Kyle Tucker reached an agreement with the Dodgers last Thursday, and thoughts have been swirling around my brain ever since. Sometimes I have trouble sleeping because I keep writing this post in my head. I’m fortunate enough to have this website as my outlet, so here goes.
It feels almost quaint that a year ago, the Dodgers signing Tanner Scott seemed to be the straw that broke the camel’s back. I ran a poll around that time, asking, “Do you want a salary cap in the next MLB CBA?” 36,589 people responded, and two-thirds said yes. It was later pointed out to me that I should have made clear that a cap comes with a floor.
If I had phrased it as “a salary cap and floor,” the number may have been even higher than 67.2%. I also think that if I run the poll again in the coming weeks, an even higher percentage will vote for a cap, since the last year has seen the Dodgers win a second consecutive World Series and then add Edwin Diaz and Tucker.
The poll had a second question: “Are you willing to lose the entire 2027 MLB season for a salary cap?” 27,629 people responded to the second question, implying about a quarter of those who answered the first question either didn’t see the second just below it or didn’t care to grapple with the consequences of a salary cap.
For those who did respond, the second question was more evenly split: 50.18% said yes, they would lose the entire 2027 season for a salary cap. That was stunning to me, because I view a lost season as a disastrous outcome that must be avoided.
Evan Drellich of The Athletic spoke to a source who made it clear ownership will push for a salary cap during upcoming CBA negotiations. But according to Drellich’s colleague Ken Rosenthal, a salary cap is “considered highly unlikely by many in the sport” and “many player agents and club executives are skeptical games will be lost” in 2027.
Even if this round of negotiations doesn’t result in a cap, I think it’ll happen in my lifetime. If necessary, MLBTR can adapt to that new world and hopefully become experts in explaining salary cap nuances.
The purported goal of ownership is not to get a salary cap, though. It’s said to be parity, or competitive balance. That doesn’t mean every team has an equal chance to win each year or dynasties are impossible. It does mean that all 30 teams have roughly the same ability to sign top free agents and retain their own stars. I think fans want a small market team like the Pirates to have about the same chance as the Dodgers to sign Kyle Tucker, to be able to keep Paul Skenes. Perhaps they want a world where teams can differentiate from each other based on drafting ability, player development, shrewd trades, and the intelligence of their allotted free agent signings, but not so much on payroll.
At the risk of stating the obvious, I do not think the Pirates can run a $400MM payroll and remain profitable. The Dodgers reportedly reached a billion dollars in revenue in 2024. Many teams, the Pirates included, generated roughly one-third of that. This does not feel fair or good for baseball.
The Dodgers are so profitable that the “dollars per WAR” they’re willing to pay seems to be on another planet. Tucker projects for 4.5 WAR in 2026, and the Dodgers seem to be valuing that at $120MM including taxes. Even if they think he’s a 5 WAR player, they’re paying $24MM per WAR on him in 2026. With the possible exception of the Mets, who are reportedly not profitable, I don’t think any other teams are willing to pay more than $12MM per WAR.
Which brings us to the desire by many for a salary cap. A cynic might say that while owners and fans are aligned on the need for competitive balance, owners also love the salary cap idea because it will depress player salaries long-term, saving them money and increasing franchise valuations.
I consider a true “salary cap no matter what” stance from ownership to be the nuclear option. If the true goal here is parity or competitive balance, then a cap is just a means to an end, and not the only option or factor. That leads me to a series of questions.
Who should bear the financial burden of restoring competitive balance?
There is often an assumption that this whole problem should just be solved by the players making less money. I certainly understand the logic that Tucker would be just fine making $20-30MM a year instead of $60MM.
But the truth is, the average MLB player does not accumulate the six years required to reach free agency (though he may get there with less service time if he’s released). This is admittedly 18 years old, but this New York Times article points to a study suggesting the average MLB career length is 5.6 years.
Though I haven’t run my own study on the average length of ownership, I’ll venture to say it easily exceeds 5.6 years. A case can be made that if one of these parties must be stewards of the game, making financial sacrifices for the greater good of competitive balance, it should be ownership.
I think MLB would argue that they can devise a salary cap/floor system in which players will actually earn more money in total. Drellich reported last summer that commissioner Rob Manfred has suggested just that to players. There’s a trust issue here. Players may not believe Manfred is being forthright on that point or that they have a full picture of team revenue. Furthermore, they may be wary that if they allow for a cap system that grants them a percentage of revenue that is advantageous for them now, owners will eventually chip away at that percentage. Once a cap is in place, it will never be removed.
I believe common sense dictates that a model where players compete for a finite and defined pool of money means they will earn less as a group, though it may be distributed more evenly. If players eventually earn less as a group, then they will be bearing the cost of competitive balance while owners pocket the difference. I think we should at least entertain the opposite: big market teams redistribute more of their profits to smaller markets in the name of competitive balance. More on that at the end of this post.
Why is a cap the default solution for so many people?
Having read the autobiography of MLBPA forefather Marvin Miller, I don’t think there was ever a time that MLB players were winning the PR war over teams. I don’t think Miller cared. Players’ salaries are well-known and huge compared to normal people, and they’ll probably always have an uphill battle getting widespread fan support to protect that.
These days, I doubt Tony Clark has a narrative he can sell to win over a majority of baseball fans. He might say MLB actually does have competitive balance, or talk about attendance records, and World Series ratings, or suggest that some teams try hard enough to win. But Manfred will win the PR battle because he is acknowledging real widespread fan sentiment that the current system is unfair and broken.
I think it’s easiest to default to “baseball needs a salary cap” because the NFL, NBA, and NHL have one. But why do those sports have a cap? Is it because they tried many different approaches toward competitive balance and arrived at a cap? I am admittedly not a labor historian of those sports, but I think it’s mostly that those sports’ players didn’t accidentally fall backwards into a Marvin Miller, and thus their unions caved to ownership demand for a cap.
I won’t speak to the competitive balance of other sports because it’s not my area. But when people ask me whether I think an MLB salary cap would have the desired effect of competitive balance, my answer is yes. If MLB could somehow get players to agree to a cap/floor system with a tight salary range (say, $20MM), I do think the financial advantages of certain teams would be snuffed out and the smartest teams would be in the playoffs every year regardless of market size. I’d be interested to see what the payroll range would be and how small market teams would react to the floor, but the appeal is obvious.
Why does the current system have significant penalties for exceeding various payroll thresholds, but no apparent penalty for running excessively low payrolls?
There are people out there who say the “real problem” is certain MLB owners who won’t spend. I don’t think forcing the Marlins to spend another $25MM on players this winter would solve the inherent unfairness of a competitor having triple their revenue.
Still, in each CBA, MLB has succeeded in increasing the penalties for going over competitive balance tax thresholds – thresholds that sometimes don’t increase even at the rate of inflation. The initial highest tax rate was 35% on the overage; now it’s 110%. I assume that if owners abandon their pursuit of a cap at some point, they’ll at least add a new “Dodgers tier” beyond the current 110% “Cohen tax.”
But in the name of fairness and competitive balance, why is it that no real penalties exist for running extremely low payrolls?
As Rosenthal and Drellich noted in November, “If a team’s final luxury-tax payroll is not one and a half times the amount it receives in a given season from local revenue sharing, it will likely stand a better chance of losing a grievance for not properly using its revenue-sharing money to improve on-field performance, which the CBA requires.” They go on to add that “the Marlins were expected to be among the highest revenue-sharing recipients at roughly $70 million if not more,” which would necessitate a $105MM CBT payroll.
The CBA specifically says, “each Club shall use its revenue sharing receipts (including any distributions from the Commissioner’s Discretionary Fund) in an effort to improve its performance on the field.” If a team falls short of the 1.5x threshold and the MLBPA files a grievance, it’s on the team to demonstrate that it did use its revenue sharing funds to improve on-field performance.
The Marlins ran the game’s lowest CBT payroll in 2025 at about $87MM. Their 2026 CBT payroll is around $80MM right now. The MLBPA’s grievances on this seem to go nowhere, lingering for years and getting settled in CBA negotiations. I’ve seen no evidence a team has been penalized in any way for failing to meet the 1.5x floor called for in the CBA. One can imagine that if low-spender penalties had been added in 1997 when the luxury tax came into being, certain ownership groups would not have purchased teams and other, better ones might have come in.
It’s often said that it’s much easier to tweak something that’s already in the previous CBA than add something entirely new. Players have been agreeable to ever-increasing tax penalties, rather than a sea change to a cap/floor system.
And the game does already have a soft cap, ineffective as it may be against certain clubs. But I’d argue that language is also already in place for a soft floor, at least for revenue sharing recipients (the Diamondbacks, Rockies, Reds, Brewers, Pirates, Marlins, Athletics, Mariners, Tigers, Royals, Twins, Guardians, Orioles, and Rays). The MLBPA should fight for codified penalties for failing to meet the 1.5x floor, such as simply losing a portion of revenue sharing proceeds depending on how far below the team is.
A better-enforced 1.5x floor would not be a panacea. That floor led to the A’s signing Luis Severino, but certainly didn’t keep Blake Snell away from the Dodgers. But I do think that if revenue sharing money is spent well, it is a step in the direction of competitive balance.
Why do we know everything about player contracts, but very little about team revenue, team profitability, the distribution of luxury tax proceeds to teams, and especially revenue sharing?
We spend so much time on MLBTR talking about player contracts and the resulting team payrolls. This information is readily available for just about every signing; some teams put contract terms right into their announcements.
Everyone knows how much players are making, and it often works against them in terms of public perception. Conversely, we have to rely on an annual report from Forbes (or similar outlets) that provide valuations and estimates of operating income for MLB teams.
Forbes explains that the information used in their valuations “primarily came from team and league executives, sports bankers, media consultants and public documents, such as stadium lease agreements and filings related to public bonds.” The valuations, and I assume operating income/loss numbers, exclude things such as “equity stakes in other sports-related assets and mixed-use real estate projects.”
For me, it’s pretty hard to know how profitable each team is. This information is kept under lock and key by MLB. The Braves are an exception because they’re owned by a publicly traded company, and sometimes their financials are used to form guesses about other teams. Still, fans and journalists are left with inadequate information to determine what a team’s player payroll could or should be.
We also don’t know how much revenue sharing payors are paying out each year, or how much recipients receive. Bits and pieces trickle out on rare occasion. I mentioned the reported $70MM-ish received by the Marlins that Rosenthal uncovered. And Sportico suggested that in 2024, the Dodgers paid “roughly $150 million into baseball’s revenue-sharing system.”
How much money in total is paid into revenue sharing each year? We don’t know. How much of that do recipients spend on player payroll? We don’t know that either. How about these huge tax bills teams like the Dodgers, Mets, Yankees, and Phillies have incurred – where does that money go? The luxury tax brought in a record $402.6MM in 2025. Drellich reported in 2024, “MLB and the players have always essentially split luxury-tax proceeds, with half of the money going to clubs in some form, the other half to player retirement funds.” So perhaps $200MM of luxury tax money went to teams – how was that distributed specifically, and are there any rules about how it’s spent?
If you’d like to understand a bit more about how revenue sharing works, start on page 145 of the CBA. The CBA says, “The intent of the Revenue Sharing Plan is to transfer among the Clubs in each Revenue Sharing Year the amount of revenue that would have been transferred in that Year by a 48% straight pool plan, plus such transfers as may result from distributions of the Commissioner’s Discretionary Fund.” We get payors (like the Dodgers) and payees (like the Marlins) because “the Blended Net Local Revenue Pool shall be divided equally among the Clubs, with the difference between each Club’s payment into the Blended Net Local Revenue Pool and its receipt therefrom producing the Club’s net payment or net receipt.”
Does the Shohei Ohtani unicorn theory have any validity?
Let’s talk deferrals for a minute. Many fans think this is a huge part of the problem with the Dodgers.
The Dodgers may be the villains of MLB right now, but agent Scott Boras is right there with them for many fans. Between the contracts, press conferences, puns, and dad jokes, Boras does occasionally speak truth. Boras made a statement to Drellich yesterday suggesting Shohei Ohtani is a unicorn in terms of ability and revenue generation:
“The Dodgers are not a system issue. They are the benefactors of acquiring Shohei Ohtani, MLB’s astatine. Short-lived and rare. No other player offers such past or present. Ohtani is the genius of elite performance and additional revenue streams of near $250 million annually for a short window of history. The process of acquiring Ohtani was one of fairness and equal opportunity throughout the league. A rare, short-lived element is not a reason to alter the required anchored chemistry of MLB. The mandate of stability to gain media rights optimums is the true solution to league success.”
Well, yes. Peak Ohtani is perhaps the best and most unique player the game has ever seen, and he’s from a foreign country. As such, he generates a huge amount of money for the Dodgers, which we likely won’t see again in our lifetimes.
Boras didn’t directly mention the other extremely rare factor with Ohtani: he wanted to defer 97.1% of his contract. As I wrote a year ago, “money is worth more now than it is in the future, so players have not exactly been clamoring to wait until retirement age to receive 97.1% of their contract.”
But Ohtani is unique, and it made sense for him partially because of his endorsement money. His decision did have a negative effect on competitive balance. If deferred money had been outlawed, the Dodgers would have had to pay Ohtani a straight $46MM or so per year. That they’re instead paying him $2MM per year right now means they have $44MM extra to spend because of Ohtani’s choice. That is exactly why Ohtani proposed this structure to multiple teams: he wanted to free up money so his team would use it on other players and have a better chance of winning.
Using Kyle Tucker’s $57.1MM AAV as an example, you could say Ohtani’s extreme deferral choice bought the Dodgers 77% of Tucker, probably good for 3+ wins by itself tihs year (unless you count Tucker’s tax penalty, in which case it’s more like 37%).
If I was the MLBPA, I’d probably just cave on this issue for the PR benefit. Players like the flexibility of deferred money, but limitations could be added that would only affect the next Ohtani-type player who attempts to defer 97.1% of his contract, which is unlikely to ever exist.
In theory, could the competitive balance issue be solved entirely by ownership?
I have plenty of friends who love baseball and feel that MLB needs a salary cap. Most of them don’t seem excited about canceling a season, though, so I’ve floated the question of whether there might be other ways to get competitive balance.
Revenue sharing is a longstanding effort to level the playing field. As the CBA explains, “The Clubs and the Association recognize that the participation of two Clubs is necessary for the production of the on-field competition that the Clubs sell to the public. The net payments and net receipts required by this Article XXIV reflect a continuation of the amounts paid directly to the visiting Clubs and are in recognition of the principle that visiting Clubs should share, and in fact traditionally have shared, in the economic benefits jointly generated by the Game at another Club’s home field.”
Much like the players and the salary cap, in the last CBA negotiations in 2021-22, when it came to topics such as “getting to free agency and arbitration earlier, in revenue sharing and in service time,” MLB took “hardline stances,” according to Drellich. In February 2022, MLB.com’s Mark Feinsand wrote, “MLB has maintained from the start that reducing revenue sharing and expanding Super 2 eligibility are non-starters for the league.”
It would seem, then, that both sides have at least one “non-starter.” For the players, it’s a salary cap. And for MLB, one of their various non-starters is revenue sharing. Perhaps the players don’t have a seat at the table on how much money is paid into revenue sharing, how much each team receives, and how that money is spent.
We know that 14 teams are receiving revenue sharing, apparently topping out around the Marlins’ $70MM in recent years (that does not include luxury tax distributions). We also know that the Dodgers have a level of revenue and profit that many feel are breaking the game. Fans are very concerned about competitive balance, and the commissioner says he wants to address their concerns.
A salary cap is the widely-discussed solution, but one that could cause the loss of a season. It’s worth noting, too, that regular season games and the World Series could get cancelled and owners still might fail in installing a salary cap, as happened in 1994-95. In that scenario, we get all of the destruction of the game and none of the desired competitive balance.
Another solution, then, is for MLB’s 30 owners to solve competitive balance themselves. On a rudimentary level, this would involve a team like the Dodgers contributing even more money into revenue sharing, and recipients being required to spend most of it on player payroll.
This is all theoretical, but there is an amount of money that Marlins could receive from revenue sharing that would enable them to sign Kyle Tucker for $60MM a year and still be a profitable team (whether that’s a good use of $60MM is a whole other story). The competitive balance goal is for small market teams to be able to compete for top free agents and retain their own stars, I think.
Similarly, there likely is a level of taxation, draft pick loss, and revenue sharing (all basically penalties that form a soft cap) that would make the Dodgers choose not to pay $120MM for one year of Tucker. In the present system, we have clearly not reached that level for the Dodgers, but that’s not to say it doesn’t exist. Perhaps if the Dodgers end up moving from “wildly profitable” to just “profitable,” Guggenheim would decide to sell the team to an outfit that is comfortable with that.
You can guess why we’re not actually going down this path of MLB owners solving competitive balance themselves: they’d never agree to it. Approval would be needed from 23 of the 30 ownership groups. To me, this idea is just the flip side of a salary cap, to which the players have said they will never agree. I believe both approaches to be equally viable toward improving competitive balance, except that neither side wants to be the one paying for it.
For those who read this entire post, thank you. I’ll be interested to read your takes in the comments, and I encourage everyone to be respectful. For Trade Rumors Front Office members, my mailbag will return next week.
I didn’t read all of that.
Deferred reading until 2030
Me neither: the dog ate my Cliff note.
I am saving it for the lockout. Gotta have something to do during the cancelled 2027 season,
This is a very long article when the answer is very short.
No.
Then why are you commenting?
Being proud and or boastful of one’s ignorance is all the rage nowadays.
Shutt up Beavis
Hey it took a long time to learn how ignorant I am.
From the President on down !!! That’s what happens folks…be proud.
just for a little chuckle. little gigglipoo. you don’t like a little giglipoo?
Super League coming 2029 after the 2027 and 2028 seasons are canceled.
The players will love it because there will be no salary cap.
Patt – Why bother commenting then?
There are people here who actually appreciate Tim’s articles a great deal and enjoy getting into deep discussions about them. And this was one hell of a great article, extremely well written and thorough and informative as usual. He no doubt put a huge amount of time and effort into it, and everyone was able to read it for free instead of it being subscriber-only. If anyone doesn’t appreciate it, out of respect can they at least not disparage it?
Tim if you’re still checking out the comments, I’d be curious to hear your expanded thoughts on certain low-payroll low-revenue baseball markets.
You mentioned Miami (“I don’t think forcing the Marlins to spend another $25MM on players this winter would solve the inherent unfairness of a competitor having triple their revenue’) ….. I believe that is a market which could absolutely generate at least twice their current revenue if they put a quality product on the field for a sustained period of time.
South Florida is among the wealthiest regions in the country. While it’s true that many of it’s residents and visitors tend to migrate north during the summer months, enough of them do live in the area year-round and would enjoy taking in games in a beautiful climate-controlled stadium.
South Florida is also heavily populated by Cubans, Venezuelans and Dominicans all of which baseball is a huge part of their culture.
At one point the Marlins drew over 3 million fans in a season despite playing in an open-air football stadium during the hot South Florida summer.
MLB approved expansion in Miami for a reason, it’s a shame they have allowed Marlins ownership to turn the team into a perennial doormat playing in front of virtually non-existent home crowds.
Then I suggest you read it.
@Tim Dierkes – thank you for putting in the effort to summarize you mental musings for us.
I think a lot of us have engaged in some of these same mental gymnastics simply for the fun of it, I know I have.
Tim, I know you said you weren’t as familiar with the ins, out, histories of other sports Salary Cap forays. But, anyone beyond a certain age recalls the 49ers dynasty era of the 80s into the 90s, which, was indirectly dismantled because of the NFL adoption of the salary cap. They used the other rules regarding contract values and guaranteed vs non money, backloading to get around limitations a couple years till it came time to pay the piper…. but it served its purpose in the end. These days you see a low more variance, with the exception of just the rare exceptional player/coach pairing (mahomes/reid; brady/bellichek) allowing dominant stretches.
MLB will be a tough nut to crack, but, I do think with the competition these days for entertainment dollars, the sport is in trouble of continued decline at its core if they don’t do something about the competitive balance issues. Personally, I think that the relaxing of compensation related to free agent losses has made the problem much worse. I miss the old A/B free agent days, there, I said it! What in theory makes it less costly to sign a free agent in terms of penalties has instead hurt compensation levels to the teams losing those players, who, arent attracting them anyways.
The teams shouldn’t be getting any compensation for players that make it to free agency.
It can be done without a cap, but not without a floor.
Have to have a floor!
Gotta have the floor, Jerry! Gotta have the floor.
There already is a floor, i.e, the MLB minimum salary per player multiplied by the number of players on the team.
That’s not a good enough floor.
Teams should be allowed to spend however much they want without restraint, but a minimum threshold of spending is obviously needed or else owners won’t do it. They’ve shown us that. The issue isn’t that teams like the Dodgers and Mets are obsessed with trying to win, the issue is that too many owners like Fisher, Nutting, and Pohlad are content to let the league and their local taxpayers subsidize their existence without ever making a serious effort to field a winning baseball team.
There a dunce cap, but a dance floor. One vowel difference
No.
Why or why not: 20k words or less
Union.
Thank you so much for writing this, Tim!
Haven’t like 23 of the 30 teams made the playoffs in the last three seasons?
The Dodgers have made the playoffs in 13 consecutive seasons, while others rebuild for half a decade before they get in the playoffs once. Then they have to start over with another rebuild because their players left in free agency. Meanwhile, the Dodgers just spend their way there. It’s the lamest thing in sports.
Couldn’t agree more, Chester.
@chester: I’ll raise you. NYY haven’t been under .500 since the early 90s. Of course they want status quo b/c with a level league that has tight salary floor & cap they could resemble the Jets or current version of Giants.
Should be like a Texas hold’em tourney-you get the chips and up to skills to strategize/play your cards right.
As a Giants fan, they went 4-13 but a new coach and better health can make them a playoff team next year. Not 5 or 6 years from now after a long rebuild hoping every young prospect they drafted is healthy through the system and blossoms into a star before they have to be paid.
I can’t speak for the Jets. Players leave there and instantly perform elsewhere.
So? Then blame those teams’ owners for not buying a team in LA. Make more money!
Chester- named after all time great White Sock-Tigger legend Chet Lemon by chance? My next door neighbor in Michigan had a free range cat. When he disappeared we’d hear her calling…”Ches—ter, Ches-ter”. The cat would sit on our porch pretending he was invisible.
Those players leave in free agency because they know the owner of the team they’re playing on won’t try to keep them. Won’t seriously match or exceed their market price. Case in point, Tigers & Skubal. Elly De La Cruz already seeing the hand writing on the wall. I don’t blame either side. It’s a free market!
The Dodgers could offer their top three prospects for Skubal, get the Tigers to accept, and then offer Skubal the chance to rip up his $32M arbitration bid and sign the same contract Tucker has. So $28M more in 2026, and three more years at $57.5M.
There’s no rational way that Skubal says no.
How much does the Dodgers’ revenue go up with a three-peat?
Only because the playoffs keep expanding. When 40% of the league makes the playoffs every year, it makes 23/30 loo far less impressive.
Other leagues have had an even higher % of playoff seeds.
Mr – When MLB expands, it will be 16 out of 32 …. 50% qualifying for the postseason is coming.
I doubt it, but even if that happens it’s not an argument that stands TODAY.
mrk – Why do you doubt it?
FACT: During the last CBA negotiations, MLB proposed expanding the postseason to a 14-team format.
FACT: MLB already has had a 16-team postseason format for one season.
Yes they proposed it and it got shot down.
And again, it still doesn’t matter if 50% make it in the future. We are talking about today and near past. MLB has had less teams as a % in comparison to other leagues and a higher # of teams have made the playoffs – hence MLB has more parity even without a cap!
mrk – Why do you doubt it?
FACT: During the last CBA negotiations, MLB already proposed a 14-team postseason format.
FACT: MLB has already had a 16-team postseason format for one season.
FACT: MLB has already discussed shortening the regular season, which would help accommodate a larger postseason field.
FACT: Expanded postseason is a concession the players union would prefer to give rather than a salary cap, etc.
I don’t follow other sports, so I honestly don’t care about their playoff systems. Baseball is different from other sports because the 162 game season is supposed to define who is the best. But when you have the #1 seed finish 15 games better than a #6 seed, that team shouldn’t have to beat them in a 5 game series. If I were in charge, the better seed would have to win 3 games to win a series. The lesser seed should have to win 3 games plus however many games they finished behind If a 6 seed finishes 10 games behind a 1 seed, they should have to win 13 out of 16 to move on.
Obviously that wouldn’t work in practical terms, but the point is that the 162 game record should matter far more than the results of a 5 game series. One shows how good a team is, the other shows how well the team was playing that week.
mrk – It was tabled, it’s not something the player’s union refuses to consider like a salary cap.
Why would players be strongly against it? They do get paid extra for playing in the postseason, and for players who are not established it’s a great way to build their value.
mrk – Postseason expansion is coming though, just like the addition of two more MLB teams is coming. And sooner than you think, with the CBA about to expire in about 10 months.
Expanding like your waistline fo sho
If cap, then floor.
If kettle, then pot.
genius.
No, it can’t. Therefore, the work stoppage next year.
Sure, just do something about the Dodgers. I don’t think there’s anything really all that problematic about the spending of the other teams, IMO. A cap somewhere between where they’re spending and everyone else is would be nice, but TECHNICALLY you could just tax their overage at like 1000% or something stupid instead.
The problem with a cap is when you have teams like the Dodgers, Mets, and Yankees that already have hundreds of millions already spent for the next several seasons and a commissioner in the tank (especially for the Dodgers) any cap is going to have to be set at a level to accommodate what they’ve already spent, while still allowing them to add where needed. The same problem will persist if you have a salary cap set for say, $350 million and three quarters of the league aren’t coming anywhere close to that
Do something about the Pohlad family. Their constant metaphorical middle fingers to Minnesota fans have done far more damage to the game than anything the Dodgers are doing.
What’s the point of rooting for a major league team that has almost no chance of keeping its best players and at best has small windows of contending, or even just being competitive, over decades? The only players they do have a chance of signing/keeping are the ones real major league teams didn’t want
I’ve been a Reds fan all my life, I don’t know how to answer this question. But, I do know capping employee wages is unAmerican – even if 10% of them are mega millionaires.
Capping wages in unions for the greater bargaining power of the group is definitely very American too. Plenty of those guys who built your teams stadium.
Meh…perhaps, when you are talking about unions that represent manual labor – and not SKILLED pros. The difference in performances between the best stock boy (been there 20 years) and a newb isn’t nearly as great as an Ohtani vs. Joe Schmo. So your union might be willing to cap a job’s rate at 20$ an hour so that you can get more rooks in, but MLB has a finite # of positions. Agreeing to cap wages in MLB isn’t going to increase the bargaining power for the other 1,500 (best of the best in the world).
If the answer is a cap/floor I have no idea. I do know many teams fans have almost nothing to root for year after year. They know they aren’t getting a top free agent. They know they will have the mandatory one all star, who’s definitely not a starter and might not even see the field. They know they won’t be in the playoffs. They know their favorite guys will be traded for lottery tickets. Even if they do happen to squeak into a postseason they likely won’t get a home game before they’re run off
AAAA fans
It needs a cap, suspenders, and a bolo tie
Add plaid pants, and I’m in.
Yes. Baseball has more parity than basically any other sport and has done so without a salary cap.
Are the same group of teams often considered the “winners of the offseason”? Yes. Does that typically translate into playoff success? No.
A salary cap benefits the owners and will result in a less competitive environment. And this is coming from a very small market fan.
We have different definitions of parity
What does parity mean to you? Does it mean different WS winners each year? If so, that was the case until this year. 22 of the 30 teams have made the playoffs in the last three years.
I’d much rather have this than the NFL or NBA where the same teams constantly make the championship
Specious argument.
22 of 30 teams have made the MLB playoffs the last 3 years.
24 of 32 NFL teams have made the playoffs the last 3 years.
22 of 32 NHL teams have made the playoffs the last 3 seasons.
So the same team wasn’t always making the World Series in the past with the Yankees? The Braves made the postseason what, 14 straight years?
The main difference is a baseball team cannot easily flip a 3-14 record into 10-7 like you can in the NFL one year to the next with maybe a new QB or a coach who turns all those close losses into wins. The only recognized way to get AND STAY on top of MLB is to spend, spend, spend. Otherwise you have a fire sale and rebuild.
That’s why the Dodgers have made the playoffs 13 straight years and the Yankees have been above .500 every year since the early 90s.
Thank you Thornton
The increased ownership share is also why I am vehemently against a cap. It’s also going to penalize veterans and disincentivize long contracts.
Personally I dont think so. I think there should be a hard cap at around 275M or so. Doubt that will ever happen for a variety of reasons.
The problem with that $275 ceiling? Only 3-4 teams will spend that much per season. Heck, after the Luis Robert trade yesterday, the White Sox payroll is down to $67 million this season. And we won’t be hearing about Jerry Reinsdorf shopping for any of the remaining FA players.
$275 budget? That sounds about right for the cost of attendance for a family of 4. Tickets, hot dog chips, soft drinks, program, parking, inflatables. Say hello to the average fan’s annual trip to the ballyard
You know I meant Million and yet you still made a ridiculous response.
Small market teams treat revenue sharing as a profit padding scheme. There needs to be actual penalties for being too cheap. My opinion is a cap has to have an accompanying floor. If they want to keep participating in revenue sharing, should be required to field some minimum payroll.
LIV Baseball is what will happen with a salary cap!
Right. Six-inning games, 120-game seasons. Sure. It’ll happen.
Funded by filthy petrodollar greenwashed lucre. Perfect
Hit the nail on the head when you wrote we know everything about how much the players get paid, but we know absolutely nothing about team revenue, team profitability, and the distribution of luxury tax proceeds to teams, especially revenue sharing
I feel that total broadcast revenue sharing is required with a salary floor and rewards for extending homegrown talent.
Teams need to have baseball generated money parity.
A floor/cap really will just take money out of players hands. Don’t want that but I also don’t want two players making more than near half the league.
Money spent doesn’t equal greatness but it gives a lot more chances if spent right
Kyle Tucker post luxury tax costs more than 12 teams’ entire payrolls. It’s just unacceptable.
Hey Bob- Sign Skenes to a lifetime contract comparable to Yoshimoto’s contract. Then surround him with a competitive team not just a bunch of washouts. If it doesn’t work then sell the team to Mark Cuban or some other billionaire that cares about winning.
Even wealthy teams need teams to play against. If those teams have no chance at signing or keeping players, I don’t see much point to MLB existing. Figure it out.
Much harsher draft and international signing penalties for going over the luxury tax. If you take away player development completely, the Dodgers won’t be able to keep up a championship level team continuously. Eventually they will have to reset and rebuild. No cap, no lost season, and it will start to even things out more.
Need to have a Rule 5 style draft to raid the MiLB rosters of the luxury tax offenders, imo. Over one season? You can protect 3 players on your MiLB rosters and one can be selected. Over two in a row? 2 players protected and 2 selected. Over 3 in a row? 1 protected and 3 selected. 4+? No protection and as many selected as years in a row you’ve been over.
Along those lines, the QO penalties for signing someone are not enough. Giving up a 3rd and a 6th for Tucker (since they already gave up a 2nd and a 5th for Diaz) is basically nothing.
Make it be something along the lines of “any prospect with no MLB service time under the age of 25, except the signing team can protect five” and now the Mets and Cubs would be getting value back for Diaz and Tucker.
This is not an easy process to say the least, You certainly need both a cap and a floor.
Surprisingly enough, but the lower spending teams are generally going to oppose this much more than the higher revenue teams. The teams will need to open up their books, revenue for all teams will be verified, the Players Union will negotiate a percent of the total revenue, likely slightly higher than 50 percent, like 52%.
They will then need to establish a floor and ceiling to ensure that teams will spend at least 52 percent of revenue on players salaries. So, the salary floor/ceiling range might be $200 million floor and $300 million ceiling, or $250 million and $350 million. It all depends on the verified total. Then the salary cap adjusts each season based on increased revenues…
The players don’t get nearly 50% of revenue now – you think the owners are just gonna say oh, ok?
Dodgers have a higher payroll than the bottom 5 payroll teams? There should be a salary cap or do away with MLB Allstar game, just let the Dodgers play the American League
Or make the bottom 5 teams spend some money and compete
So, you’re saying the Dodgers spending is the reason for those 5 ownership groups not spending?
Thank you. I try to explain this to people constantly but they’re too short sighted. They also complain about player salaries so that explains a lot….
The Dodgers’ window didn’t begin with being a super team. It began with drafting and developing a first ballot hall of fame pitcher, and during the end of his peak, an array of shrewd moves to acquire talent that every team had a shot at – Justin Turner, Max Muncy, Chris Taylor, et all. The current wave has been made possible by a highly productive farm system that never seems to run out of powder. Sure, there are now MVP candidates all over the field instead of among the best waiver claims of the 2010s. They’re also one of the few teams getting elite two-way production out of its catcher position – draft/develop – and from pre-injury Buehler to trade ammunition for Mookie, 1.5 seasons of Trea Turner, idk, this franchise with a mediocre farm system and development structure would still be high end, but sometimes spending tons of money just gets you the recent Mets or Padres.
One thing nobody talks about is how teams tear their prospect pools apart to try to improve through trades. The Dodgers and other high revenue teams don’t have to, they just spend the money.
The Dodgers have been a bottom 10 farm system (Baseball America) in exactly four years in this century: 2001, 2009, 2010, 2012. They have ranked as a top 10 system 17 times between 2001-2025.
The Rays are generally praised as the best development and trade finding team. Why aren’t they as successful as the dodgers or Yankees or Red Sox or Phillies?
True but the Red Sox have sent quite a prospect haul to STL this off season.
In a word…………..NO! Greedy owners care more about the bottom dollar and not enough about the fan base. As a Chicago White Sox fan and Chicago resident, I can honestly say that the White Sox would have been more competitive if Jerry Reinsdorf would sell the team. He also owns the Chicago Bulls and got lucky with Michael Jordan being a Bull during his ownership. But since the last Bulls Championship in 1998 and the last White Sox championship in 2005, he’s done nothing at all to improve either team. He’s just sitting on a gold mine and lying to the fans.
With all that being said, as a White Sox fan, the past 2-3 years their scouting team and the GM (Chris Getz) has done a great job putting together a young squad that looks for the most part well rounded. The problem with that is, if Jerry Reinsdorf sticks around, they will become the AL version of the Florida Marlins. Which is basically an annual farm system for the other teams that spend money..
Not quite the Marlins. They do spend when the planets align. Actually refreshing for them to bottom out with the deep rebuild a la Tampa, Cubs, Orioles of recent yore. Much worse for them to be chasing above average mediocrity a la Kenny Williams: mid market club a la the Angels. The other team you cite: the Bulls- are an example of a pro team mired in mediocrity mid- market, stuck in play in hell. Unless youre the Dodgers, Yankees, Mets perenially in luxury tax territory better to tank, tank, tank and then spend in that fourth year when your window reopens. Sox spent in ’21-22: just not wisely.
Agreed on Kenny Williams, the guy was just not ready for the big leagues, even as a player.
Both the Jays & Padres had real shots at eliminating the Dodgers the last couple seasons. The 2025 Series was an all-time classic. It’s good to have a Goliath to take-down.
End MLB’s antitrust exemption. Let new owners add franchises or move existing ones and divide the talent. Would that reduce the overall quality of the product? Probably. But it would also make it harder for owners that refuse to compete to stick around.
This. I’d rather have 14 NY teams eating each others lunches than a disinterested Miami, Oakland, or Las Vegas franchise.
Yeah it’s possible without a cap. How about heavily punishing blows to the drafting. Miss a whole round (including QO picks) per certain amount spent. Dodgers under this system wouldn’t hypothetically pick until like the 5th round. You can also make them pay more revenue sharing. Really make it hurt. Teams that receive this sharing should be forced to spend all of it as it’s basically free money to them they shouldn’t pocket it. 2 birds 1 stone. Something has to be done that’s not up for debate.
So how do the big market owners get compensated for lost franchise value all of these schemes will cause? They too should just say oh, ok, devalue my asset? Some kind of consensus needs be found at a time when 8 or 9 teams will exceed the luxury tax levels – admittedly at wildly varying amounts – since there’s a voting group larger than the 7 dissenters the current consensus approach allows.
I doubt further revenue sharing will be agreed on without some floor structure for recipients, which Tim pointed out exists but isn’t enforced.
All that does is make the poor teams more reliant on prospects. Teams should be able to keep their productive star players
The Dodgers barely won with all the money they spent. If there is a strike because of having or not having a cap the owners only have themselves to blame. A strike just means the owners want an excuse not to spend money. Hey I’m ready for A.I. baseball, or A.I. movies as I thought rocket raccoon or grote could carry the whole G.oG. movie franchise. Don’t play, its not going to hurt the fans, let the greed take you where it goes.
The answer is yes, if you put in a salary floor that forces the welfare recipient owners to spend and penalize losing. It’s an embarrassment to the game that two teams have lost at least 119 games in each of the past two seasons. In a tournament style playoff system there is no reason why mid-to-small market teams can’t be successful
Without a cap the wealthy teams will always be able to pay more for the players. Leaving the poor franchises having to pay lesser players high salaries simply to meet the floor
The only people that don’t want a salary cap are the big market fans who get to enjoy each MLB Offseason like it’s Christmas.
Not true. I’m a Reds fan, just like you – limiting employees wages – allowing billionaire owners to pocket more – is not a good thing!
That’s not true. In 2025, the total of all MLB salaries was roughly $5.09B (or about $169m/team). If they had a floor of $180M and a cap of $200M, then the players would have earned more overall. These are examples. They should add up all the revenue as a league and divide it amongst the 30 teams with the cap representing a percentage of all revenue (49% or so). The cap (and what the owners make) would be dictated by the health of the sport.
What’s not true? In what fantasy world do you live in where you think owners are going to actually okay a system where players are making a higher % of total revenues than they do now? And why would large market teams vote for that? It makes it even harder for them to win. Good luck getting Big Bob to spend 180 M$.
Those numbers were examples. MLB/MLBPA decide on a percentage of revenue that goes to players. There is complete revenue sharing. What Bob Castellini wants to spend is irrelevant because he would actually have the money (and is required) to spend it.
How would he have the money. Remember in a cap/floor scenario Castellini would be foregoing all of the overages he’s now getting paid by the Dodgers and the like. I’ll bet Bob would be against this scenario. Why would the Dodgers owners want 50/50 sharing with these teams who didn’t have to spend as much on their clubs as they did to purchase?
A cap of the Dodgers doesn’t require Castellini spending more.
Adjusted for inflation, the Reds are spending less today than they were 10 years ago. That’s not the Yankees and Dodgers fault. It’s the Reds’ owners fault.
I will reiterate the long-standing argument … any person on this site arguing for a salary cap must be willing to accept a cap on their wages in their present employment. Obviously, if they aren’t happy with their wages presently, they can resign and attempt to get another job at a higher salary at some other firm. But, in baseball, we deal with an oligopoly in which there are only 30 MLB teams on which one can play (assume for the sake of this argument that Japan, Taiwan, Korea, or Mexico, are non-viable).
So, players have restricted market opportunities. The only way to constrain a team such as the Dodgers from buying a team of All-Stars is to impose a confiscatory taxation system, such as $1Billion for each and every penny over a limit, say $225 million in combined annual salaries. Eliminate deferrals and structured deals, or accelerate any deferrals to the present year for calculation purposes.
At the same time, impose a floor on each team, say $150 million, and a regressive tax rate on any team’s combined salary below that level. That penalty is assessed against the owner(s) personally; they want to play, they have to pay. For each team that falls below some artificially-created and imposed income amount (such as the Athletics), the tax revenues created are distributed to them, and an independent arbitration committee monitors the spending of the taxes to ensure that they are used to subsidize the salaries to achieve the floor.
If I make that much money and the difference is either I make a little less ridiculous amount or nothing at all because the economics of the sport have collapsed upon itself, I take option 1.
William
You should check out unions and their pay scales
Sports salaries are increasingly resembling the “K economy.” You have top tier players making a lot, and many making the minimum/close to it. The players with mid-level salaries are disappearing. I think this impacts a team’s ability to field strong players at multiple positions, supported by a deeper bench needed for a 162+ season that is 7 months long.
Fantastic post Tim- extremely informative and thorough. As a Dodger fan, I wouldn’t necessarily be opposed to a cap, but the circumstances would need to make sense. What would the hypothetical $ threshold be? $250MM? $300MM? $350MM? And what would the floor/cap ratio be? Is the floor to be 50% of the cap? 60%? 75%? I’m willing to admit that my team does have an advantage, but I also firmly believe that other teams’ biggest disadvantage isn’t simply that they can’t match the big spenders dollar for dollar… rather, it’s none other than their owner, and it trickles down from there- cutting corners and/or making poor decisions with personnel, facilities, technology, etc. The Angels (who I’m also a fan of) are a perfect example of this. Moreno has consistently trotted out top 10 payrolls, with hardly anything to show for it because he has historically skimped on all of the afore-mentioned elements.Teams like the Brewers, Rays, and Indians have created sustained success while sporting bottom 10 (and in some cases bottom 5) payrolls. Heck, the Rays were one awful managerial decision away from taking the Dodgers to 7 games and possibly winning the WS.
Agreed! Thank you, Tim.
Both the Mets and Angels are prime examples of poorly run franchises who spend a lot in free agency. Similarly, no amount of caps, floors, revenue sharing, etc will help teams like the Reds. The Dodgers are a Dynasty because they both have a lot of money, but also are great at drafting, player development, and trading. I think work can be done to continue to increase parity, but MLB must figure out how to get rid of ownership groups who run their franchise poorly and/or are unwilling to spend on payroll.
Salary cap
Salary floor
Raise the minimum so that 2nd and 3rd year players make money that’s in the same universe as FAs
Pay minor leaguers better.
Economic parity works in the NBA and NFL. There is zero reason for the insane payroll disparity in the current MLB. We don’t have to accept it. We shouldn’t accept it. Its bad and unfair.
panacea? Really
A hard cap floor, with a soft cap, taxed at 200% and redistributed to the bottom teams from lowest to highest.
Only if the bottom teams actually try to win games. A Rockies team that goes 52-110 for example should be given nothing in a redistribution. Give that particular money to the MLBPA to distribute to all the minor leaguers across the 30 teams, they deserve more than Dick Monfort in that scenario.
Salary caps suck! Free enterprise! Pay the players!!
Might as well retract half the league then.
The players are getting paid just fine. But the crazier contracts get the more the sport will slowly become undesirable to watch….like the NBA
Need more access to monetary resources for all the teams. Dodgers are just spending the money they have. Nothing wrong with that but all teams should have access to proper funding.
I don’t think we need a cap.
A lot of teams spend beneath the luxury tax. Raising it would raise the team’s willing spending. You can make a similar luxury tax threshold but with a luxury tax floor or whatever. Teams with higher payrolls have to pay a more and also compensate the lower teams. The picks should be recycled too. MLB can also make a tournament for the non-posteason teams while the postseason is happening. Another solution is limiting spending for an Offseason. However, for generational, superstar players, you can go to MLBPA and MLB to ask for an exception, if both approve, then BOOM!
Revenue sharing in my opinion is a bit much, 40% percent instead. However, teams that exceed luxury tax thresholds will pay a certain amount to each team, and the team must spend ALL of it. In addition, reduce MLB service years to 5 before they are a free agent. Competitive balance is what matters, so high spending teams will forfeit a good amount of draft and international bonus pool. They should limit the amount of minor league Rule 5 picks that high spending teams take too.
That’s just what I think.
MLB parity, maybe so maybe no. MLB parody? Why yes.
MLB parity is near impossible without a cap. Dodgers payroll is higher than some team’s revenue. Just too much revenue disparity. But putting together a workable cap would be difficult and that is before factoring in the fact the MLBPA is adamantly opposed to it. If the owners are determined to push for a cap, games will be lost in 2027.
You have outdone yourself, Tim, and please ignore the folks that say that the article is too long. Realistically, you were rather concise in your approach given the nature of the topic.
Clearly you have given considerable thought to the topic over the years, and outlined its rather thorny nature. I am glad that you read all about Marvin Miller – a veritable legend that is forgotten by the younger generations of fans.
The best thing that you did is to outline the issues, discuss some of the pros and cons as to potential solutions, and yet for the most part you realize that there are no easy answers and very few definitive solutions…just, we hope, a path to follow that will occur in fits and starts as in almost all labor relations situations. You are a patient and thoughtful observer of the process.
Thanks for the article – possibly the best one written on here in the history of the site.
Answer to the question…not in the least.
Tucker’s contract seemed to be the last straw with almost all the owners.
It is either that or have only a dozen teams in major league baseball. It is virtually dead in flyover country already with the young generation.
Thank you for a very thorough article this was a great read
No, it’s not. There you go. Could’ve saved tim all that trouble.
Giving creedance to fans that dont understand time value of money is absurd. Just because fans lack basic understanding does not make their complaints valid.
Yes to salary caps on the team. No cap on a player’s contract. Very simple. The team can spend what it wants on any player, they just can’t have a team payroll over whatever the cap amount is. Maybe have a high floor cap as well. This will lead to better drafting and attention to player development.
Tim – a question for you. We don’t see a cap with European football clubs. They have a financial fair play system, but no cap. Setting aside the aspects of relegation & promotion for a moment, might this be something for MLB to consider?
Im fine with no salary cap. Deferred pay should accure interest and that interest has to be spread out to all the teams across the league…deferred payments need to come with some higher risk. I haven’t thought it out all the way. Feel free to comment.
No.
What if they kept the basic framework for CBT taxing and revenue sharing, but instead of the revenue sharing going to the owners, it goes directly to the players on those teams? Maybe proportional to their salaries. That would both make lower spending teams more attractive to free agents, and probably discourage team owners that see the revenue sharing as profit from limiting payroll as much as possible. I would think that it would also be acceptable to most players and most owners.
I haven’t heard anyone else suggest anything like this, but I wonder if something along these lines should be considered.
We have more parity in baseball than any other sport.
20 of the 30 teams have made at least one World Series in the past 25 years, and 16 of 30 teams have won at least one World Series in that time.
Every other league has had multiple repeat champs in that 25 year span in which MLB had no back-to-back title winners.
Baseball has had 16 different champions since 2000, compared to 14 in the
NHL, 13 in the NFL and 12 in the NBA. In a more recent timeframe, since January
2012, 18 different MLB teams have played in the World Series, compared to 17 in the
Stanley Cup Finals, 13 in the Super Bowl and 13 in the NBA Finals.
# of MLB teams that finish with a .400 to .600 W%
now do the # in the other leagues.
The NFL model (or floor/cap) does not mean that the Reds will have a better chance of competing if enacted.
—> Just last year 11 of the 32 nfl teams finished the season with a sub .400 record (6 or fewer wins). Only 2 of the 30 MLB clubs performed that badly this season. 9 NFL teams had a plus .600 record (11 or more wins). Not a single MLB club finished with a .600 plus W% this year.
Can’t ask players to accept a cap without requiring all 30 owners opening their books.
I had an idea where the luxury tax payments from teams like the dodgers and Mets would be split among the 3 teams in each league closest to making the playoffs each year. The first three out. Those teams would be required to be under the luxury cap for the previous 3 years in order to get the funds, otherwise the money would go to the next team down the rankings in their league. The money would be required to be spent on new free agents in the off season they receive the funds, otherwise the money goes into the player retirement fund. Teams would be incentivized to sign shorter term deals with that money, which raises the money available to the “good but not great” players, and helps teams fill out their roster holes if they missed the playoffs.
Obviously not a perfect solution, but one that I think could help teams that are at least TRYING to make the playoffs.
Great article, Tim. You explained things in ways that I hadn’t seen before. Having been a member of both management and union in the several jobs I have had over my lifetime, I can tell you that no one gets serious in negotiations until the key people go off by themselves.
In my case, it was the union president and the CEO. For baseball, it will be those private meeetings between Manfred and Tony Clark—and maybe a National Labor Relations Board mediator if Trump doesn’t illegally abolish the agency.
The obsession with parity is just weird.
Hey I really liked this style of article
All non US players are drafted or can’t play here. Lottery draft for Japan, Korea, DR, wherever. No more buying rights to players. US players are drafted or no more US drafts. All players must be 17.5 yrs of age at draft. 7 yrs control period or signed longer.
Twenty-two teams have been in the World Series this century with 16 different winners. That feels like parity to me. The problem is the teams that don’t try, not the teams that do.
I would only support a salary cap if contracts (including extensions) for home-grown/drafted talent was excluded from the cap.
Answer to this question is NO.
Current penalties aren’t bad enough to stop a few owners – easy fix – make the penalties worse! But only in conjunction with real penalties for owners who refuse to spend.
Here’s all you need to know: the Pirates and Marlins have little chance to win it all in MLB.
Their neighbors the Steelers and Dolphins are among the NFL’s perennial contenders.
The NFL’s hard cap and floor plan works.
Time for baseball to catch up.
LOL, no. First of all you’ve just described a league where if you have a great QB – you have a chance. There is no singular position on an MLB club that even compares. Secondly, there’s nothing stopping the owners of the Pirates and Marlins from spending more and thus increasing their odds of competing.
The Marlins have won two championships since the Dolphins last did.
The sports simply aren’t the same. Players just drafted don’t typically reach the majors for a number of years. NFL players do immediately.
Perhaps we no longer allow baseball players to be drafted or signed until they’re 21?
Kinda screws the kids in the International market though. And destroys the minors – which MLB seems increasingly ok with.
There is no parity in the Pro Leagues that have a Salary Cap so what makes anyone think that a Salary Cap in MLB would change anything
Cap and floor tied to percentage of revenue. Floor can be (for example) 60% or 2/3 of the ceiling. No workarounds.
The only reason its gone this far is because the public has funded so much of baseball, with stadiums, attendance, concession, buying licensed products.
This will not happen. Neither will baseball in 2027, but no baseball in 2027 and actually fixing it might mean we still have baseball in 2040.
One word—–> NO
The Dodgers are not the villain. As someone else said, the Dodgers haven’t been a “super team” this entire time. They had a HOFer in CK, acquired a bunch player anyone could have had (Muncy, Taylor, etc) and developed a ton of great players (Seager, Bellinger, etc). This current version has some huge STARS, but I’d like to point out how each one literally fell into their laps because another big market team was too cheap/scared/dumb to retain them. Boston doesn’t want to pay Mookie, Atlanta gets better “value” than Freddie, LAA is too incompetent to have a chance to retain Shohei, and then both Houston and CHC are both too sacred to swim in the Tucker waters. All of these decisions are dumb + not good for baseball and all of these franchises should be chastised at every opportunity for handing over their star to LAD. We could throw the Mets into the mix with Diaz too. My only point is that LAD is not the villain. These teams willingly allowed them to collect stars via their own mismanagement.
Tim,
Thanks so much for this piece. It is a comprehensive, intelligent, thoughtful and well written assessment of where the financial elements of our game stand today. It is gratifying to read an objective summary of the state of the business of the game.
As a life-long Dodger fan I admit the past decade– and especially the most recent few years– have been a euphoric ride. But I understand the frustration, even the anger of those fans who feel their clubs are at a hopeless disadvantage trying to compete with the richest in the game: the Dodgers, Mets, Yanks, Jays, etc.
The answer to this problem should not be stopping the game we love. Taking the game off the field hurts all of us. Only the most cynical and nihilistic would choose that solution. Baseball fans want baseball. What could be more obvious?
I have been advocating increased financial restrictions for the richest teams in the form of higher penalties (call it the luxury tax model) for exceeding some agreed upon formula of payroll excess, and I can see the sense in increasing the amounts the wealthiest teams contribute in the form of revenue sharing.
These modifications would necessitate a requirement for the teams receiving the largess to spend the money on the field (as it does now though as you point out it doesn’t seem to be enforced meaningfully).
The richer teams should continue to support the poorer teams in the interest of competition. That would make for better baseball all the way around.
To institutionalize–to enshrine–a formal salary cap I think is a mistake. It helps no one but the owners, increasing their potential profits at the expense of the players.
Thanks again for your analysis and thanks for this site. Without MLBTR the winter would seem MUCH longer.
You forgot a question: Define success?
Examples of potential answers:
– More teams spending within 15% of the median spend
– Team sale and expansion prices going up continuously
– Total player compensation exceeding inflation
– More teams with an elimination number of 3+ going into the last week of the regular season
– Every team making the playoffs at least once every five years
– No Rockies/White Sox situations, every team always wins at least 63 games.
If the owners amongst themselves cannot agree, and the rich vs DFA-carousel players cannot agree, and the players and the owners cannot then agree, what exactly are we doing here?
A salary cap is an almost futile gesture without revenue sharing of media money. and a minimum salary if a team is to receive “competitive balance” or other equalization payments.
What’s stopping Pittsburgh from offering bellinger 1 year and 45 million
Everentually dodgers will do the same thing the Yankees and angels did and spend themselves into oblivion.
5 years from now this will fix itself
The other owners are just cheap and the dodgers are exploiting it.
If they spend the dodgers will have to stop
If they don’t spend, the dodgers will keep winning titles until they overspend and implode like the Yankees….and angels did
What’s stopping pirates from offering Bellinger 1 year 45 mill?
Bellinger is stopping Bellinger from accepting that offer from the pirates.
You do realize it takes two to agree to a contract and highest aav isn’t always the most desirable contract. Players actually want years over money.
1 year deals are nice for boys trying to rebuild value or multiple years with opt out after first year for guys who aren’t seeing a market they want
But many high profile free agents wouldn’t accept 1 year deals outright anywhere
You seriously think Pirates Athletics Guardians Rays Orioles Dbacks Royals could defer 2.2 billion dollars? Lmao no
Some years the Dodgers deferred over 100+ mill.
In 2026 there’s 17 teams SEVENTEEN where that 100+ mill represents somewhere between 50%-100% of their payroll obligations.
Dodgers aren’t exploiting owners being cheap. Dodgers are exploiting tax loopholes that lower aav hits by deferring money and allow them to spend it on other players.
Ohtani making 70 aav but only being taxed at 46 is the most egregious.
The markets been backwards for years
One war was worth 9 million on the open market prior to Covid.
I believe bellinger put up 4.9 war last year.
1 year 45 – 50
That’s what the second tier teams should be doing to combat the dodgers
Instead they cry broke and wait for the dodgers to eventually overspend.
It’s collusion on the part of the mid tier teams AGAIN
Bellinger wouldn’t accept.
Contract length is, IMO, the larger issue that people miss. A long contract is what players want, but the risk of an expensive mistake is something only a few teams can actually stomach and survive
When did the Angels win consistently?
Yeah just get rid of deferrals
With it reading all that the answer is Yes
Next question
Cap + floor or relegation forced sale
Awesome read Tim . Thanks for writing this , but I’m still a fan of a hard cap even if we lose some or all of 2027 season . It will only save the game .
How would current teams (Dodgers/Mets/etc) be immediately affected by a cap that is below where they’re spending currently?
NBA did an amnesty provision where teams could cut players and stretch their contracts out over think 5 years when they redid their cap rules way back when. Kobe was still playing. That helped teams get rid of bloated contracts and get into compliance
Thank you for this post, Tim Dierkes! One of the best articles in MLBTR history. Very in-depth analysis. I hope MLB can figure this all out without losing the 2027 season. Crazy how good of an article this was. Thanks again, Tim for your hard work in writing this.😁
As much as I love the ideas of a floor and cap, the local tv/media issue for many teams needs a long term solution.
Very interesting article. I would say 1st that I think a lock out is likely. I doubt a cancelled season.
As for the Revenue sharing and tax $. I could see those two being a way to create an unsaid salary floor. It would require some transparency by the teams that receive either. Perhaps at a 1.75 to 1 ratio. With a penalty for any team receiving money and not matching that ratio.. Say something like a 50% reduction in funds the following season. I would think raising the number of teams (say to 18 lowest revenue teams) receiving these funds would help increase overall payroll. To pay for all this I would think raising the tax rates could do a portion of it and perhaps a 60/40 split on tax money collected.
Also, just a random thought maybe MLB could have some sort of partnership with revenue sharing recipient teams to resign their home-grown stars. Say for the sake of augment 10% of their free-agent contract if they resign with their team. That money coming from the same place.
As for deferred money. It feels like it’s becoming too common. Maybe there’s a way to so that it counts at a different % to the team’s current tax number. So that it’s still a tool for teams but not abused.
I don’t see how the economics can change in a meaningful way that ends up looking like parity like in other sports until all regional TV deals end and revenue sharing is equal amongst teams. Which I don’t seeing ever happening in my lifetime without some existential threat facing the league or its teams.
I think that comes before a salary cap/floor. Cap/floor just won’t work to make any meaningful change as long as the revenues available to spend look similar to today.
The root cause is the disparity in revenue streams. I grew up in Pittsburgh, so I won with the Steelers and Penguins and lost when I became a Pirate fan. The Bucs have been bad for most of the last 35 years, and thus don’t have the kind of revenue they should be pulling in. The Dodgers have done everything right and have built their revenue stream, helped by a loophole that excluded about a billion dollars of their TV contract from revenue sharing. How can those two teams possibly compete on the same level. Boras says Ohtani has been worth $250M to the Dodgers. What small fraction of that would he have made in Pittsburgh?
On one hand, this seems fair. Years of incompetence and poor business management should result in less earnings. Good management should make them more money. The problem comes when you put these two teams in direct competition. The Pirates legitimately can’t have a $200M payroll on their revenue. Owners aren’t allowed to deficit spend beyond a certain point, contrary to the “but they’re billionaires” crowd. And if you can’t afford to get to half, why bother going to the 120 or 150 that they could potentially pay when that won’t allow them to be competitive? Could the Pirates have fixed their offense with $50M of free agents last year? Not at these prices.
Increased revenue sharing + salary floor. Honestly, soft cap seems fine. But they have to even out the revenues for this to work.
Fair and honest article. You covered it really well.
Here’s my take:
I see comments about the players needfor more money and the owners making so much money, yet not disclosing it, and the owners needing to be fair with the players, etc..
Frankly, I don’t have sympathy for either. An owner doesn’t need to horde all of the profits and a player certainly doesn’t need to make 20 mil a year. But it’s just that, the attitude that more is never enough. Why not try dropping the prices of a hot dog, peanuts or the cost of admission and cater to the fan base a little bit. While you’re at it, why not add a salary floor and cap, and invest more in the minor league system and their rate of pay. Make games more affordable, improve the competition, make it anyone’s game when well drafted, coached and executed. Let every fan know that their team is playing on a level playing field so there’s reason for optimism every year.
All things that won’t happen due to greed.
I stopped going to games a few years back. My attitude has worsened during that time and it didn’t improve while watching the Dodger’s exploit a rule that wasn’t intended to be exploited the way that it was but was instead intended to give a smaller market team a shot at retaining talent, just feels like adding salt to an open wound.
At the end of the day there’s just more greed than there is focus on the client, the fan base. It’s greed that will drive the lock out and that’s fine with me because I’ve already stopped going to games, watch fewer games and from the look of it will be watching even fewer games this upcoming season.
I empathize with the players since MOST get chewed up and spit out, but at the same time, earning $4.5M over a six year career – only at league minimum, no arb raises – is a LOT of money. And then greed on both sides is an extreme turnoff.
Tim, you missed something very significant in your analysis. Deferred salary explicitly CANNOT be used for any purpose other than funding the deferral. Article XVI of the Basic Agreement states:
“….Club may fund deferred compensation obligations in such manner as it elects, provided that: (a) the funding method used by the Club must be such that the amount(s) funded are exclusively for the uses and purposes of satisfying the deferred compensation obligation(s) being funded…”
Exclusively. And there it is, clearly, in black-and-white.
And just because I find it rhetorically irritating, unicorns are mythical beasts — and last I checked, Ohtani actually exists. He is rare, and maybe once in a lifetime. But he is real.
I believe we might see a player owned league develope over the next few decades given their financial clout…if they could somehow financially unify. They’re making around 50% of revenue currently
The problem is that the solution requires rich teams to give/share their money with poor teams who paid less for them. This would have to be solved with a very complex formula where the small teams owe a % of equity when they sell, blah, blah blah. Set the rich guy problems aside for now.
If, by magic or fiat, MLB had the NHL cap and floor system…what would be the problem?
Hard cap. Hard floor. No (few) gimmicks. An 8 year deal for $80 million counts as $10 M a year against the cap, regardless of how it actually pays out.
There is an individual cap. No player can make more 20% of the team’s cap. Set the rich guy problems aside for now
The gap between the highest spending and lowest spending teams is $24 million…not $200-300 million.
The best current player in hockey has signed 3 contracts to play in Edmonton, one of the smallest markets. The best player of the past 20 years has spent his entire career in Pittsburgh.
Hockey players get half the money.
What is the problem? Why would this not work for MLB (aside from the obvious…the big market teams, league itself and TV partners all want the big market teams to succeed)?
If all the billionaires tried to win and didn’t consider their team a line item or a source of passive income there wouldn’t be as much parity.
There should be some notion that the fans who ultimately pay for all of this should be considered. There are fewer and fewer people who can easily enjoy a night at a MLB game much less consider buying season tickets as I had done at one point.
There are crappy owners that treat the tax as a cap and do not spend to either keep their stars or get the best available players, Red Sox for example. If I were the MLBPA, I would trade a cap for free agency in 4 years instead of 6, minimum salary of $2mm, 1 Pre-Arb year and 3 arbitration eligible. I would also push to have 1 unified draft with 3 extra rounds and a universal $10mm cap to sign undrafted talent. fixed minor league salary of $100,000 no bonus pools. Have something like the Bird rule where 3 homegrown players dont count against the cap but count towards the floor.
The article was very informative. Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Tim.
If a salary cap is to be implemented, I imagine the PA would seek to reduce the number of years of control a team has on a player (from six to five) as well as lowering the number of games / innings for a qualified season.
In the absence of a salary cap, could one option be to create maximum contracts, both in term and salary as the NHL does? This doesn’t prevent the Dodgers from signing every major FA, but it does level the playing field quite a bit. This also might help teams retain their “homegrown” talents. This also solves the “deferred money” issue since this tool would be irrelevant under this option.
There could be exceptions to this option, using the NBA and, to a lesser extent, the NHL as examples. Specifically, the team last holding a player’s rights can offer one or two more years in term plus go 10% over the max salary. These numbers can vary, but the idea is to give the team a greater chance to keep their own players.
Anyway, just some ideas to consider as MLB and MLBPA face a likely very contentious negotiation.
MLB is making a lot of money. Players are making a lot of money. 22 of the 30 teams have made the playoffs the last 3 years (using the quote above). 7 different WS winners in last 10 years Attendance keeps growing for teams that choose to spend and draw interest around their team.
.Cheap owners continue to pocket money and not spend and passionate owners or even some smart owners (Rogers Communications) can see that spending money draws interest around your team which in turn results in more income that usually results in more profits. As a Blue Jays fan for 40+ years I have seen all phases of this (the good the bad, the stupid, the ugly and the smart) Smart investment always means more profit.
So what is the problem? If it ain’t broke don’t fix it. No cap or floor is going to fix cheap/greedy owners.
One more factor to consider is, do you actually think those cheap greedy owners that are putting those millions of dollars of revenue sharing into their pockets are going to give that up (no revenue sharing in favor of a cap) or be told they HAVE to spend a certain amount (cap floor)? AIN’T HAPPENING !!!!
Simple answer…
A cap isn’t the only thing needed. It needs to be a Cap&Floor system with a top and a bottom that the players and owners can agree on. If the floor makes it impossible for certain owners to handle, then they need to sell their teams or partner up with other investors. For example, if Bruce Sherman can’t afford to handle an established floor, sell the team or put the pride down and give Jorge Mas or other investors a call.
The issue is with all 30 ownerships because they all have allowed for this to reach this point. And the MLBPA isn’t innocent either because the leaders have been more about themselves lining up their pockets than they have been about preserving a future for the game that continues to take care of the players.
And let me point out, this is just a start because this mess has led to other issues. The owners need to realize that this is a league, which means they shouldn’t be trying to blow other owners out of the water because their real competitors are the other sports leagues for consumer dollars. The players and MLBPA need to realize that if the product is disatisfying to consumers, those consumers will go elsewhere for entertainment, which leaves less money to be fighting over, thus less money for the players to be paid.
For anyone that wants to overgeneralize this as only needing a cap to stop big market teams or only needing to put something in place to make small market team owners spend more, keep in mind that one system won’t work, and we’ve reached the point where fans in about 20 markets are not accepting a dog-and-pony show where both parties pretend they tried. If both parties think it bad now with certain deals being lost and certain markets suffering, it will get worse if the same garbage continues after the next CBA is agreed upon, and there is no CAp&Floor in place that fans of those 20 or so markets can feel comfortable with.
For big market fans of certain teams, clearly MLB can’t survive if only fans in the big markets are tuned in while fans in 20 markets tune out. You need opponents to play against, and pitting Super Teams against struggling teams are not going to work. After all, how many people will tune in for a fight between Superman bulked up on Incredible Hulk radiation going against a scrawny little, regular 5-year old child with impairments in vision, strength, movement, etc.? No one that thinks there should be a fair fight will. That’s most of society.
I think you’d be surprised by how many tune in to watch David vs. Goliath. The Reds tv viewership is a good indicator.
Yes Take the money out of the workers pockets and make the billionaires richer…. Think about it… put a salary cap on you place of work… no matter what you do… you’ll never get paid anything near your value to the company if they have a salary cap… but the owners will get richer… So the obvious answer is not to tax spending… but Runaway Owners incomes… their books must be made public if they get public subsidy in any form….. Set a percentage of Gross income that must go to the equality Pool.. If you make a Trillion and I make a Billion… you should be paying more of the cost of building the league
Dodgers do everything better than the much of the completion. Scouting, drafting, player development, investment in the DR, Venezuela, Africa, Korea, Japan. They only recently went crazy with spending. There is still parity they were 2 inches from losing to the Jay’s. Tired narrative
This was a remarkable and concise article. It’s too bad most of these commenters didn’t actually read it. Not very well-educated, these readers.
One answer lies with the highly profitable NFL, where there is full revenue sharing, no local contracts, and equivalent spending on players by team. The word “cap” is used, but because all the teams spend the max, there is no need for a cap or floor.
If MLB did that, all games would have to be run by MLB and bid out among national broadcast and streaming services, just like the NFL. Local radio revenue would also probably have to be shared.
Some of the MLB owners would be taking a more severe haircut than they are now, which might make it a nonstarter.
The best step toward an agreement with the union, at least in my view, is the elimination of the antitrust exemption by Congress. That should have happened years ago. It changes the nature of the relationship (for the fairer) when the owners can’t legally collude as much as they can now.
Sadly, the cancellation of a season will have no bearing on parity, even if and when a settlement is achieved.
Baseball has had 16 different champions since 2000, compared to 14 in the
NHL, 13 in the NFL and 12 in the NBA. In a more recent timeframe, since January
2012, 18 different MLB teams have played in the World Series, compared to 17 in the
Stanley Cup Finals, 13 in the Super Bowl and 13 in the NBA Finals.
A giant article that can be summed up with “no”.
All interesting, if a bit daunting. As with basically all other professional sports (which nowadays includes NCAA schools), the issue always devolves to owners. These are people who are extremely wealthy and think this equates with them also being extremely intelligent (and unfortunately, too many of we “hoi polloi” seem only to willing to believe as well); what they generally are is extremely greedy, which in fact is often how they got wealthy….until we can dial down human greed and hubris, we’ll continue to struggle with such issues.
NCAA is the same way….SEC schools who bring in viewers don’t want to give more chances to the Tulanes of the world.
Floor per team, cap tied to the profitability of the league as a whole, and the latter defines annual FA signing pool allotment per team. Contract length capped at five years, deferrals eliminated, minimum salary increased and waiver claims per season capped to reduce player shuffle and keep them in one geographic location for larger chunks of time as compensation for reduced contract length. Performance/metrics-based limited trade protections granted to top players before FA. Link arb numbers to a formula of service time relative to WAR and games played, reduces the animosity of that process. And then, to top it off, revenue sharing information has to be public. Put ownership feet to the fire. If the players have to eat the sharp end of the narrative, set the stage so we know how much ownership gets each year for framing on the next CBA. MLB gets AT exemption, they should have increased transparency responsibilities in exchange for that public grace.
And for god’s sakes, cap the price of national beer brands across the league. Paying $12 for draft Coors is absurd.
This whole discussion almost seems like a microcosm of life in modern America.
And it’s not a new discussion either.
It’s going to get ugly and there’s no stopping it now. The Dodgers aren’t doing anyone (including themselves long term) any favors by flexing on the rest of the league.
Increase tax rate 2x for every bracket and add another bracket above the cohen tax. To get the players to agree, add a 27th player to each roster, increase salaries for minor league and pre-arbitration players. This satisfies the union which now represents a huge amount of minor leaguers and teams who want more revenue sharing.
I’d argue that MLB has as much parity as any other league with a salary cap
How bad must things be if someone can’t beat Rob Manfred in a PR battle
Thank you for the in depth article! I do believe an increased luxury tax (200%) and revenue sharing required spending is the way to go. For example the Marlins would have to spend that 70 million in some fashion over 5 years whether that be on player development, payroll, or international facilities. At current pace I believe fans of smaller market teams will continue to be more checked out and ultimately their revenue issue will grow.
Thank you for this excellent piece. Might not have the level of interior knowledge that a Rosenthal has, but I read the Dodgers D-ridin petty nonsense he posted on the Athletic, and it lacked feeling, emotion, and acknowledgement of fan sentiment. Top notch journalism. Thank you for digging deep and writing with your heart, it shows
MLB could create instant parity by dividing the revenue from the sport equally 30 ways. They could then reward teams that use their shares to win baseball games with more revenues and higher draft picks. This is entirely within their power to do. I wonder, why don’t they?
Could it be that MLB is more interested in profitability than parity? Nah, that’s just crazy talk.
Why would MLB do that, and how is that fair to an owner that paid say 1.5 B$ to buy his club in comparison to one who paid 1/10th that?
TV revenues is one thing, all revenues is another. The Reds don’t deserve a penny of Ohtani jersey sales in Japan.
MLB had more different teams in the World Series, and more different winners, in the past decade than the NFL or the NBA had championship teams. Competitive parity is not achieved with a salary cap.
The revenue sharing system has created perverse incentives for small market teams: sharing shouldn’t be tied to teams that overspend. It should be tied to some function of market size and ratings, and also tied to spending on the roster.
I’ll trade reading the whole article for cash considerations, capped.
Thank you, Tim! And I agree, I’m hoping for a full 2027 season, any loss of games would be the worst outcome. Hopefully the two sides can continue to make progress without all the vitriol.
There should be a limit for everything, even for the Dodgers.
Until this happens smaller markets will lose generations of fans because they can’t have a consistent winner and will never be able to keep their star players that kids look up to. Must be nice to be able to buy championships. Most teams wouldn’t know. Take a look at New York City sports. Baseball they are generally dominant. Every other sport they are a laughing stock.
So you’re saying other teams lost fans during past dynasties? People stopped rooting for the Cubs in the 70’s because of the Reds?
I support a national television package that’s equally distributed revenues across all 30 mlb teams
It’s really simple. You don’t need a salary cap, you need a cap on the % of a contract that can be deferred. The deferred money, particularly Ohtani’s, is what is enabling all this.
No cap (I hate what it’s done to NHL…a winning team always gets torn down the following year….no dynasties)
No deferred payments. Pay the players when they play.
Restructure playoffs, placement seed should be on season’s record…regardless of finish in division…. Some divisions may not have a playoff team…some divisions may place all their teams.
The Florida Panthers have been in the Cup finals 3 consecutive years and just won back to back
Tim, of course it is. it exists today in MLB. By “today” I mean that over a range of time because obviously the Dodgers are in the midst of a dynastic run. But remember, the Yankees did something similar some two decades+ ago. In between, teams didn’t repeat and while playoffs skewed toward bigger spending clubs, the teams spending the most oftentimes didn’t win. But what’s potentially most concerning about this particular case is the way that LA is cornering the market on Japanese players. They own a significant geographic advantage being on the left coast. They’re not the only MLB club to play there but they also have the greatest ballplayer in the world. But enough about Miguel Rojas. And a salary cap won’t change that, nor will it alter their huge TV revenue.
Recognizing that, I don’t want a cap but I do want a floor. I dislike the teams that refuse to spend more than the ones that spend the most. Having a cap just puts more money into the accounts of billionaires, so why would anyone want that? Especially given that the cost will be a lost season. Sorry, not interested. Quit trying to fix the game, it is fine as is.
There will not be a cap…period. It’s a player’s union deal breaker.
I’d love the solution to be one where the owners take the brunt of the financial burden, but we all know that isn’t going to happen.
I’m a diehard sports fan, Brewers in particular, if you told me the Brewers would win the WS next year but the Packers and Bucks never will again in my lifetime, I’d take it in a heartbeat.
But that won’t happen. 2025 to me proved the system is beyond repair. We aren’t a poorly run small market team that refuses to spend. In fact most opinions talk about the Brewers being one of the best run in the game. We set a franchise record for wins and still there is a canyon between us and the Dodgers, who are doing everything right. This is nothing against them, they are doing everything they should be.
The one thing that caught me off guard in this piece was the amazement that fans would be willing to lose a season. 1 season lost vs me spending the next 50 wasting my time on a team? Yeah, I think I sign up for that. Because we aren’t losing because we are inept, we are losing because the system says we aren’t important enough to win.
I read whole article.
No money, just draft picks.
11 to 20% above OR below league average, lose a 4th round pick
21 to 30% above OR below league average, lose a 3rd round pick
31 to 40% above OR below league average, lose a 2nd round pick
41%+ above OR below league average, lose a first round pick.
There should be a cap floor
The owners want a salary cap and they use the media to push the narrative that it’s the only solution to this “problem”. They do this with every new issue they want “fixed”. The media couldn’t stop talking about how the national league needs a DH. Baseball is broken becauae pitching is too good so we need the DH. The owners have to be thrilled by the Kyle Tucker signing. It’s great to get the public worked up over it and scream for a salary cap, then be against the players when a strike comes.
The applied tax has actually made it worse. Only two teams are truly immune to it, while others that have been competitive have found their limit. The Yankees, once the biggest spenders are no longer as new owners have superseded them with deeper pockets. Tucker is a solid player, but ~$55M per is a bit extreme considering organizations struggle with a payroll in that range – in total. Salaries have escalated where $20M is the norm for basic services.
In the long run fans are the ones that suffer. Their teams in most cases won’t or can’t compete (and a bad draft can make it worse and set teams back), visits to the stadium are ‘special occasions’ as opposed to catching a game, and TV will ultimately be driven by subscriptions. Yes, attendance has been great, but sustainability is questionable. Ultimately teams with low attendance and spending will be questioned whether they should even exist any longer. Pittsburgh, Miami…do they survive?
I’m all about capitalism, but not to the point of squeezing out the fan. Not suggesting handouts, but looking to keep it competitive.
One example/idea: bottom 5 teams get two first rounders, playoff teams get none. If we’re not going to budge on taxes or not acquire caps, load bottom teams with more opportunities in the draft. Worst team could get the top pick and that player could be a bust or have a career injury – setting that team back even further. Let’s increase their odds of success in an area that doesn’t cost much vs the one teams with money use over and over. Evens things out a little, especially if those bottom teams can retain players for several years. That money they have can be used to retain if they can.
What needs to done about MLB is to break up the ILLEGAL monopoly, End the special treatment clause that allows MLB to shut out any competition. If the product is lame let the consumers decide if the 30 teams are needed
. MORE COLLECTIVISM is NOT the solution.
Very rhoughtful article…and who would have thunk it, shared sacrifice from ayers and ownerd could make for a better product! Though I do wonder about the ability for (an admittedly rich, but not overly rich, person) to be able to own a team and be a fan. Maybe that’s not relevent for new owners, but true for longer term owners. The franchise may be worth billions, but that’s not actual money. My house may be worth $400,000, but ghat doesn’t mean I have it to spend. Don’t get me wrong, I’m shedding no tears for ownership. Though I’m not interested in angel owners who reach into their own pocket to sign players. Either the business can support itself or it can’t. Thus the shared sacrifice. I will say this, I will not sacrifice the 2027 season and come back. If they don’t play they’ll never see me again
All these people complaining about the Dodgers is sickening. People need to stop complaining and do a deep dive into the Blue Jays 2024 and 2025 and look at the roster turn over and who stuck around to see how they got to where they were. Then look at the ACTUAL player roster and their salaries that played the Dodgers in the WS.
Every single team in the league can afford that same roster!!!!!!
I say salary cap & floor, but with a minimum of 3-5 years prior to implementation, and modest caps (yet hard floors) that can be toughened up in time.
Obviously not. Take the league average payroll and use that as the salary floor. Add 20% for the salary ceiling. Middle 20 teams will be fine, bottom 5 spenders, and top 5, will be scrambling.
No salary cap but harsher penalties but a cap floor
The easiest way to solve the cheap club issue is to up the minimum salary. A $1 mil minimum = $26 mil minimum payroll. $4 mil minimum = $104 mil minimum payroll. Now, older players might not be happy to be making the minimum or barely over it, but rookies and AAAA guys would be super-excited. This would be an easy way to get most players on board.
As to a cap – screw that. Go with a tougher luxury tax/penalty – ie: at $400 mil it goes to 200% and loss of a draft pick and $1 mil of IFA cap space.
that structure really does nothing to solve the issue that the dodgers have 2-4x the payroll of other teams.
Great article
Thanks!
nhl cap floor and top can’t go under or over the cap All teams have only so much space for stars need to decide who is worth keeping and who isn’t and stop long term deals max them out like 8 years and stop deferring money or front loading cause poor teams can’t do that
Shared TV Revenue, Salary Cap/Floor
this is the solution
“If deferred money had been
outlawed, the Dodgers would have had to pay
Ohtani a straight $46MM or so per vear. That
they’re instead paying him $2MM per year right
now means they have $44MM extra to spend
because of Ohtani’s choice”
This is not quite how deferrals work. The Dodgers are still paying the $44MM each year, they’re just not paying it directly to Ohtani.
Simple. Lock out the players and use players that were not good enough…. they would likely agree to a cap… talent might suck for a few years.. but itll eventually catch up.
Down with Oligarchy.
I find a cap being instilled hard to believe as well. Like what will it be? And if it’s, say $300 mil, what are Dodgers and Mets supposed to do? Do they have to trade or release players to get below it? It surely at least wouldn’t start until like 2030 or later even maybe. I think the ticket is a soft cap / floor. The floor needs to state clearly that revenue sharing is public data and that if a team doesn’t reinvest 90% of it into on field performance they are only eligible for a smaller percent the following year. If they do it three times in a five year period they are suspended from receiving revenue sharing for some period of time.
Flip side I think that the luxury thresholds come down significantly and the penalties go up enormously. I think if the Dodgers had to pay a 100% tax on every dollar spent over 300 mil they would not sign Tucker. He isn’t worth $60 a year let alone $120.
No I don’t think parity is ever possible. The gap will always be too large for MLB teams as far as revenues go. Even if you eliminate money there will still not be parity as some cities are more attractive than others for any number of reasons, that doesn’t mean there aren’t some players who will prefer every single place, but the number is always going to be higher for some, same for where spring training is.
100% against a cap as it’s wage suppression. You can say the players could earn more, but that is a tough thing to say for sure or even with any remote assurance. Revenues can be hidden, tax breaks for various things or start up embezzlement. While even min salary players earn far more than I do, They’re still closer to me then a billionaire owner. I want to see players paid fairly and will give up a season to see no cap.
Almost every change has been done to bring down player wages outside of MLB rosters, as far as international postings, how much can be spent on draft picks, even expanded playoffs second priority after more playoff revenue is to devalue spend more for great teams when very good or even just good teams can now beat any team in a short series.
I am a baseball purist/traditionalist & I hate what the game has turned into in the last 7+ years. And not only just because of the ridiculous player salaries (although that certainly is a part of it). So currently I don’t have an interest in MLB because of what the game has turned into, it has ruined it for a purist like me. If a lockout happened & we gained a salary cap & a salary floor & if we got rid of all of the speed it up, pace of play crud, heck MLB might get me back
Parity is another word for mediocrity. The Dodgers are good for mlb.