Should Tom Pohlad's Comments Have Derek Falvey On Notice?

[SteveLV]

USAFChief and others, you are wasting your time going back and forth with Bean5302.  He is a complete apologist for this broken system.  Everyone else knows it is on life support if they want a truly competitive, fair MLB.  He is blind to that reality.

When the Dodgers spend more in taxes than 12 other teams do for their entire player budget, that should be sufficient evidence to any logical mind.

[Major League Ready]

20 hours ago, LA Vikes Fan said:

Agree with that, but the MLBPA is controlled by and beholden to guys like Bryce Harper. The view at the top is no cap means guys like me can make more and more money. The players view is that the way to help the bottom is to raise the minimum salary and give players free agent rights sooner. I think that's just as one sided and economically unviable as a salary cap with no floor. The top earners in baseball are willing to help the bottom as long as it doesn't in any way restrict what they can make. Current union leadership listens primarily to the top earners. Put the owners tight fisted positions together with that, add in a powerless commissioner who is interested in preserving what we have rather than growing the pie and what's the end result? Gridlock. And that's what we got. 

There is only one pool of money.  Therefore, if you give the guys at the bottom more, it will take away from the guys at the top like Harper.  If not, they would have voted to give Milb players more money a long time ago.    It's not like the owners will just accept less profit.  The Dodgers and many other teams could easily make more profit if that's what they wanted to do.  Virtually every team spends in line with revenue while maintaining a reasonable profit.  There are a lot of industries with a higher average return on capital.  The only two teams that could spend significantly more are Pittsburgh and Miami.

People seem to forget that the players wanted to reduce revenue sharing and pushed hard for a higher luxury tax threshold during the last CBA.  The problem with a floor and a ceiling is that a floor has to be financially feasible for the lowest revenue team in the league.  Therefore, spending would not increase for all but a couple of teams and the difference between what they are making and what a minimum profit level would be is insignificant.  We are probably talking $25M for a couple teams.  Even if the ceiling was $220M, there are several teams that would have a $100M advantage.  There are 7 teams that spent over $220M last year.  If the amount was lowered to $220M, the incremental decrease in payroll would be $350M.  The couple of teams spending below what would be a reasonable floor would not remotely make up for the difference.  I just don't see a cap and floor as a solution the players would accept.

[bean5302]

On 12/23/2025 at 9:00 AM, Woof Bronzer said:

A salary cap provides the "variety" you are looking for.  Without it, the Series will almost always feature teams in the top 10 in payroll.  You must enjoy seeing the Dodgers in the series every year! 

You still haven't answered my question:  when is the last time 2 teams in the bottom half of payroll competed for the World Series?  Because that's what happened this year in both the NFL and NBA.  

I answered it essentially with "I do not care. Nobody cares where dynasties come from." In general, fans of sports hate dynasties (when their team isn't part of it). Salary caps won't change the fact there are dynasties.

On 12/23/2025 at 1:06 PM, USAFChief said:

What you have now is the Dodgers, Yankees, Phillies, and a couple other rich teams in the postseason every frigging year. And half the league fighting for the odd table scrap year with virtually guaranteed early postseason departure. 

There's your variety.

And it's entirely due to money. Not skill, not good play, not luck. Money. 

Salary cap (and floor) in 2027. More revenue sharing. 

And bust the MLBPA down to size, for the good of all, for good measure. 

The Yankees have made 1 World Series (and lost) in the past 15 years and you're talking about the Yankees? They've only won their division 3x in the past 13 years.

Literally, I just showed with examples MLB is just as (or more) competitive as the other sports with salary caps, floors, max contracts, etc. Salary caps do not prevent dynasties. Salary caps will not suddenly make the Twins a preferred destination. Just look at how the Wolves have done recruiting top players, even when willing to shell out huge money. Players don't even want to get traded to them. Not to mention salary caps would require a total overhaul of the entire revenue system for MLB requiring absolute no-go concessions from both MLB ownership and the MLBPA. Guaranteed contracts? Largely gone. Salary floor? Required. Full revenue sharing? Required. Multiple strategies to field a championship team? Eliminated.

I  gave literal, real-life examples here. 

 

[Riverbrian]

Just an honest question that I don't know the answer to... Nor do I have a solution. 

How do you get the owners to agree to an NFL type revenue disbursement when there is a disparity in the prices paid for the franchise. 

Cohen for example paid 2.4 billion for the Mets. It's worth 3.2 million according to those who posts franchise values. The Pohlads bought the team for 44 Million back in the 1984. 

If it costs Cohen to 2.4 billion to join the club of 30 owners that is now all of sudden operating on revenue being divided up equally for a level playing field.

How would you get Cohen to agree to that without calling his lawyers? And then take the same process through the rest of the 29 owners? 

Wouldn't the Mets need to be compensated accordingly off the top? 

 

 

[LA Vikes Fan]

3 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

There is only one pool of money.  Therefore, if you give the guys at the bottom more, it will take away from the guys at the top like Harper.  If not, they would have voted to give Milb players more money a long time ago.    It's not like the owners will just accept less profit.  The Dodgers and many other teams could easily make more profit if that's what they wanted to do.  Virtually every team spends in line with revenue while maintaining a reasonable profit.  There are a lot of industries with a higher average return on capital.  The only two teams that could spend significantly more are Pittsburgh and Miami.

People seem to forget that the players wanted to reduce revenue sharing and pushed hard for a higher luxury tax threshold during the last CBA.  The problem with a floor and a ceiling is that a floor has to be financially feasible for the lowest revenue team in the league.  Therefore, spending would not increase for all but a couple of teams and the difference between what they are making and what a minimum profit level would be is insignificant.  We are probably talking $25M for a couple teams.  Even if the ceiling was $220M, there are several teams that would have a $100M advantage.  There are 7 teams that spent over $220M last year.  If the amount was lowered to $220M, the incremental decrease in payroll would be $350M.  The couple of teams spending below what would be a reasonable floor would not remotely make up for the difference.  I just don't see a cap and floor as a solution the players would accept.

I think you make an excellent point. A simple cap and floor system is not, by itself, going to provide the competitive balance we seek. It has to be combined with increased revenue sharing such that the floor is closer to at least $100 million. It can’t be $50 million or $75 million. Using current economics, it seems to be a reasonable range would be a floor of about $100 million and a cap of about $225 million. There is still going to be big advantages for some teams, but it will raise the floor spending for others, give teams an incentive to at least chase midtier free agents that can improve their team, and should keep the middle level of players from being simply discarded for Younger, cheaper models. That should provide a more competitive environment.

Unfortunately, therein lies the rub. The only way that works for certain lower revenue teams would be to have increased sharing of TV and other media revenue, which doesn’t really work for some of the teams like the Dodgers, Yankees, etc., who were being asked to share their revenue. It also frankly also goes against the grain of some of the baseball owners who don’t want to spend money and are only interested in squeezing out short term profit. I think the real underlying issue here is that you have a subset of the owners who simply are not particularly good business people, only interested in squeezing nickels out of not great situations, and have no vision that includes putting a better product in the field at increased expense in order to generate increased revenue. It will be interesting to see if the inclusion of private equity makes the situation better or if the private equity money is even more short term focused, and therefore simply makes the situation worse. Could go either way.
 

Anyway, I completely agree that a simple camp and floor system is not going to solve the overall problem unless it’s part of a new system that includes increased revenue sharing. In other words, become more like the NFL and NBA. I don’t see the baseball owners as a group, or the players for that matter, having that kind of vision. They look more like a group of people desperately trying to hold onto what they have as it erodes than they do a group of people willing to take risk to increase the pie. Unfortunately, the most likely result of that attitude is a slow erosion of baseball’s profitability and position in the sports landscape. In short, a continuation of what is already occurring.

[Major League Ready]

7 hours ago, Riverbrian said:

Just an honest question that I don't know the answer to... Nor do I have a solution. 

How do you get the owners to agree to an NFL type revenue disbursement when there is a disparity in the prices paid for the franchise. 

Cohen for example paid 2.4 billion for the Mets. It's worth 3.2 million according to those who posts franchise values. The Pohlads bought the team for 44 Million back in the 1984. 

If it costs Cohen to 2.4 billion to join the club of 30 owners that is now all of sudden operating on revenue being divided up equally for a level playing field.

How would you get Cohen to agree to that without calling his lawyers? And then take the same process through the rest of the 29 owners? 

Wouldn't the Mets need to be compensated accordingly off the top? 

I have been asking the same questions for a couple years.  The top revenue teams are not going to agree to just give away a large portion of their competitive advantage along with enough revenue loss to drop the value of their franchise by 25% or more.  I hear a lot of ideas that would be nice for those of us that are fans of mid and small market teams but like you I just don't know how you resolve this problem.  I thought keeping the luxury tax down was possible last CBA with all the concessions owners made especially given a lot of that money goes to revenue sharing but the players were not bending even a little.   

[Riverbrian]

6 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

I have been asking the same questions for a couple years.  The top revenue teams are not going to agree to just give away a large portion of their competitive advantage along with enough revenue loss to drop the value of their franchise by 25% or more.  I hear a lot of ideas that would be nice for those of us that are fans of mid and small market teams but like you I just don't know how you resolve this problem.  I thought keeping the luxury tax down was possible last CBA with all the concessions owners made especially given a lot of that money goes to revenue sharing but the players were not bending even a little.   

With your knowledge in these matters. I like knowing that you are having the same recurring thoughts. 

 

[NYCTK]

3 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

...but the players were not bending even a little.   

Status quo is still very owner friendly. 6 mlb seasons of cost control on every single player is a big hole to start in for the mlbpa. 

[tony&rodney]

What 16 teams/owners are going to vote to lose money by locking out the players? Name them. 

Did I miss the comments on every MLB club opening their books? 

The MLBPA has the money to pay every player a livable wage for a couple years if the owners want to lock out the players for a lengthy period. MLB would then also lose their Sherman Anti-trust Exemption.

Those who are counting on a long lockout (zero chance the players go on strike) from the owners are suggesting that billionaires are ok with losing large amounts of money. I would be less surprised by the Twins in the 2026 World Series than I would be by a lockout that lasted more than mid April, 2027. The rich kids will argue amongst themselves and come up with something that the majority of teams can live with for the next five years. I'm guessing there is some shifting of how revenue is shared, expectations of spending, and increased penalties for spending too much money. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

While I will just say I have zero idea what will actually happen, it does surprise me that people think there are  billionaires who will agree to lose money or are interested in ethics.

Any suggestion that the players should get even a penny less is rather absurd. I have never met someone who bought a ticket to any sports event because they wanted to see the owners, college president, principal, etc. That's just silly. 

[jorgenswest]

On 12/22/2025 at 6:07 AM, bean5302 said:

Hard cap doesn't fix anything. The NHL, NBA, and NFL have even more competitive imbalance than baseball.

Intriguing. I don’t know how to think about a league’s competitive balance. How would we measure the degree of competitive imbalance?

Variance in Wins? Playoff success? Would the year to year variation of teams in a league with more competitive balance be greater?

 

[tony&rodney]

28 minutes ago, jorgenswest said:

Intriguing. I don’t know how to think about a league’s competitive balance. How would we measure the degree of competitive imbalance?

Variance in Wins? Playoff success? Would the year to year variation of teams in a league with more competitive balance be greater?

 

Yah. I am not sure if leagues can be compared. A quick look at winning percentages shows baseball as most balanced ... but like I said previously the comparisons are not easily done. MLB had zero teams finish above a 60% win rate and 2 teams finish below a 40% win rate. NFL (as of today) sits with 14 teams at or above 60% wins and 10 teams are below a 40% win rate. Difficult to compare for many reasons, which is why I'm a little surprised that so many folks use the other leagues as examples. Discussions and arguments are always fun to read.

[Woof Bronzer]

32 minutes ago, jorgenswest said:

Intriguing. I don’t know how to think about a league’s competitive balance. How would we measure the degree of competitive imbalance?

Variance in Wins? Playoff success? Would the year to year variation of teams in a league with more competitive balance be greater?

 

Yeah this is the issue, he defines "competitive imbalance"

 

On 12/26/2025 at 9:32 AM, bean5302 said:

I answered it essentially with "I do not care. Nobody cares where dynasties come from." In general, fans of sports hate dynasties (when their team isn't part of it). Salary caps won't change the fact there are dynasties.

 

 

You used the existence of dynasties to prove that salary caps don't work.  I'm saying dynasties are not the result of salary caps.  What would you consider the Dodgers?

You still have not answered the question:  when is the last time 2 teams in the bottom half of payroll played in the Series?  

[Woof Bronzer]

On 12/25/2025 at 10:20 AM, LA Vikes Fan said:

And that is one of the reasons that the NFL and NBA are more popular than baseball. No matter who you cheer for in those leagues, you have a chance to win a championship. Well, unless you cheer for the Vikings. 

Exactly.  "Parity" doesn't mean a different team wins every year.  It means every team has a chance every year.  Can't say that about 15 MLB teams each season.  

[NYCTK]

28 minutes ago, Woof Bronzer said:

You still have not answered the question:  when is the last time 2 teams in the bottom half of payroll played in the Series?  

Completely arbitrary measure you've picked to prove your point. Check the average salary rank of Finale participants and you'll find your point disappears. 

[NYCTK]

27 minutes ago, Woof Bronzer said:

Exactly.  "Parity" doesn't mean a different team wins every year.  It means every team has a chance every year.  Can't say that about 15 MLB teams each season.  

MLB is different. Players take years to develop and, therefore, so do teams. Not every team should be competing every year. For example, it's entirely stupid for the Twins to pretend as if they're going to compete in 2026 and everyone knows it. 

[jorgenswest]

27 minutes ago, tony&rodney said:

A quick look at winning percentages shows baseball as most balanced

Is that looking at the range in any year? I think the long length of the schedule would tend to shrink that range. I wonder what the year to year variance in winning percentage is for each team. I guess the 162 would impact that also.

Would looking a playoff participation over the last 10 years be helpful? Is the ratio of playoff teams close enough to make that work? I would think a more competitively balanced league would have fewer teams with near 100% or 0%.

[Woof Bronzer]

On 12/27/2025 at 10:57 AM, NYCTK said:

Completely arbitrary measure you've picked to prove your point. Check the average salary rank of Finale participants and you'll find your point disappears. 

Not arbitrary at all.  Both the NBA and NFL championship series in 2025 featured teams in the bottom half of payroll.  The poster claimed that MLB has the most parity of all the sports, so my point is in response to that absurd claim. 

I think it would be ridiculous to call MLB "the king of parity" if it's been several decades years since 2 teams in the bottom half of payroll compete for the championship, but that's just my opinion.  

[TNtwins85]

On 12/27/2025 at 11:02 AM, jorgenswest said:

Is that looking at the range in any year? I think the long length of the schedule would tend to shrink that range. I wonder what the year to year variance in winning percentage is for each team. I guess the 162 would impact that also.

Would looking a playoff participation over the last 10 years be helpful? Is the ratio of playoff teams close enough to make that work? I would think a more competitively balanced league would have fewer teams with near 100% or 0%.

According to data of what different teams make the playoffs each year the NFL has the most parity but it’s more based on a shorter schedule and more divisions that offer more teams the opportunity to take a close division since it comes down to 1 game or a tie breaker based on head to head. In the NFL 28 of 32 teams have qualified in the last 5 years. 23/30 in MLB and 25/30 in the NBA. The NFL and MLB are more quality roster driven where as the NBA is more star driven per team despite a larger field. The NBA typically ranks lowest in parity (star-driven dynasties limit spread), while NHL and MLB are close contenders depending on the timeframe. Parity debates vary by metric (e.g., championships favor NFL/NHL; regular-season win spreads favor MLB), but playoff appearances point to the NFL. Despite the massive differences in leagues there’s no clear cut overall winner in the parity question. This was but one metric and each favors a different league. Really though, if you take out the 3-4 worst year over year historically bad teams from each league it’s probably a wash. 

[TNtwins85]

On 12/29/2025 at 8:39 AM, Woof Bronzer said:

Not arbitrary at all.  Both the NBA and NFL championship series in 2025 featured teams in the bottom half of payroll.  The poster claimed that MLB has the most parity of all the sports, so my point is in response to that absurd claim. 

I think it would be ridiculous to call MLB "the king of parity" if it's been several decades years since 2 teams in the bottom half of payroll compete for the championship, but that's just my opinion.  

Although it is silly to say baseball has the most parity it is also silly to say that there’s more parity in the NBA and NFL based on one season. Looking through all the measurements of parity between the leagues based on different metrics over 5-6 years there’s not much difference at all if you simply eliminate the 3-4 historically worst teams of each league. They’re all basically the same despite the different league structures, how the rules of each game apply, divisional structures etc. not as cut and dry as most assume.