DiamondCentric Roundtable: What Do We Do About Financial Inequality in MLB?

[nicksaviking]

I guess I didn't understand what the panelists were talking about when they said the league had parity. The Royals and Cardinals are the only small and mid market teams to win a World Series in the last two decades and the Cardinals never spent like they were a mid market team and the Royals were 13th in the league in payroll the year they won. Has a team in the bottom half of payroll actually won the World Series since the collusion era? If so, it's the exception, not the rule.

I don't think there's parity in this league in any sense of the word.

[FargoFanMan]

19 hours ago, Vanimal46 said:

Good post overall and sorry for picking on one thought here… But what would you describe the 2024 White Sox? That was a clear tank job. 

I don’t believe that any team is truly “tanking” as the rule implies. Maybe and that’s a big maybe they were at the end of the season. When you look at the White Sox at some point you need to blow it up. Teams are allowed to blow the whole thing up and start over. It’s a healthy part of the process. Look at their roster. Failed prospect after failed prospect compounded by injuries to guys that were supposed to be cornerstones. What were they supposed to do? Buy their way out of the mess? That’s what I’m talking about here. Everybody looks at the financials of it when baseball has one feature that no other league has. The long development process where you can pool a group of promising young players together through the draft and trades to come up together and compete with these teams that simply buy their way in every year. Also I’m not sure you can call the White Sox debacle “tanking”. With all the work that goes into everything in front of a spotlight imagine how demoralizing it has to be showing up everyday for 162 games and continually failing day in day out. At some point unless you’re psychologically tough you give up at some point and you’re just going through the motions and at the highest level you will be beat 9 out of 10 times. I don’t believe that there was a massive collusion where from the top on down it was decided that they were going to start intentionally losing games in hopes that they are going to secure a top pick. How illogical does that sound. I do believe the pirates abuse their luxury tax payments by not using it all on players but to implement a lottery and rules around it to relieve “tanking” is a ploy. Why would you want to hamstring teams from becoming better faster? That makes no sense for baseball at all as a whole. As bad as the orioles looked 5 years ago I’m glad they got all those top picks to rebuild their team. That’s how all the best teams have ever been built. The best teams have never been built through FA. Everyone talks the Yankees and dodgers. How were they originally built? Drafting and developing. Jeter, Posada, Bernie Williams, Rivera, Pettite. The dodgers are a bit different but every year they are the strongest at developing guys. Year in year out they’ve got guys all over the top 100 lists. To constantly screech and moan about money and salary caps and salary floors and billionaires and contracts is so fool hardy. These are talking points that get people excited. Until some idiots massively change the rules and ultimately ruin the game forever the meat and potatoes of baseball has and will always be drafting, signing and developing good young talent. The 90’s- 2000’s Yankees ultimately fell apart. The same is happening to the Astros now. The same thing will eventually bite the dodgers as well. It’s the way of baseball. Good cheap young talent will always be more valuable than expensive aging talent. This is true in every “sport”.

[FargoFanMan]

1 hour ago, nicksaviking said:

I guess I didn't understand what the panelists were talking about when they said the league had parity. The Royals and Cardinals are the only small and mid market teams to win a World Series in the last two decades and the Cardinals never spent like they were a mid market team and the Royals were 13th in the league in payroll the year they won. Has a team in the bottom half of payroll actually won the World Series since the collusion era? If so, it's the exception, not the rule.

I don't think there's parity in this league in any sense of the word.

True but everyone is missing the key point. How were all these teams built? Drafting, signing and developing? Or simply buying FA’s? Who were the core players of those teams? Guys that were developed by that organization or guys that were bought by that organization? Were these teams big spenders before or after they had their in house core? In almost every case the team drafts, signs and develops above average. They get the “core”. That core shows promise. When they are ready they are supplemented. Once they are supplemented and the window is wide open they spend to get the WS. Sometimes this works and sometimes it fails. Some teams have more resources to keep the window open but the window always closes. Sometimes softly and sometimes harshly. When there hasn’t been a repeat champ since the 2000 Yankees it shows you there’s parity. MLB is not the NFL or NBA and that’s a good thing! 

[nicksaviking]

55 minutes ago, FargoFanMan said:

True but everyone is missing the key point. How were all these teams built? Drafting, signing and developing? Or simply buying FA’s? Who were the core players of those teams? Guys that were developed by that organization or guys that were bought by that organization? Were these teams big spenders before or after they had their in house core? In almost every case the team drafts, signs and develops above average. They get the “core”. That core shows promise. When they are ready they are supplemented. Once they are supplemented and the window is wide open they spend to get the WS. Sometimes this works and sometimes it fails. Some teams have more resources to keep the window open but the window always closes. Sometimes softly and sometimes harshly. When there hasn’t been a repeat champ since the 2000 Yankees it shows you there’s parity. MLB is not the NFL or NBA and that’s a good thing! 

Parity among the top spenders. The mid level and bottom spenders are not part of that parity though.

[FargoFanMan]

7 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

Parity among the top spenders. The mid level and bottom spenders are not part of that parity though.

Seems to me there’s pretty decent parity if you go through total payroll for most years and see who made the playoffs. 2024 was actually well represented by the bottom 10 which would be hard to believe by reading anything about baseball anywhere. Especially on this sight. 

https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/payroll/_/year/2024/sort/cap_total2

 

[FargoFanMan]

Shouldn’t the whole goal of an organization, or any business really,  be to spend less and succeed (win) more? I think most of this “parity” conversation is driven simply by the fact that your team (the Twins, or any small to mid market team) can’t spend like the dodgers. But you don’t want to spend like the dodgers. You don’t want to be the team strapped by guaranteed contracts for 8,9,10 years of a player going into their late 30’s. You’re just jealous that your team can’t do that or chooses not to do that. You shouldn’t want your team to do that. But the exciting thing is to sign an overpriced free agent. The exciting thing isn’t to draft a player and develop him for 4 years and watch him develop for another 2-3 years in the majors until he becomes a star. No, you want instant gratification of signing the high priced 29 year old to a 9 year contract. That looks great until that player ages and his contract becomes dead weight and hamstrings your team for years. Then you can complain that such and such GM was so stupid and the cycle continues. Buying players is not what teams ascending the hill do it’s what teams at the top of the hill do before they start falling down the hill. It’s todays talking point. It’s instant gratification. It’s the I want it now mentality. It’s the I’m mad that my friend has better toys than I do. You don’t want his toys. They’re overpriced and not as well made. This problem has been hyped by talking heads and rules are being made to address the wrong points. Nobody is tanking. There isn’t a rash of collusion. The boogeyman isn’t out to get your team. These talking points are just being amplified because of todays culture. All FA’s can ensure is the possibility for sustained success. And that’s not a sure thing. Do I like that the Pohlads have screwed this team for 30 years? No. Do I want them to spend like the dodgers? No. Do I think the Ohtani and Soto contracts are ridiculous? Yes. Do I want MLB and the players union to flip the chess board to be more like the NFL and NBA. Absolutely not! The rules need to implement more carrots instead of sticks to retain the integrity of the game. Otherwise it will become the same bloated circus that other leagues have turned into. 

[nicksaviking]

1 hour ago, FargoFanMan said:

Seems to me there’s pretty decent parity if you go through total payroll for most years and see who made the playoffs. 2024 was actually well represented by the bottom 10 which would be hard to believe by reading anything about baseball anywhere. Especially on this sight. 

https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/payroll/_/year/2024/sort/cap_total2

 

Making the playoffs and having a legit shot at winning a championship are NOT the same thing. 

As evidenced by the teams that continually win the championship. I don't care about making a token playoff appearance. I want my team to be able to put together a squad that has a more than fair chance at winning it all.

[FargoFanMan]

12 hours ago, nicksaviking said:

Making the playoffs and having a legit shot at winning a championship are NOT the same thing. 

As evidenced by the teams that continually win the championship. I don't care about making a token playoff appearance. I want my team to be able to put together a squad that has a more than fair chance at winning it all.

So you’re talking specifically the Dodgers? Who won in 2024 and 2020. The Astros maybe who won in 2022 and 2017. Who else are you talking about? How were those teams built? What were their payrolls in those years and where were they ranked. Did they buy FA’s or were they largely built from within? These questions matter if we are to have an honest conversation about what parity actually means. What constitutes having a chance by making the playoffs from having a chance to realistically advance in the playoffs? I believe it’s just a hot button issue because a few large market teams happened to spend a bunch of money for 2 or 3 generational players and  the parity soundbite got put on repeat. The same thing happened in the early 2000’s with the Yankees. 

[nicksaviking]

4 minutes ago, FargoFanMan said:

So you’re talking specifically the Dodgers? Who won in 2024 and 2020. The Astros maybe who won in 2022 and 2017. Who else are you talking about? How were those teams built? What were their payrolls in those years and where were they ranked. Did they buy FA’s or were they largely built from within? These questions matter if we are to have an honest conversation about what parity actually means. What constitutes having a chance by making the playoffs from having a chance to realistically advance in the playoffs? I believe it’s just a hot button issue because a few large market teams happened to spend a bunch of money for 2 or 3 generational players and  the parity soundbite got put on repeat. The same thing happened in the early 2000’s with the Yankees. 

Dodgers, Rangers, Astros, Braves, Dodgers, Nationals, Red Sox, Astros, Cubs, Royals, Giants, Red Sox, Giants, Cardinals, Giants, Yankees, Phillies, Red Sox, Cardinals, White Sox, Red Sox, Marlins. Those are the last 23 WS winners. Every one of them spent in the top half of the league when they won and I would guess that's the case going back at least into the 1980s.

I don't understand the 'how they were built argument'. Sure, some of those teams had lots of home grown talent, but what does that matter? Every one of them were top half of the league in spending, without exception. If you won't/can't/don't spend in the upper half, you're not winning a championship. 

[FargoFanMan]

7 hours ago, nicksaviking said:

Dodgers, Rangers, Astros, Braves, Dodgers, Nationals, Red Sox, Astros, Cubs, Royals, Giants, Red Sox, Giants, Cardinals, Giants, Yankees, Phillies, Red Sox, Cardinals, White Sox, Red Sox, Marlins. Those are the last 23 WS winners. Every one of them spent in the top half of the league when they won and I would guess that's the case going back at least into the 1980s.

I don't understand the 'how they were built argument'. Sure, some of those teams had lots of home grown talent, but what does that matter? Every one of them were top half of the league in spending, without exception. If you won't/can't/don't spend in the upper half, you're not winning a championship. 

How a championship team is built is the question at hand. To simply look at the final number is why you come to the same conclusion. You build a core of young players. That core gets you so far and you supply that core with reinforcements. Those players get older and they cost more money. That increases your payroll along with the FA’s you brought in to help push the core. In turn you jump to the front of the pack in total payroll. No championship team is getting younger and less expensive as they are chasing a championship. The reason you keep coming to the same conclusion is because you’re not following the team through those stages. You’re looking at the final result. Larger market teams can keep the window open longer. But they all got their the same way. There are exceptions to the rule. Right now we’re watching one end. The Astros. And one begin. The orioles. Both built the same exact way. Through drafting high, signing international FA’s well and developing them at a high clip. Making some good trades can accelerate that as well. You don’t build a multi year WS contender by buying FA’s. The dodgers have done that the most and are a recent example. They were at the end of their run and they went out and spent a bunch of money to keep that window open. Who are their good young rising stars though? They have none yet. But just like every other championship/contending team the players get older and less productive. The core gets more expensive and you either have to sign them to long term deals or watch them walk. Then the run eventually ends and another team takes their place. The reason that almost all championship teams are at the top of the payroll list is because that’s how baseball works. If the NFL(always the example of why mlb needs a salary cap) has such good parity and it’s such an even playing field then why are teams like the browns, the lions(until recently), the jets always at the bottom of the league for decades upon decades? For the same reason the pirates, A’s, and Marlins are always at the bottom of the league. They’re poorly run franchises. I think baseball has had the best “parity” in the last 15 years. Not the worst. It’s a talking point. It’s front of mind. It’s inflamed by everyone talking about it. And when these big players sign big contracts with big teams it’s always a throw your arms up moment. 

[laloesch]

On 2/4/2025 at 8:04 AM, UpstateNewYorker said:

MLB has parity only in the sense that the current playoff system of 12 teams making the playoffs produces somewhat random results in terms of championships. The Yankees have qualified for the postseason in 11 of the last 15 seasons. And here are the Dodgers recent win totals excluding the Covid year: 98, 100, 111, 106, 106, 92, 104, and four more seasons in the 90s. The big market teams have a decent chance every year to make the World Series. Even well run small market teams struggle to make the playoffs on a consistent basis, and when they do, they have an uphill road to the World Series. The Brewers have qualified in six of the last seven seasons but have not played in the WS those years. 

I agree. Sure there is a variety of teams that make up the 12 that initially make the playoffs (now that MLB has an expanded wild card round), which OCCASSIONALLY factors in and produces random results in the championship, but the fact remains that typically the same gang of teams makes the ALCS and World Series almost every season with a few exceptions through the years.    

I just can't agree with Brandon Glicks statement that "baseball has much stronger parity, both in terms of playoff performers and champion variety."  That's just utter complete nonsense.

 

[Mike Sixel]

Judging parity by the champion is meaningless to me. Parity is about teams and fans having hope at the beginning of the year, and past the halfway mark. It's not about one game for me. It's not about the vWS champion....

Face it, a lot of MLB tabs aren't trying to win it all. Bad NFL teams is about their ineptitude, not about never trying to win. I can't say that about some MLB teams. 

How many teams had zero hope most of the year? Zero hope of winning series? It's just not the same as the NFL on so many levels. 

[laloesch]

On 2/5/2025 at 10:04 PM, FargoFanMan said:

Shouldn’t the whole goal of an organization, or any business really,  be to spend less and succeed (win) more? I think most of this “parity” conversation is driven simply by the fact that your team (the Twins, or any small to mid market team) can’t spend like the dodgers. But you don’t want to spend like the dodgers. You don’t want to be the team strapped by guaranteed contracts for 8,9,10 years of a player going into their late 30’s. You’re just jealous that your team can’t do that or chooses not to do that. You shouldn’t want your team to do that. But the exciting thing is to sign an overpriced free agent. The exciting thing isn’t to draft a player and develop him for 4 years and watch him develop for another 2-3 years in the majors until he becomes a star. No, you want instant gratification of signing the high priced 29 year old to a 9 year contract. That looks great until that player ages and his contract becomes dead weight and hamstrings your team for years. Then you can complain that such and such GM was so stupid and the cycle continues. Buying players is not what teams ascending the hill do it’s what teams at the top of the hill do before they start falling down the hill. It’s todays talking point. It’s instant gratification. It’s the I want it now mentality. It’s the I’m mad that my friend has better toys than I do. You don’t want his toys. They’re overpriced and not as well made. This problem has been hyped by talking heads and rules are being made to address the wrong points. Nobody is tanking. There isn’t a rash of collusion. The boogeyman isn’t out to get your team. These talking points are just being amplified because of todays culture. All FA’s can ensure is the possibility for sustained success. And that’s not a sure thing. Do I like that the Pohlads have screwed this team for 30 years? No. Do I want them to spend like the dodgers? No. Do I think the Ohtani and Soto contracts are ridiculous? Yes. Do I want MLB and the players union to flip the chess board to be more like the NFL and NBA. Absolutely not! The rules need to implement more carrots instead of sticks to retain the integrity of the game. Otherwise it will become the same bloated circus that other leagues have turned into. 

I don't necessarily disagree with what your saying, but the fact remains that teams like the Yankees and Dodgers can consistently do this (keep signing multiple big free agents in their late 20's early 30's almost every season), and then buy out or trade the ones (while including $ to the recipient to offset a portion of the bloated salary), that are on the downhill slope of productivity and not shed a tear. 

The latest gimmick is to massively backload those contracts, which allows them to load up on even more talent in one season and then kick the can down the road for paying the piper.  This also negates the damaging alternative of going WAY over the luxury tax threshold.  That's the difference and why MLB at minimum needs a hard salary cap.  Most franchises in MLB can't do that to the level that the Dodgers have recently (nor should they), but the fact that a handful of teams DO consistently do it, is an unfair advantage, and why a strike is necessary in 2027 to get this nonsense under control.  And for the record I am not opposed to a salary cap floor either.  

[Major League Ready]

On 2/6/2025 at 11:23 AM, nicksaviking said:

Dodgers, Rangers, Astros, Braves, Dodgers, Nationals, Red Sox, Astros, Cubs, Royals, Giants, Red Sox, Giants, Cardinals, Giants, Yankees, Phillies, Red Sox, Cardinals, White Sox, Red Sox, Marlins. Those are the last 23 WS winners. Every one of them spent in the top half of the league when they won and I would guess that's the case going back at least into the 1980s.

I don't understand the 'how they were built argument'. Sure, some of those teams had lots of home grown talent, but what does that matter? Every one of them were top half of the league in spending, without exception. If you won't/can't/don't spend in the upper half, you're not winning a championship. 

The Marlins and White Sox were a long time ago ( 2003 & 2005).  The only team in the bottom half of revenue to win since the 2005 WS has been the Royals.  It's probably more accurate to say they were all in the top 10 in revenue.  Without looking it up I would guess the Rangers and Nationals might have been outside the top 10 but I doubt it.

Three teams (Cleveland, Oakland, and Tampa) have put 90+ win teams on the field a lot more often that others via a better model but you are absolutely right in that they were still a little short in terms of being a top contender to win the WS.

[laloesch]

On 2/4/2025 at 8:53 AM, Otaknam said:

These guys can slice and dice it any way they want to claim the system isn’t really broken. Yes, an excellent minor league player development program is crucial to small and mid market teams. But the fact is that when there is a handful of teams spending 2 to 4 times more on player salaries than the rest, it does create a distorted market favoring the big spenders. Right now the Dodgers are the bullies in the playground, with the Yankees, Red Sox, Phillies, Cubs and a couple of others close behind. The rest of us are left with the discouraging belief that our team really has no chance to make a strong playoff run. When even the Yankees, who historically have outspent everyone else by a wide margin, are whining about the spending of the Dodgers, you know the system is unstable. 

Bingo.  And that's not to say you won't have anomalies every once in a while, like the Guardians or even the Royals who will make the show and even on occasion win it all.  Yes, that will continue to happen periodically, but the truth of the matter is that it's STILL the same handful of teams spending crazy amounts of money (as you said), 2 to 4 times more on player salaries than the rest, which distorts the free agent market and favors the big spenders. 

Possible Solution:

1. Increase the arbitration eligible years from 3 to 5 years for a total of 8 service years vs. the current 6 before a player is a free agent.  Raise the minimum salary to help offset the extended time with the franchise before free agency. That would at least give the team a chance to benefit from more years of mlb service time while theoretically in the prime playing years.  It should slow down the looting of talent from small market teams to the big market free agent spenders that are gobbling up the star talent.   

2. Institute franchise tags similar to the NFL's below.

NON-EXCLUSIVE TAG: This tag allows the player to sign an offer sheet with another team. The original team has the right to match the offer or receive two first-round draft picks in compensation if the player leaves. This is the most common type of tag and is most similar to MLB's compensation picks.

EXCLUSIVE TAG: This tag completely binds the player to his team. His agent is prohibited from seeking an offer sheet.

TRANSITION TAG: This tag works like the nonexclusive franchise tag, except it only provides the original team the right to match the other team's offer. If the original team decides not to offer a matching bid, it gets no compensation when the player leaves.

3. Institute a hard salary cap and floor. This has been discussed ad nauseum in other threads.

 

[RpR]

53 minutes ago, laloesch said:

Bingo.  And that's not to say you won't have anomalies every once in a while, like the Guardians or even the Royals who will make the show and even on occasion win it all.  Yes, that will continue to happen periodically, but the truth of the matter is that it's STILL the same handful of teams spending crazy amounts of money (as you said), 2 to 4 times more on player salaries than the rest, which distorts the free agent market and favors the big spenders. 

Possible Solution:

1. Increase the arbitration eligible years from 3 to 5 years for a total of 8 service years vs. the current 6 before a player is a free agent.  Raise the minimum salary to help offset the extended time with the franchise before free agency. That would at least give the team a chance to benefit from more years of mlb service time while theoretically in the prime playing years.  It should slow down the looting of talent from small market teams to the big market free agent spenders that are gobbling up the star talent.   

2. Institute franchise tags similar to the NFL's below.

NON-EXCLUSIVE TAG: This tag allows the player to sign an offer sheet with another team. The original team has the right to match the offer or receive two first-round draft picks in compensation if the player leaves. This is the most common type of tag and is most similar to MLB's compensation picks.

EXCLUSIVE TAG: This tag completely binds the player to his team. His agent is prohibited from seeking an offer sheet.

TRANSITION TAG: This tag works like the nonexclusive franchise tag, except it only provides the original team the right to match the other team's offer. If the original team decides not to offer a matching bid, it gets no compensation when the player leaves.

3. Institute a hard salary cap and floor. This has been discussed ad nauseum in other threads.

 

It is only February and already the May Whine is pouring.😎

[FargoFanMan]

1 hour ago, laloesch said:

Bingo.  And that's not to say you won't have anomalies every once in a while, like the Guardians or even the Royals who will make the show and even on occasion win it all.  Yes, that will continue to happen periodically, but the truth of the matter is that it's STILL the same handful of teams spending crazy amounts of money (as you said), 2 to 4 times more on player salaries than the rest, which distorts the free agent market and favors the big spenders. 

Possible Solution:

1. Increase the arbitration eligible years from 3 to 5 years for a total of 8 service years vs. the current 6 before a player is a free agent.  Raise the minimum salary to help offset the extended time with the franchise before free agency. That would at least give the team a chance to benefit from more years of mlb service time while theoretically in the prime playing years.  It should slow down the looting of talent from small market teams to the big market free agent spenders that are gobbling up the star talent.   

2. Institute franchise tags similar to the NFL's below.

NON-EXCLUSIVE TAG: This tag allows the player to sign an offer sheet with another team. The original team has the right to match the offer or receive two first-round draft picks in compensation if the player leaves. This is the most common type of tag and is most similar to MLB's compensation picks.

EXCLUSIVE TAG: This tag completely binds the player to his team. His agent is prohibited from seeking an offer sheet.

TRANSITION TAG: This tag works like the nonexclusive franchise tag, except it only provides the original team the right to match the other team's offer. If the original team decides not to offer a matching bid, it gets no compensation when the player leaves.

3. Institute a hard salary cap and floor. This has been discussed ad nauseum in other threads.

 

I would agree with you somewhat on most of this but number 3. A salary cap puts money in the owners pockets and a salary floor puts money in the players pockets. A salary cap gives owners money that they don’t need or can’t spend and a salary floor gives players money that they probably don’t deserve. If the NFL has parity then how is a team going for a 3 peat this weekend against a team that was just there 2 years ago against a team that’s been either in the championship or won it. It’s just another way to slice a melon. The mlb does it with a knife and the NFL does it with a machete. Focusing strictly on the money is not going to accomplish the thing you want it to. Go look at the Astros spending adjusted for inflation from WS appearance to the last WS win. 2005 to 2022. They spend roughly the same through that period adjusted for inflation. It’s not as cut and dry as looking at a payroll sheet. Those teams are at the top because their window is open. So you supplant your young core with FA’s to fill in holes. A team like the dodgers extended their window by signing aging FA’s. Really their run was done when Kershaw started showing his age. Just like the Yankees after their late 90’s to 2009 run. Those players got old. Retired. Big drops in performance and didn’t reach the WS again until this year. Baseball is cyclical because you still build a championship team the same way as you did 50 years ago. Not by buying FA’s. Young cheap talent is always, always, always more valuable than older aging expensive talent. The dodgers will fall just like every other team has. It just takes them longer cause they can extend their runs through FA.

[FargoFanMan]

2 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

The Marlins and White Sox were a long time ago ( 2003 & 2005).  The only team in the bottom half of revenue to win since the 2005 WS has been the Royals.  It's probably more accurate to say they were all in the top 10 in revenue.  Without looking it up I would guess the Rangers and Nationals might have been outside the top 10 but I doubt it.

Three teams (Cleveland, Oakland, and Tampa) have put 90+ win teams on the field a lot more often that others via a better model but you are absolutely right in that they were still a little short in terms of being a top contender to win the WS.

Teams are in the top half because their window is open to spend. Track their payrolls adjusted for inflation over a ten year period. Most of these teams don’t spend like that over a ten year period. The nationals aren’t in the top 10 now. Why were they then? Cause their window was open to chase a WS.

[FargoFanMan]

2 hours ago, laloesch said:

I don't necessarily disagree with what your saying, but the fact remains that teams like the Yankees and Dodgers can consistently do this (keep signing multiple big free agents in their late 20's early 30's almost every season), and then buy out or trade the ones (while including $ to the recipient to offset a portion of the bloated salary), that are on the downhill slope of productivity and not shed a tear. 

The latest gimmick is to massively backload those contracts, which allows them to load up on even more talent in one season and then kick the can down the road for paying the piper.  This also negates the damaging alternative of going WAY over the luxury tax threshold.  That's the difference and why MLB at minimum needs a hard salary cap.  Most franchises in MLB can't do that to the level that the Dodgers have recently (nor should they), but the fact that a handful of teams DO consistently do it, is an unfair advantage, and why a strike is necessary in 2027 to get this nonsense under control.  And for the record I am not opposed to a salary cap floor either.  

How many WS appearances did the Yankees make from 2009 to 2024?

[FargoFanMan]

2 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

Judging parity by the champion is meaningless to me. Parity is about teams and fans having hope at the beginning of the year, and past the halfway mark. It's not about one game for me. It's not about the vWS champion....

Face it, a lot of MLB tabs aren't trying to win it all. Bad NFL teams is about their ineptitude, not about never trying to win. I can't say that about some MLB teams. 

How many teams had zero hope most of the year? Zero hope of winning series? It's just not the same as the NFL on so many levels. 

They’re not trying to win it all because they’re either a poorly run organization or they’re building to their window of contention. Championship teams are built the same way they always have been. With good inexpensive young talent supplemented with FA’s. Not the other way around.

[TheLeviathan]

In the NHL, if you're losing or have a hard road to climb....it's not because of your TV deal.  Maybe you sign bad contracts, or draft poorly, or made poor decisions in team composition.  

In the NFL, if you can't elevate your team it's because you sign bad contracts, hire bad coaches, draft poorly, fail to develop a QB.  But it's not because you signed the wrong TV contract.

I won't touch the NBA because their mess of a "cap" is so preposterous and poorly formed I think you could get a kindergartner, a crayon, and five minutes and they could come up with a better one.

And I have bad news for some of you....2027 isn't going to be the answer we want.  And the reason for that is simple: as long as the big markets have massive TV contracts and the league hasn't taken a step to curb that, they aren't going to get any consensus to move forward.  That's an issue that has to be resolved first and I just don't think the stars will ever align on it.  I hope I'm wrong.

As for parity?  Good lord, I can't believe any of these writers (or anyone for that matter) would argue that champion variety equates to parity.  That's such an over-simplified, silly way to look at things.  Of course MLB has the apprearance of more variety, it's got a WAY higher randomness to it than the other sports.  The point is simple: are teams genuinely able - with competence in management - to consistently put themselves in a position to succeed and thrive.  In the NHL and the NFL they absolutely are, no matter what market they are in.  The MLB is quite obviously not that way.

[Major League Ready]

14 hours ago, FargoFanMan said:

Teams are in the top half because their window is open to spend. Track their payrolls adjusted for inflation over a ten year period. Most of these teams don’t spend like that over a ten year period. The nationals aren’t in the top 10 now. Why were they then? Cause their window was open to chase a WS.

We all recognize spending should increase when a team is a legit contender.   However, the conversation here was about the relative impact of revenue disparity.  KC’s success was not a result of spending because they were in contention.    KC was 13th in spending so they did not overcome this gap by spending because they were in contention.   

You can’t come to any conclusion without looking at how their players were acquired.  Their most expensive players were Alex Gordon ($14M)  and Alex Rios.  Gordon produced 2.7 WAR  (good not great)   Alex Rios ($11M) had negative WAR.   The other free agents that contributed to the team were Edison Volquez ($7.5M / 2.7 WAR) and Kendrys Morales ($6.5 / 2 WAR).   Very modest priced free agents.  Certainly not what we think of as big additions and certainly not the kind of additions clamored for on TD.

Their best player by far was Lorenzo Cain who was acquired along with the SS Mercedes Escobar in trade for their most established player (Zack Grienke).  Their best pitcher was Yordano Ventura who was an Intl drafted player and still prearb.  Their only other SP to break 2 WAR was Volquez.  The sum total of their contribution from free agent spend was 4.8 QWAR between Morales and Volquez.
 

[FargoFanMan]

1 hour ago, TheLeviathan said:

In the NHL, if you're losing or have a hard road to climb....it's not because of your TV deal.  Maybe you sign bad contracts, or draft poorly, or made poor decisions in team composition.  

In the NFL, if you can't elevate your team it's because you sign bad contracts, hire bad coaches, draft poorly, fail to develop a QB.  But it's not because you signed the wrong TV contract.

I won't touch the NBA because their mess of a "cap" is so preposterous and poorly formed I think you could get a kindergartner, a crayon, and five minutes and they could come up with a better one.

And I have bad news for some of you....2027 isn't going to be the answer we want.  And the reason for that is simple: as long as the big markets have massive TV contracts and the league hasn't taken a step to curb that, they aren't going to get any consensus to move forward.  That's an issue that has to be resolved first and I just don't think the stars will ever align on it.  I hope I'm wrong.

As for parity?  Good lord, I can't believe any of these writers (or anyone for that matter) would argue that champion variety equates to parity.  That's such an over-simplified, silly way to look at things.  Of course MLB has the apprearance of more variety, it's got a WAY higher randomness to it than the other sports.  The point is simple: are teams genuinely able - with competence in management - to consistently put themselves in a position to succeed and thrive.  In the NHL and the NFL they absolutely are, no matter what market they are in.  The MLB is quite obviously not that way.

I am going to agree with you more than I have most because you haven’t mentioned a salary cap or floor. I believe there has to be another way. You don’t blow up the current system. You allow draft pick trading and along with the luxury tax teams that go over surrender their 1st round pick. Make it mandatory that whatever luxury tax money that teams receive must go into their draft and developmental budget. Obviously the mlbpa will throw a fit but that’s how you need to go about this. Invest in the young guys. That can make these rebuilds faster since MLB has such a different and longer developmental pattern. And investing heavily in younger talent raises that bar without putting money in the owners hands(salary cap) and without putting money in players hands who probably don’t deserve it( salary floor).

[FargoFanMan]

14 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

We all recognize spending should increase when a team is a legit contender.   However, the conversation here was about the relative impact of revenue disparity.  KC’s success was not a result of spending because they were in contention.    KC was 13th in spending so they did not overcome this gap by spending because they were in contention.   

You can’t come to any conclusion without looking at how their players were acquired.  Their most expensive players were Alex Gordon ($14M)  and Alex Rios.  Gordon produced 2.7 WAR  (good not great)   Alex Rios ($11M) had negative WAR.   The other free agents that contributed to the team were Edison Volquez ($7.5M / 2.7 WAR) and Kendrys Morales ($6.5 / 2 WAR).   Very modest priced free agents.  Certainly not what we think of as big additions and certainly not the kind of additions clamored for on TD.

Their best player by far was Lorenzo Cain who was acquired along with the SS Mercedes Escobar in trade for their most established player (Zack Grienke).  Their best pitcher was Yordano Ventura who was an Intl drafted player and still prearb.  Their only other SP to break 2 WAR was Volquez.  The sum total of their contribution from free agent spend was 4.8 QWAR between Morales and Volquez.
 

I whole heartedly agree. The 2015 royals are one of the best models of development, and good trades. Also, one that nobody will ever mention around here are the 2017 Astros. Everyone always says the Royals but the 2017 Astros were only $12M higher in payroll the year they won their first WS in their current run. Pulling up the bottom using baseballs developmental system is way better than just throwing money around. Speeding up the developmental process and giving the bottom teams a larger part of the prospect pool. Speed up these rebuilds. What you really want is more prospects in the hands of the smaller market teams and you want those teams to sign those guys to contracts that lead up to their age 30 season. Not after. The baseball developmental structure is so different than the NFL and NBA I think you need to use that system to speed up these rebuilds. Salary caps and floors like the NFL and NBA just is a different language that keeps giving money to the same people receiving money right now. I’d be more for a contract cap and a contract floor. I just think this has to be looked at from different angles than other sports cause the structure is so different.

[TheLeviathan]

38 minutes ago, FargoFanMan said:

I am going to agree with you more than I have most because you haven’t mentioned a salary cap or floor. I believe there has to be another way. You don’t blow up the current system. You allow draft pick trading and along with the luxury tax teams that go over surrender their 1st round pick. Make it mandatory that whatever luxury tax money that teams receive must go into their draft and developmental budget. Obviously the mlbpa will throw a fit but that’s how you need to go about this. Invest in the young guys. That can make these rebuilds faster since MLB has such a different and longer developmental pattern. And investing heavily in younger talent raises that bar without putting money in the owners hands(salary cap) and without putting money in players hands who probably don’t deserve it( salary floor).

I understand where you are coming from making sure players get more money than the owners.  But I think if you share revenues, the only option is a cap and floor.  Hopefully the PA is strong enough to get a 60/40 split, but that's the only real path forward.

[FargoFanMan]

24 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

I understand where you are coming from making sure players get more money than the owners.  But I think if you share revenues, the only option is a cap and floor.  Hopefully the PA is strong enough to get a 60/40 split, but that's the only real path forward.

Well, I look at it differently than the players getting more money than the owners. I don’t want a cap because that’s an excuse for the owners just to pocket money the same way some do now. A salary floor just gets older players paid just for the sake of spending. You kind of see it now with these pre ML debut contracts but essentially finding a way where there’s more of an incentive for smaller market teams to acquire more prospect capital and then those teams being able to sign those younger players to contracts and essentially avoid the arbitration structure. You want smaller market teams to have a bigger slice of the prospect pie and those teams to have the ability to sign those players to contracts. The braves are a great example of this. They are not at the top of spending because they are throwing money at big tier FA’s but because they lock their young players up early to ensure they have them together in their peak years. That’s what you want as a fan. 

[Major League Ready]

48 minutes ago, FargoFanMan said:

I whole heartedly agree. The 2015 royals are one of the best models of development, and good trades. Also, one that nobody will ever mention around here are the 2017 Astros. Everyone always says the Royals but the 2017 Astros were only $12M higher in payroll the year they won their first WS in their current run. Pulling up the bottom using baseballs developmental system is way better than just throwing money around. Speeding up the developmental process and giving the bottom teams a larger part of the prospect pool. Speed up these rebuilds. What you really want is more prospects in the hands of the smaller market teams and you want those teams to sign those guys to contracts that lead up to their age 30 season. Not after. The baseball developmental structure is so different than the NFL and NBA I think you need to use that system to speed up these rebuilds. Salary caps and floors like the NFL and NBA just is a different language that keeps giving money to the same people receiving money right now. I’d be more for a contract cap and a contract floor. I just think this has to be looked at from different angles than other sports cause the structure is so different.

Good point on the Astros.  I watched that with great interest back then.  They absolutely cleaned house and traded away any veteran player that could yield any return and of course they were prioritizing giving playing time to players that could be part of their future.  Without looking it up, I think their payroll got down to about $30M.  They built a team and sustained that team through drafting and development.

Most posters here favor giving prospects a chance as do I.  A floor forces teams to insert free agent players even if the rest of the team is not remotely close to producing a contender.  We would all hate it if it were actually in place.  To say players would hate a cap is a monstrous understatement.  I just don't know how we get to a floor and cap.  

[Major League Ready]

1 hour ago, TheLeviathan said:

I understand where you are coming from making sure players get more money than the owners.  But I think if you share revenues, the only option is a cap and floor.  Hopefully the PA is strong enough to get a 60/40 split, but that's the only real path forward.

Does the players split include player benefits, and draft bonuses.  If we estimate Twins revenue at 280M, the math looks like this ....

Payroll ......................... $141,566,000     
Player Benefits .......   16,280,090     11.5%  (Spotrac used to list this but quit)
Draft Pool ..................    12,209,600     
Intl Draft Pool .........      6,520,000     
   TOTAL  .....................    176,575,690   61%  of revenue
        

[Mike Sixel]

Want to speed up the development process? Give the worst teams more picks before the best teams. I've written two articles on ways to do this, that don't hurt the new players. 

But that won't fix teams like Baltimore and Pittsburgh that are not spending now..... While their windows are wide open. 

[jorgenswest]

12 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

Want to speed up the development process? Give the worst teams more picks before the best teams. I've written two articles on ways to do this, that don't hurt the new players. 

Intriguing.

MLB has a formula for competitive balance picks. I can’t argue one or an another if it effective at finding the teams that need that competitive balance. Assuming it is a good measure…

Let’s move those picks to the start of the draft. Let’s make them conditional based on spending enough vs revenue in order to earn those picks. Let’s determine the order by record of those teams and reward the team with the best record with the first pick.

I can see several possible results that would be beneficial to me.

• Reward smaller market teams for their efforts to compete
• Competitive balance picks can be traded now but imagine the value if they are at the top of the draft
• Would there be fewer sellers at the deadline if teams are fighting for wins and better draft position? Fewer sellers will for the rich teams to pay up more for their trade deadline acquisitions

I am with Mike in his earlier comment also. It isn’t World Series or bust for me. I want to watch a season full of competitive baseball games. This will help.