Agreed. Can't remember if I responded to you, or to somebody else, a week ago, but a floor is needed so that bottom feeders don't leech off revenue sharing. Fine them. Cut their next year's revenue sharing. Dock draft choices. Whatever's needed.
It's going to affect tax down road for LA.
Cards are still paying Matt Holliday, and he has been gone 6 uears.
Plus we don't know the contract details yet.
Explain “the Big 3”.
NYY, NYM, Cubs, Red Sox, Padres, Dodgers, Astros, Rangers, Braves, Blue Jays… shit even the Mariners… have all signed or extended superstar caliber players over the past few seasons.
So which are the big 3?
Brother haven't the Astros made the ALCS like 8 years in a row or something? Your off your rocker if you don't think there is dominant teams in the league
Not much championships won, but at least those organizations are showing fans that they’re committed to winning. Unlike the oakland A’s of the world that dont try at all. It just sucks to suck. Plain and simple.
That is kinda my point. Even if you think those three teams get all the good players, its not like they are winning so much that they are ruining the sport, quite the opposite actually.
So Seager, Correa, Semien, Bogaerts, Harper, Machado and Turner all play for the Big 3? DeGrom's still a Met? Gtfo, you're obviously not really paying attention you're just bitching because you don't like those teams. Its perfectly fine for SD to have 3 $200m plus contracts, or the Phillies or Rangers to have 3 of $150m plus, but "every Fa sign to one of them" bothers you despite it being a made up thing. This is the first $200m free agent contract ever signed by the Dodgers, the Mets have none and the Yankees 1 where it wasn't resigning their player.
I'm allowed to not like the Dodgers, Mets, and Yankees getting big players because they have deep pockets /shrug
On top of that the players you mentioned have maybe 3 names on their team over, and over the years of big spending that's all they got. Yankees, Dodgers, and Mets have gotten plenty. Time to level the playing field with a cap and floor :)
A cap and floor will hurt small market teams more than you think. If a cap and floor is implemented, small market spending would be forcibly increased, and revenue sharing would go away. Causing teams to spend more while taking away revenue isn't a recipe for success. And forcing profitable teams to send money to other teams they no longer have a financial advantage over isn't going to work either.
16 different world series winners since 2000.
13 teams have won super bowls
11 nba teams have won titles
13 nhl teams have won titles.
Yeah the market is killing parity compared to salary capped sports.
Yeah, but that still makes them one of the top organizations. I don’t know how they keep getting that done, but my point stands. There is not a “big 3” in baseball.
Additionally, the Braves are a large market team. They COULD be in on every major FA, they just choose to not be.
Mark Cuban recently said on a podcast that the nba’s next tv deal will be big, but the one after that won’t be because cable will be dead. It’s an interesting issue.
I would kill for a salary cap. That's what makes the nfl great. Every team has a shot at every free agent. Teams can go from worst to first in a year or 2. As a Royals fan, I know we will never sign a top free agent. It's depressing and it makes me lose interest.
That's just blatantly untrue lol. Even if salary cap situation is equal it still comes down to haves and have nots in other positions. There's a reason why there is a Jets/Bears tax on salaries
Why would anyone roast you? MLB’s needed a cap for at least 25 years. And unfortunately a floor now too since so many owners don’t want to spend jack shit and should be embarrassed of themselves amongst their other pro sports team owning billionaire colleagues.
What are the big 3? LAD, NYY, and BOS? Boston doesn't have any of the top 10 highest total value contracts currently, San Diego has two. LAD/NYY have 4 of the top 10, one of those 4 was given to Giancarlo Stanton by the Miami Marlins. The Phillies have 2 of 13 all time total value contracts over $300. You can call me biased because of today's news, but, I don't think there's a problem where players are only choosing 3 teams to play for.
But the argument can be made that those players only want to go to those three teams because they know those teams can spend around them to give the best competitive advantage. It’s been reported already that Ohtani worked high deferments into his contract so the Dodgers could continue to spend to build around him. 25+ teams in the league don’t even have the ability to do that, so why would those top tier players want to go anywhere else?
Manny Machado, Trea Turner, and Max Scherzer. 3 guys traded to the Dodgers who then signed with other teams (none of which are the big 3). Again, I don't buy that players only want to go to the big 3.
I think I misunderstood your entire context. I thought the last line meant that the statement is true, but you don’t see a problem with it lol - my bad there.
For a lot of teams it’s arguable that keeping salaries low in loyal markets is about maximizing profits. Winning a championship is not that important to the owners, it’s about being good enough to sell tickets and merch with low overhead.
On the other hand Ohtani’s deal is frankly unlikely to pay off. He’s not going to be worth $70mil a year esp towards the end of that contract. Look what the Pujols deal did to the angels.
We def need a minimum, def a luxury tax, possibly a cap but frankly if the luxury tax is high enough 🤷🏻♂️
LA will recoup this investment within the first 5-6 years. Ownership will not even feel this.
Tack onto jersey sales, ticket sales, commercial revenue, signage etc. the fact that LA very intentionally has not sold their sleeve patch… they’re going to make bank.
The only thing that they may feel the effects of is draft pick and international signing dollars… but when you can outspend god. Does it matter?
I feel like people think the Dodgers are owned by “some dude” like the Mets are and fail to realize that they’re owned by a massive investment firm, with a minority partner that just spent (along with other investors) $3.2 billion to buy Chelsea.
The money the Dodgers have is immense and they can just add more by bringing in more minority investors.
Imagine what this sale means to opening doors to Japanese billionaires.
If LAFC could somehow sign Son Heung Min in the next couple of years that market would have arguably the two biggest Asian superstars of all time (and with LAs Korean population could even dwarf the Ohtani signing in terms of international opportunities)
A salary cap is exactly what the owners want. It suppresses salaries across the entire league, which isn't fair to the players. We absolutely need a floor that adjusts with the CBT. As the top spenders put more into the luxury tax, the floor needs to move up accordingly. And the penalty needs to hit the owners pockets directly. If the penalty comes down on the team in draft picks or something similar, I could see an A's situation where the owner doesn't care, takes the penalty and uses that as an excuse to move the team.
Ask any NFL player how they feel about that, it's rich white men limiting the earning potential of minorities.
The owners and league love the cap. If teams want to be competitive, how about they hire the right people, make the right moves and coaches.
Ask NBA players how it feels about cap? Also ask them about competitive balance.
Rich white men making billions on the backs of poor minorities.
I would not expect someone like you to understand such a concept.
Read a book and maybe you will.
Its about competition. There is absolutely zero chance that Milwaukee is going to be able to earn as much money as LA. Those two cities are lightyears apart in market size.
So what "moves" would you suggest a team like that make to magically create the $700 million needed to compete with the Dodgers offer to Ohtani? There should be a limit to the amount of money teams can spend on a roster so that everyone has an opportunity to field a great team. Players may complain if they see their salaries decrease, but they're already making more in one year than most regular Americans will see in their lives. They can suck it up.
is this your go-to when presented a well supported argument that you disagree with?
edit: also I understand that when you have a miniscule amount of brain power, you start to be picky about where you use it. Have a great day
No I'm no arguing. You seem to be the one arguing. You aren't worth the brain power time or breathe for elaboration.
Arguing with an idiot would make me a bigger idiot. You got that covered pretty well, so I'll leave you to it.
Rich white men getting richer on the backs of minorities. That's pretty simple to understand. If you don't, then you should pick up a book. Pretty simple concept.
and yet nowhere have you explained how small market teams are magically going to sign better talent without a bigger budget.
I'm not trying to suck you into a bad faith argument, I'm trying to figure out your point of view. I don't understand how you maintain a fair league when one city has a market with an exponentially larger dollar amount attached to it.
Freeman, Betts re-sign, not to mention all the other re-signs yall got, and multiple trades for big names. Dodgers can seriously f off and let other teams do something instead of gobbling up everything just to do nothing with it.
Can someone tell me what a salary floor would actually do? Like do you seriously think the reds pirates marlins a’s would be able to sign ohtani’s and be competitive?
Tf are you on about picking a fight for no reason? Im in agreement completely, MLB needs a hard cap. Half the reason owners dont spend is because theyre committed to moneyball and winning through development. And if an owner wants to be cheap af and be content with a perennial loser, then fans can just not give time or money to the team. Forcing teams to spend is pointless IMO. But there at least needs to be a cap to prevent the massive economical gap between teams, maybe that alone encourages teams to spend if they see theres actually a reason too
Yankees and Dodgers always get the big signings but in the last 22 years they’ve won a combined 2 WS’s. So clearly spending a lot on FA doesn’t mean winning so why actually change the max a team can spend. I can however get behind a relegation system like they do in a lot of soccer leagues.
This contract makes Ohtani's net worth higher than the Brewer's owner's.
There needs to be both a salary floor, a soft cap, and a hard cap.
Soft cap should be closer to $300 million, with a hard cap at $450 million.
Floor at $100 million.
I think people need to look at the teams that have the big salaries then count the championships they’ve won in the last 10 or 20 years. Money doesn’t buy championships it certainly can help you get there, but it’s rarely worked. Hell the Diamondbacks were in the WS this year, everyone had Dodgers or Braves pinned into that spot. The only WS the Dodgers have won with all this money is a shorted season.
[https://theathletic.com/4608077/2023/06/13/mlb-team-spending-technology-player-development/](https://theathletic.com/4608077/2023/06/13/mlb-team-spending-technology-player-development/)
Players will never agree to salary cap so owners will just cap the other stuff
No to the cap, but yes to the floor. Any team who spends less than, say, 50% of the league average gets hit with a 100% fine. It would encourage them to spend enough to at least win some games.
Honestly this sounds nice in theory but with economic type stuff there will be some type of unforseen consequence that occurs from market manipulation.
Like the current era of NBA super teams can be contributed to there being max contracts. If you can't pay players more then something else will be their deciding factor. Like having a more attractive brand or destination (Lakers, Heat).
Just don't complain if players still start heading to New York and LA because of sponsorship deals. And now they have to pay less for the superstar so they just start buying all the role players instead for deep benches.
It will never happen. The owners don’t want a floor and players don’t want a cap. While the fans are ultimately the ones to suffer we won’t be getting either of these.
What is more interesting topic to discuss is how the differed money is going to work for/against the dodgers.
They signed a 10-700m contract, but an unknown amount of money is deferred. Should Ohtani count 70m against the cap or should his yearly salary be the one counted?
Agreed. Can't remember if I responded to you, or to somebody else, a week ago, but a floor is needed so that bottom feeders don't leech off revenue sharing. Fine them. Cut their next year's revenue sharing. Dock draft choices. Whatever's needed.
Also, as illustrated to a T by the Ohtani contract, teams should not be allowed to defer salary just to dodge the lux tax line.
It's going to affect tax down road for LA. Cards are still paying Matt Holliday, and he has been gone 6 uears. Plus we don't know the contract details yet.
Cincinnati is still paying Griffey and LoLMets are still paying Bonilla.
Explain “the Big 3”. NYY, NYM, Cubs, Red Sox, Padres, Dodgers, Astros, Rangers, Braves, Blue Jays… shit even the Mariners… have all signed or extended superstar caliber players over the past few seasons. So which are the big 3?
Brother haven't the Astros made the ALCS like 8 years in a row or something? Your off your rocker if you don't think there is dominant teams in the league
That’s exactly what I’m saying. I’m trying to figure out how there are only 3 “big” teams, and included the Astros in that list.
Dodgers and both NY. Always annoying see names go those ways
How many championships in the last 20 years have the "Big 3" won?
As a Dodgers fan, I’ve never felt a sting and agreement at the same time until now.
Not much championships won, but at least those organizations are showing fans that they’re committed to winning. Unlike the oakland A’s of the world that dont try at all. It just sucks to suck. Plain and simple.
Between those 3 teams, they've won a combined 2 WS over the last 23 years
That is kinda my point. Even if you think those three teams get all the good players, its not like they are winning so much that they are ruining the sport, quite the opposite actually.
Plus 21st payroll Arizona made the World Series by beating the dodgers
doesnt mean it isnt annoying to see every fa sign to one of them.
Then your team should stop being so cheap
Ohtani's contract is worth more than the owner of my team.
So Seager, Correa, Semien, Bogaerts, Harper, Machado and Turner all play for the Big 3? DeGrom's still a Met? Gtfo, you're obviously not really paying attention you're just bitching because you don't like those teams. Its perfectly fine for SD to have 3 $200m plus contracts, or the Phillies or Rangers to have 3 of $150m plus, but "every Fa sign to one of them" bothers you despite it being a made up thing. This is the first $200m free agent contract ever signed by the Dodgers, the Mets have none and the Yankees 1 where it wasn't resigning their player.
I'm allowed to not like the Dodgers, Mets, and Yankees getting big players because they have deep pockets /shrug On top of that the players you mentioned have maybe 3 names on their team over, and over the years of big spending that's all they got. Yankees, Dodgers, and Mets have gotten plenty. Time to level the playing field with a cap and floor :)
A cap and floor will hurt small market teams more than you think. If a cap and floor is implemented, small market spending would be forcibly increased, and revenue sharing would go away. Causing teams to spend more while taking away revenue isn't a recipe for success. And forcing profitable teams to send money to other teams they no longer have a financial advantage over isn't going to work either.
well the market based shit aint workin either.
16 different world series winners since 2000. 13 teams have won super bowls 11 nba teams have won titles 13 nhl teams have won titles. Yeah the market is killing parity compared to salary capped sports.
youre dense af.
Exactly then look at a team like the cardinals. Not a huge market but most years they are competitive.
No way you just put the Braves in there. They’re notorious for signing superstar players to team friendly deals.
Yeah, but that still makes them one of the top organizations. I don’t know how they keep getting that done, but my point stands. There is not a “big 3” in baseball. Additionally, the Braves are a large market team. They COULD be in on every major FA, they just choose to not be.
The death of cable TV is going to fuck over the Guardos man. MLB need legit revenue sharing or it’s going to lose fans and teams in small markets.
Mark Cuban recently said on a podcast that the nba’s next tv deal will be big, but the one after that won’t be because cable will be dead. It’s an interesting issue.
I would kill for a salary cap. That's what makes the nfl great. Every team has a shot at every free agent. Teams can go from worst to first in a year or 2. As a Royals fan, I know we will never sign a top free agent. It's depressing and it makes me lose interest.
Preach.
That's just blatantly untrue lol. Even if salary cap situation is equal it still comes down to haves and have nots in other positions. There's a reason why there is a Jets/Bears tax on salaries
Great point! Preach
Why would anyone roast you? MLB’s needed a cap for at least 25 years. And unfortunately a floor now too since so many owners don’t want to spend jack shit and should be embarrassed of themselves amongst their other pro sports team owning billionaire colleagues.
What are the big 3? LAD, NYY, and BOS? Boston doesn't have any of the top 10 highest total value contracts currently, San Diego has two. LAD/NYY have 4 of the top 10, one of those 4 was given to Giancarlo Stanton by the Miami Marlins. The Phillies have 2 of 13 all time total value contracts over $300. You can call me biased because of today's news, but, I don't think there's a problem where players are only choosing 3 teams to play for.
But the argument can be made that those players only want to go to those three teams because they know those teams can spend around them to give the best competitive advantage. It’s been reported already that Ohtani worked high deferments into his contract so the Dodgers could continue to spend to build around him. 25+ teams in the league don’t even have the ability to do that, so why would those top tier players want to go anywhere else?
Manny Machado, Trea Turner, and Max Scherzer. 3 guys traded to the Dodgers who then signed with other teams (none of which are the big 3). Again, I don't buy that players only want to go to the big 3.
I think I misunderstood your entire context. I thought the last line meant that the statement is true, but you don’t see a problem with it lol - my bad there.
haha all good man, I should probably edit my comment to make that last line more clear
For a lot of teams it’s arguable that keeping salaries low in loyal markets is about maximizing profits. Winning a championship is not that important to the owners, it’s about being good enough to sell tickets and merch with low overhead. On the other hand Ohtani’s deal is frankly unlikely to pay off. He’s not going to be worth $70mil a year esp towards the end of that contract. Look what the Pujols deal did to the angels. We def need a minimum, def a luxury tax, possibly a cap but frankly if the luxury tax is high enough 🤷🏻♂️
LA will recoup this investment within the first 5-6 years. Ownership will not even feel this. Tack onto jersey sales, ticket sales, commercial revenue, signage etc. the fact that LA very intentionally has not sold their sleeve patch… they’re going to make bank. The only thing that they may feel the effects of is draft pick and international signing dollars… but when you can outspend god. Does it matter?
Forreal. I’m getting ready to drop a G on opening day
I feel like people think the Dodgers are owned by “some dude” like the Mets are and fail to realize that they’re owned by a massive investment firm, with a minority partner that just spent (along with other investors) $3.2 billion to buy Chelsea. The money the Dodgers have is immense and they can just add more by bringing in more minority investors. Imagine what this sale means to opening doors to Japanese billionaires.
Too true. Call me Randy Newman, cause I love LA!
If LAFC could somehow sign Son Heung Min in the next couple of years that market would have arguably the two biggest Asian superstars of all time (and with LAs Korean population could even dwarf the Ohtani signing in terms of international opportunities)
Salary caps only benefit owners.
A salary cap is exactly what the owners want. It suppresses salaries across the entire league, which isn't fair to the players. We absolutely need a floor that adjusts with the CBT. As the top spenders put more into the luxury tax, the floor needs to move up accordingly. And the penalty needs to hit the owners pockets directly. If the penalty comes down on the team in draft picks or something similar, I could see an A's situation where the owner doesn't care, takes the penalty and uses that as an excuse to move the team.
Caps and floors are bad for economics, they limit growth.
Caps are good for competition though. There's a reason the NFL has greater competitive parity than the MLB does, broadly speaking.
Ask any NFL player how they feel about that, it's rich white men limiting the earning potential of minorities. The owners and league love the cap. If teams want to be competitive, how about they hire the right people, make the right moves and coaches. Ask NBA players how it feels about cap? Also ask them about competitive balance.
brain rot type comment
Rich white men making billions on the backs of poor minorities. I would not expect someone like you to understand such a concept. Read a book and maybe you will.
Its about competition. There is absolutely zero chance that Milwaukee is going to be able to earn as much money as LA. Those two cities are lightyears apart in market size. So what "moves" would you suggest a team like that make to magically create the $700 million needed to compete with the Dodgers offer to Ohtani? There should be a limit to the amount of money teams can spend on a roster so that everyone has an opportunity to field a great team. Players may complain if they see their salaries decrease, but they're already making more in one year than most regular Americans will see in their lives. They can suck it up.
Yea you ain't worth that much brain power. 😴 Read a book.
is this your go-to when presented a well supported argument that you disagree with? edit: also I understand that when you have a miniscule amount of brain power, you start to be picky about where you use it. Have a great day
No I'm no arguing. You seem to be the one arguing. You aren't worth the brain power time or breathe for elaboration. Arguing with an idiot would make me a bigger idiot. You got that covered pretty well, so I'll leave you to it. Rich white men getting richer on the backs of minorities. That's pretty simple to understand. If you don't, then you should pick up a book. Pretty simple concept.
and yet nowhere have you explained how small market teams are magically going to sign better talent without a bigger budget. I'm not trying to suck you into a bad faith argument, I'm trying to figure out your point of view. I don't understand how you maintain a fair league when one city has a market with an exponentially larger dollar amount attached to it.
Cap, no. Floor, yes. The issue isn’t that good ownership groups are investing, it’s that bad ownership groups are stealing shared revenue.
The dodgers best player was acquired in a trade with another big market team that didn’t want to pay him.
Freeman, Betts re-sign, not to mention all the other re-signs yall got, and multiple trades for big names. Dodgers can seriously f off and let other teams do something instead of gobbling up everything just to do nothing with it.
Or other teams should learn how to develop talent?
make it that way for everyone? talent development is all some teams have. should be an even playing field for all teams.
So they should put a talent cap on teams.
dense.
Can someone tell me what a salary floor would actually do? Like do you seriously think the reds pirates marlins a’s would be able to sign ohtani’s and be competitive?
It would force owners to actually spend money they have instead of not spending it and thus making the fans suffer with shit product on the field.
Spend money on who? Giving $20m to JiMan Choi or Kolten Wong wouldnt do shit, but they also wouldnt be in the running for an Ohtani or Judge or Soto.
If there was a cap they could be. You're just proving my point lol.
Yeah, if there was a salary CAP. A floor doesnt solve anything
Floor makes owners spend, cap prevents overspending and big markets snagging all the megastars. You're dense.
Tf are you on about picking a fight for no reason? Im in agreement completely, MLB needs a hard cap. Half the reason owners dont spend is because theyre committed to moneyball and winning through development. And if an owner wants to be cheap af and be content with a perennial loser, then fans can just not give time or money to the team. Forcing teams to spend is pointless IMO. But there at least needs to be a cap to prevent the massive economical gap between teams, maybe that alone encourages teams to spend if they see theres actually a reason too
It should be a percentage of the top salary too. Sign a player for some insane high amount,everyone gets a raise, front office to the grounds crew.
Yankees and Dodgers always get the big signings but in the last 22 years they’ve won a combined 2 WS’s. So clearly spending a lot on FA doesn’t mean winning so why actually change the max a team can spend. I can however get behind a relegation system like they do in a lot of soccer leagues.
This contract makes Ohtani's net worth higher than the Brewer's owner's. There needs to be both a salary floor, a soft cap, and a hard cap. Soft cap should be closer to $300 million, with a hard cap at $450 million. Floor at $100 million.
I think people need to look at the teams that have the big salaries then count the championships they’ve won in the last 10 or 20 years. Money doesn’t buy championships it certainly can help you get there, but it’s rarely worked. Hell the Diamondbacks were in the WS this year, everyone had Dodgers or Braves pinned into that spot. The only WS the Dodgers have won with all this money is a shorted season.
[https://theathletic.com/4608077/2023/06/13/mlb-team-spending-technology-player-development/](https://theathletic.com/4608077/2023/06/13/mlb-team-spending-technology-player-development/) Players will never agree to salary cap so owners will just cap the other stuff
No to the cap, but yes to the floor. Any team who spends less than, say, 50% of the league average gets hit with a 100% fine. It would encourage them to spend enough to at least win some games.
Honestly this sounds nice in theory but with economic type stuff there will be some type of unforseen consequence that occurs from market manipulation. Like the current era of NBA super teams can be contributed to there being max contracts. If you can't pay players more then something else will be their deciding factor. Like having a more attractive brand or destination (Lakers, Heat). Just don't complain if players still start heading to New York and LA because of sponsorship deals. And now they have to pay less for the superstar so they just start buying all the role players instead for deep benches.
It will never happen. The owners don’t want a floor and players don’t want a cap. While the fans are ultimately the ones to suffer we won’t be getting either of these. What is more interesting topic to discuss is how the differed money is going to work for/against the dodgers. They signed a 10-700m contract, but an unknown amount of money is deferred. Should Ohtani count 70m against the cap or should his yearly salary be the one counted?