before the season even starts which essentially covers their payroll without the deferred payments. Besides the Angels and Yankees, who else is making that kind of money before a team even breaks for spring training? Do you think the Pirates, Guardians, Diamondbacks, or even the Cardinals are getting that kind of revenue before 1 pitch on the season is even thrown?

Yes, technically each team can defer payments on contracts, but they can't get anywhere close to what the Dodgers are doing. They are going to pay Ohtani 35 million a year for 10 additional years after he retires and they don't even blink an eye. Most teams can't pay a player that much to be on their actual team contributing, or if they do they are deficient in other areas.

[Hofikebrucee]

I think the point I made has been missed.

Everyone is focused on the Dodgers, Mets and Yankees. But I mentioned earlier if the Brewers can compete and make the playoffs something like 40% of the time over the last ten years then why can’t the cardinals?

With MLB expanded playoffs a 500 team has a real shot. Just need to get hot at the right time. The dodgers keep getting cited as the example but they should not have won the WS. Somehow they won. I understand they have a great chance to get into the playoffs every year. Money helps with that but is not a guaranteed thing. Ask Mets fans.

Blaming everything on financial disparity is simply an excuse.

The nfl has financial parity and the same terribly run clubs continue to lose. It’s not all about money.

because every division winner goes to the playoffs. All Milwaukee has to do is be better than the other teams in its division and quite frankly lately in the central that hasn't been that difficult.

Put them in the west and with the way teams are spending out there and they aren't doing what they are doing in the Central.

It’s so easy then why can’t the cardinals do the same?

[CCard]

The difference is not star power, it is population base. The Dodgers make more in local TV money than the Card's do from all sources. The team had a bad year and the "Cardinal Fans" stopped going to the games. The best fans in baseball deserted their team. At least 20 of the MLB teams can not spend like the Dodgers. What the players need to realize is that if they allow a payroll cap and floor, they will still get their money. It just won't be in NY or LA.
They may get their 25 million a year in KC or Minnesota, but they will still get it and the competition created by balanced salaries will lead to more teams competing and that means more TV money and packed stadiums which will generate even more money for salaries.

Would you vote to cap your salary? A salary cap offers nothing to the players. Are the owners capping their profits? Are the owners going to keep prices where they are and not raise them on things? Nope. So why would you expect the players to do that? Fans don't goe to the games to see the owners and they don't go to support the owners. Revenue sharing is the answer. But rich owners don't want to share the wealth. So here we are. Destined for another lock out.

No that's false. It's been proven that the salary cap actually increases salaries due to the salary floor. With a salary floor the teams like the marlins can't spend only 30 million, they'd need to spend (let's just say for arguments sake the floor is 110) they'd be overpaying a lot of average and below average players which would increase the money for the top guys.

What it does is forces the older players into retirement a lot earlier than 38.

1. Where was this proven? If it is, then why wouldn't the players be for it? Sounds like bull to me.
2. Who decides what a player's value is? This salary floor and cap both limit are arbitrary points. Who decides?

the same people who have always decided what a player's value is: teams, players, agents.

did you completely skip over the part where I stated there would be a floor and teams would no longer be able to spend hundreds of millions less than others?

With a salary cap floor teams would no longer be able to field a minor league team all making league minimum. If they have to reach the salary floor they will either have to pay their younger guys more, or they'll have to overpay for average players. When the lower end makes more money the upper end makes more money.

It's pretty simple economics.

How is a floor cap going to even get a team like the Pirates any where near the Dodgers in payroll? Don't misunderstand, I'm fine with forcing teams to spend a certain amount of money, that's fine and maybe could be a part of the solution, but their has to be more teeth in a luxury tax or the Dodgers of the world will just laugh while walking toward another championship. It needs to be more than just forcing teams to do the bare minimum. I'd suggest increased revenue sharing, having a draft lottery that doesn't reward losing and increasing the luxury tax so that teams with billionaire owners don't just destroy the free agent market. The article I read stated that agents like Boras said that tanking also cripples the market for free agents. I hadn't thought of that angle.

[TheJackBurton]

I think the point I made has been missed.

Everyone is focused on the Dodgers, Mets and Yankees. But I mentioned earlier if the Brewers can compete and make the playoffs something like 40% of the time over the last ten years then why can’t the cardinals?

With MLB expanded playoffs a 500 team has a real shot. Just need to get hot at the right time. The dodgers keep getting cited as the example but they should not have won the WS. Somehow they won. I understand they have a great chance to get into the playoffs every year. Money helps with that but is not a guaranteed thing. Ask Mets fans.

Blaming everything on financial disparity is simply an excuse.

The nfl has financial parity and the same terribly run clubs continue to lose. It’s not all about money.

because every division winner goes to the playoffs. All Milwaukee has to do is be better than the other teams in its division and quite frankly lately in the central that hasn't been that difficult.

Put them in the west and with the way teams are spending out there and they aren't doing what they are doing in the Central.

It’s so easy then why can’t the cardinals do the same?

They did, for many years.

[TheJackBurton]

The difference is not star power, it is population base. The Dodgers make more in local TV money than the Card's do from all sources. The team had a bad year and the "Cardinal Fans" stopped going to the games. The best fans in baseball deserted their team. At least 20 of the MLB teams can not spend like the Dodgers. What the players need to realize is that if they allow a payroll cap and floor, they will still get their money. It just won't be in NY or LA.
They may get their 25 million a year in KC or Minnesota, but they will still get it and the competition created by balanced salaries will lead to more teams competing and that means more TV money and packed stadiums which will generate even more money for salaries.

Would you vote to cap your salary? A salary cap offers nothing to the players. Are the owners capping their profits? Are the owners going to keep prices where they are and not raise them on things? Nope. So why would you expect the players to do that? Fans don't goe to the games to see the owners and they don't go to support the owners. Revenue sharing is the answer. But rich owners don't want to share the wealth. So here we are. Destined for another lock out.

No that's false. It's been proven that the salary cap actually increases salaries due to the salary floor. With a salary floor the teams like the marlins can't spend only 30 million, they'd need to spend (let's just say for arguments sake the floor is 110) they'd be overpaying a lot of average and below average players which would increase the money for the top guys.

What it does is forces the older players into retirement a lot earlier than 38.

1. Where was this proven? If it is, then why wouldn't the players be for it? Sounds like bull to me.
2. Who decides what a player's value is? This salary floor and cap both limit are arbitrary points. Who decides?

the same people who have always decided what a player's value is: teams, players, agents.

did you completely skip over the part where I stated there would be a floor and teams would no longer be able to spend hundreds of millions less than others?

With a salary cap floor teams would no longer be able to field a minor league team all making league minimum. If they have to reach the salary floor they will either have to pay their younger guys more, or they'll have to overpay for average players. When the lower end makes more money the upper end makes more money.

It's pretty simple economics.

How is a floor cap going to even get a team like the Pirates any where near the Dodgers in payroll? Don't misunderstand, I'm fine with forcing teams to spend a certain amount of money, that's fine and maybe could be a part of the solution, but their has to be more teeth in a luxury tax or the Dodgers of the world will just laugh while walking toward another championship. It needs to be more than just forcing teams to do the bare minimum. I'd suggest increased revenue sharing, having a draft lottery that doesn't reward losing and increasing the luxury tax so that teams with billionaire owners don't just destroy the free agent market. The article I read stated that agents like Boras said that tanking also cripples the market for free agents. I hadn't thought of that angle.

It has nothing to do with getting close to the Dodgers, it's about saying to the league there is obviously significant differences in revenue streams that have completely upset the balance of the league. No amount of revenue sharing or evidently a luxury tax is going to fix it so there needs to be a system in place that states "no team can spend more than this, and every team has to spend at least this" then it will be about who has the better front office, who can draft better *which MLB absolutely has to fix their draft as it is the most confusing stupid draft in all of professional sports. No team should get the best international players because they can pay a bounty to buy a player out of contract that other teams can't* who can develop better and who can trade and build a team better.

For far too many years, as early back as the late 90's early 2000's when the Yankees were buying everyone MLB has seen steady declines in teams and their abilities to hold onto players. Great I'm glad you brought the article with Boras because with a salary floor that would all but eliminate the kind of tanking we've seen from teams like we've seen in the past 20 years. If you have to spend 90+ million or pay a massive fine, then you can't run a minor league team out there for 162 games, you have to have legitimate MLB players on the team to get to that type of a cap floor. The big time owners would no longer have the complaint of the smaller teams doing all of this on purpose and just pocketing the cash. The NFL has grown exponentially with a salary cap(with the help of fantasy football and it being the easiest game to gamble on), as has the NBA, and the NHL is growing bigger and bigger every season because every team at least has a shot of competing, can keep many of their homegrown talent, and can still get good quality players in UFA. The MLB system is antiquated and no longer serves any purpose as most fanbases already know they are eliminated from the playoffs or the odds are single digits unless everything goes absolutely right. Even should that happen it's a 2-3 year window at best while the Dodgers/Yankees/Phillies/Mets/Red Sox can just keep plucking everyone's top players year in and year out. Hell the one thing non-salary cap honks were saying can't even be said anymore and that was "well we haven't seen a repeat champion in the past 20 or so years" well guess what? One team has won 3 of the last 6, and 5 of the last 9 world series, so that blows that argument all to hell.

Look at it this way, if you are Pirates fan what's the point in getting attached to Paul Skenes? Unless he really has no ego, isn't determined to be the highest paid player in MLB (other Ohtani and Soto) and likes it in Pittsburgh, fans of the Pirates already know they have max about 2-3 more seasons with him before he is traded for a haul of players that they won't see for another 3-4 seasons. The Pirates, even if they fill up the stadium 81 games a season and max out their income revenue, they can't offer the same contract to Skenes that any of those 5 teams can. At Pitts max offer those others will just up it by 5-10 million a year or extend out his years. What good does it do to draft a generational talent if you are only going to have him 5-6 seasons? A salary cap at least gives the Pirates a fighting chance as those other teams can only offer whatever amount they have available in cap space or will have to trade away very important pieces to free up the cap space.

oh and color me shocked Scott Boras wants nothing to do with a salary cap.

[Cardinals1964]

With Dodger/Yankee money, the owner has to be stupid not to win.

Yeah, the Dodgers stopped their stupid and are actually using their unfair advantage. Congrats to them.

The system needs to be fixed we can't rely on all the largest markets being stupid in order to give the poorest 15 teams a fighting chance.

St Louis and Kansas City are the only metro areas smaller than 4.5M to win a World Series in the past 28 years (since MLB expanded to 30 teams).
Toronto and the New York Mets are the only metro areas larger than 4.5M not to win a World Series in the past 28 years.

I always love the " Dodgers use their unfair advantage" They do not have an unfair advantage, but are the best run organization in baseball , if not of all sports.

Huh? Lol.

The only people I've seen say this the past few years are Dodgers fans and a few liars who for whatever reason, can't admit the rules are broken. Which one are you?

Well you should read more. I never said the rules are good or bad. I just state the fact that it it is not an unfair advantage. Any team can do what the Dodgers do. Harder for most for sure, but possible. Are do you mean the unfair advantage of playing in a destination city that offers numerous opportunities to better your individual brand?

That's exactly what the delusional Dodgers fans say on X. "Your team is just cheap. Anyone can do this".

No, not every team can do this due to local TV money. The convo ends there.

Many can so I guess the convo starts there.

Many teams can defer almost a billion in contract money? No I don't think that's accurate at all.

Many teams can have almost a 400 million dollar payroll? No I'm pretty sure they can't

Many teams can pay a 169 million luxury tax on top of the payroll? Again I'm pretty sure that's not correct.

No many teams can't do what the Dodgers are doing. There's maybe 2-3 other teams and that's pretty much it.

They all can do it. Baseball teams aren't owned by the local diner. They are owned by billionaires who have and make a lot of money. It comes down to how much money they want want to clear owning a team. Most owners don't care about winning as much as they like making money.

(drat) you were making progress before, but now went back to "they all can do it". What happened to "many can"?

"They are owned by billionaires who have and make a lot money". Are all billionaires the same? Markets, local TV revenue, etc?

All billionaires are the same in that they are billionaires. I apologize for the "most" typo. All can. Where they differ in why they own the team. Again , I never have said the system doesn't need some change. Revenue sharing is a good starting point for fans to debate. I don't think owners care or not.

Those are your opinions. What facts did you base them on? Just a feeling or do you know each teams revenue?

We don't know revenue for each team because teams won't open their books. That leads to speculation. And yes I only state my opinion. What facts do you have to dispute my opinion?

The fact that you don’t know the revenue for each team (your admission) is a fact that says you’re guessing.

[CCard]

The difference is not star power, it is population base. The Dodgers make more in local TV money than the Card's do from all sources. The team had a bad year and the "Cardinal Fans" stopped going to the games. The best fans in baseball deserted their team. At least 20 of the MLB teams can not spend like the Dodgers. What the players need to realize is that if they allow a payroll cap and floor, they will still get their money. It just won't be in NY or LA.
They may get their 25 million a year in KC or Minnesota, but they will still get it and the competition created by balanced salaries will lead to more teams competing and that means more TV money and packed stadiums which will generate even more money for salaries.

Would you vote to cap your salary? A salary cap offers nothing to the players. Are the owners capping their profits? Are the owners going to keep prices where they are and not raise them on things? Nope. So why would you expect the players to do that? Fans don't goe to the games to see the owners and they don't go to support the owners. Revenue sharing is the answer. But rich owners don't want to share the wealth. So here we are. Destined for another lock out.

No that's false. It's been proven that the salary cap actually increases salaries due to the salary floor. With a salary floor the teams like the marlins can't spend only 30 million, they'd need to spend (let's just say for arguments sake the floor is 110) they'd be overpaying a lot of average and below average players which would increase the money for the top guys.

What it does is forces the older players into retirement a lot earlier than 38.

1. Where was this proven? If it is, then why wouldn't the players be for it? Sounds like bull to me.
2. Who decides what a player's value is? This salary floor and cap both limit are arbitrary points. Who decides?

the same people who have always decided what a player's value is: teams, players, agents.

did you completely skip over the part where I stated there would be a floor and teams would no longer be able to spend hundreds of millions less than others?

With a salary cap floor teams would no longer be able to field a minor league team all making league minimum. If they have to reach the salary floor they will either have to pay their younger guys more, or they'll have to overpay for average players. When the lower end makes more money the upper end makes more money.

It's pretty simple economics.

How is a floor cap going to even get a team like the Pirates any where near the Dodgers in payroll? Don't misunderstand, I'm fine with forcing teams to spend a certain amount of money, that's fine and maybe could be a part of the solution, but their has to be more teeth in a luxury tax or the Dodgers of the world will just laugh while walking toward another championship. It needs to be more than just forcing teams to do the bare minimum. I'd suggest increased revenue sharing, having a draft lottery that doesn't reward losing and increasing the luxury tax so that teams with billionaire owners don't just destroy the free agent market. The article I read stated that agents like Boras said that tanking also cripples the market for free agents. I hadn't thought of that angle.

It has nothing to do with getting close to the Dodgers, it's about saying to the league there is obviously significant differences in revenue streams that have completely upset the balance of the league. No amount of revenue sharing or evidently a luxury tax is going to fix it so there needs to be a system in place that states "no team can spend more than this, and every team has to spend at least this" then it will be about who has the better front office, who can draft better *which MLB absolutely has to fix their draft as it is the most confusing stupid draft in all of professional sports. No team should get the best international players because they can pay a bounty to buy a player out of contract that other teams can't* who can develop better and who can trade and build a team better.

For far too many years, as early back as the late 90's early 2000's when the Yankees were buying everyone MLB has seen steady declines in teams and their abilities to hold onto players. Great I'm glad you brought the article with Boras because with a salary floor that would all but eliminate the kind of tanking we've seen from teams like we've seen in the past 20 years. If you have to spend 90+ million or pay a massive fine, then you can't run a minor league team out there for 162 games, you have to have legitimate MLB players on the team to get to that type of a cap floor. The big time owners would no longer have the complaint of the smaller teams doing all of this on purpose and just pocketing the cash. The NFL has grown exponentially with a salary cap(with the help of fantasy football and it being the easiest game to gamble on), as has the NBA, and the NHL is growing bigger and bigger every season because every team at least has a shot of competing, can keep many of their homegrown talent, and can still get good quality players in UFA. The MLB system is antiquated and no longer serves any purpose as most fanbases already know they are eliminated from the playoffs or the odds are single digits unless everything goes absolutely right. Even should that happen it's a 2-3 year window at best while the Dodgers/Yankees/Phillies/Mets/Red Sox can just keep plucking everyone's top players year in and year out. Hell the one thing non-salary cap honks were saying can't even be said anymore and that was "well we haven't seen a repeat champion in the past 20 or so years" well guess what? One team has won 3 of the last 6, and 5 of the last 9 world series, so that blows that argument all to hell.

Look at it this way, if you are Pirates fan what's the point in getting attached to Paul Skenes? Unless he really has no ego, isn't determined to be the highest paid player in MLB (other Ohtani and Soto) and likes it in Pittsburgh, fans of the Pirates already know they have max about 2-3 more seasons with him before he is traded for a haul of players that they won't see for another 3-4 seasons. The Pirates, even if they fill up the stadium 81 games a season and max out their income revenue, they can't offer the same contract to Skenes that any of those 5 teams can. At Pitts max offer those others will just up it by 5-10 million a year or extend out his years. What good does it do to draft a generational talent if you are only going to have him 5-6 seasons? A salary cap at least gives the Pirates a fighting chance as those other teams can only offer whatever amount they have available in cap space or will have to trade away very important pieces to free up the cap space.

oh and color me shocked Scott Boras wants nothing to do with a salary cap.

I'm old enough to remember when the Cards shipped out Steve Carlton over 50 thousand dollars. It's hard to sell a salary cap to players looking to earn as much as they can before their skills erode and they're cast out of their profession. I agree with you in that the haves and the have nots are pretty well distinct and something does need to be done. I would think that heavily upping the luxury tax and redistributing to the other teams would be a step forward but obviously it lacks real teeth right now. It has to be upped to a teams puking point. I also feel that losing teams shouldn't be given preference in the draft. In fact, it should either be totally left to chance or each team should draw for their place in a lottery and then it be instituted from now on. The team that drafts first this time would then shuffle to the back of the line and be last next time. The rest of the line would move accordingly. There shouldn't be a penalty for winning or a reward for losing. It doesn't make sense. The luxury tax should include international monies and they should do away with deferred payroll. It's just a way to cheat. The luxury tax should be outrageous. 100 dollars for every dollar spent. Something like that. Making every team feel the pain that wants to buy their way without working for it. BTW, it's not just Boras that doesn't want a salary cap, the players don't want one either. If you were a player you wouldn't want one either.

[makesnosense]

I always love the " Dodgers use their unfair advantage" They do not have an unfair advantage, but are the best run organization in baseball , if not of all sports.

Huh? Lol.

The only people I've seen say this the past few years are Dodgers fans and a few liars who for whatever reason, can't admit the rules are broken. Which one are you?

Well you should read more. I never said the rules are good or bad. I just state the fact that it it is not an unfair advantage. Any team can do what the Dodgers do. Harder for most for sure, but possible. Are do you mean the unfair advantage of playing in a destination city that offers numerous opportunities to better your individual brand?

That's exactly what the delusional Dodgers fans say on X. "Your team is just cheap. Anyone can do this".

No, not every team can do this due to local TV money. The convo ends there.

Many can so I guess the convo starts there.

Many teams can defer almost a billion in contract money? No I don't think that's accurate at all.

Many teams can have almost a 400 million dollar payroll? No I'm pretty sure they can't

Many teams can pay a 169 million luxury tax on top of the payroll? Again I'm pretty sure that's not correct.

No many teams can't do what the Dodgers are doing. There's maybe 2-3 other teams and that's pretty much it.

They all can do it. Baseball teams aren't owned by the local diner. They are owned by billionaires who have and make a lot of money. It comes down to how much money they want want to clear owning a team. Most owners don't care about winning as much as they like making money.

(drat) you were making progress before, but now went back to "they all can do it". What happened to "many can"?

"They are owned by billionaires who have and make a lot money". Are all billionaires the same? Markets, local TV revenue, etc?

All billionaires are the same in that they are billionaires. I apologize for the "most" typo. All can. Where they differ in why they own the team. Again , I never have said the system doesn't need some change. Revenue sharing is a good starting point for fans to debate. I don't think owners care or not.

Those are your opinions. What facts did you base them on? Just a feeling or do you know each teams revenue?

We don't know revenue for each team because teams won't open their books. That leads to speculation. And yes I only state my opinion. What facts do you have to dispute my opinion?

The fact that you don’t know the revenue for each team (your admission) is a fact that says you’re guessing.

That almost sounds like you do the know the revenue for each team. Do tell please.