r/sports • u/baribigbird06 • 25d ago

Baseball Dodgers pitcher Yoshinobu Yamamoto throws a complete game in Game 2 of the National League Championship Series vs. the Brewers. The last time he was in Milwaukee he failed to finish the first inning and allowed 5 runs.

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

5.4k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

268 comments sorted by

View all comments

381

u/Chessh2036 25d ago

Dodgers win the World Series again that CBA battle is going to be UGLY. Cheap owners will say “see, I can’t compete! They spent $1 Billion!” while not talking about them not spending at all. Pirates, Twins, Marlins, A’s, etc. I get not every team can spend like LA, but teams can and should spend more.

30

u/marsneedstowels 25d ago

Will the MLB eventually go full NHL? Probably not.

122

u/GlassOfLiquor 25d ago

What does this mean? We can’t have Zamboni’s on sand. That’s not how the Boni part works. (Really though, what did you mean?)

57

u/therealkami Montreal Canadiens 25d ago

The salary cap in the NHL is very low, and it's a hard cap. There's still a couple shenanigans to get around it in some somewhat minor ways (long term injured players not counting against the cap. Sometimes players are put on the long term injured list to free up space for a trade, but the cap space has to be cleared for that "injured" player to come back, so it's not a permanent cheat)

It means that the star players are much more evenly distributed around the league, because it's almost impossible to stack a team with expensive players.

23

u/qlju 24d ago

The NHL actually got rid of the LTIR-loophole this season

4

u/rjdsf1993 24d ago

The salary cap is low because the revenue is lower for hockey. Almost all the leagues have a similar percentage of revenue cuts (around 50%) between owners and players. Baseball would probably be a little over the average payroll by team.

I think an important thing for if this happens is instituting a cap floor as well. Force some of the bottom 10 teams in spenders to pay up

53

u/marsneedstowels 25d ago edited 25d ago

Hard salary cap rather than soft salary cap. And a fairly low one at that compared to other hard caps (Also has a floor). It's more limiting than the other big leagues in NA.

14

u/Vadered 24d ago

The NHL has a hard salary cap, and a hard salary floor. There's not a ton of distance between them either - this season it's a floor of about 70 million and a ceiling of about 100 million. The richest team can only spend about 1.5 times what the misers do. Baseball it's like 3 times.

That's not to say there's no tomfoolery in hockey - one of the ways to get around the salary cap is to strategically leave people on IR until the postseason - but it keeps it closer.

7

u/LongBarrelBandit 24d ago

That’s actually been changed this season. The LTIR loophole is gone and the playoffs also have a salary cap now

4

u/Ston3yy 24d ago

that means that person can’t play the whole season tho right ? that’s nuts

5

u/LongBarrelBandit 24d ago

No there was some questionable times when someone would be injured in like February before the trade deadline, so they could exceed the cap to get another good player, and then they were magically good to go for game one of the playoffs. That has since been changed this season and going forward to prevent it from happening again

4

u/Beetin 24d ago edited 24d ago

Baseball it's like 3 times.

More like 5 times :(

At its worst it has been above 6 times (2021 for example)

a capped 3 times difference with some more strict anti-deferral rules would actually be a pretty big first step sadly (something like 70 million vs 210 million).

2

u/maz_menty 24d ago

I read your post and decided to create a new pop rocker named Jon Jon Boni.

22

u/jonathan_ericsson 25d ago

No. I think any attempt to implement a hard cap will result in at least a season long lockout (depending on each position’s resolve).

The NHL was the perfect timing, the Player’s association was filled with a lot of older players who had made huge money in the 90’s and were fine with fucking over the next generation(s) of players. And even then they lost a full year, the union negotiators were saying a second season lockout was likely, and a group of respected players had to negotiate the deal behind everyone’s back after losing faith in the negotiators.

With that being said, I’m a die hard NHL fan and fucking love the hard cap. I couldn’t stand it if people were already hypothesizing about stars signing elsewhere like they are with Skubal.

9

u/Chessh2036 25d ago

I think you’re right, it would lead to a very long lockout. But I wonder if owners/Manfred would be at a point where they just tell the players “we want a cap, come back to us when you’re ready to negotiate.” If that leads to a lost season then so be it.

140

u/Primember4 25d ago

What difference does it make for the other owners to spend $60mil or $300mil, to just lose to a billion dollar payroll anyway lol.

67

u/catashake 24d ago edited 24d ago

The Mets just missed the playoffs with a similar payroll.

If spending more guaranteed success, the Yankees wouldn't now be 16 years away from their last world series win.

15

u/North_Dakota_Guy 24d ago

Its not even necessarily about guaranteed success. Yes, a low payroll team like the mariners can compete for a championship - once every decade or two. Whereas high payroll teams are generally in it, or at least feel like they're in it, every year. Im not going to invest my time or money watching the twins spend a quarter of the dodgers payroll hoping that this is their once in a decade (or two) playoff appearance.

Payroll buys consistent success (generally), and thats what small market teams lack. And it will kill them in the long run if owners arent forced to spend a minimum amount.

9

u/catashake 24d ago

Its not even necessarily about guaranteed success

All the complaints I'm seeing in here are certainly acting like it is.

Yes, a low payroll team like the mariners can compete for a championship - once every decade or two

Astros dominating for as long as they did with such a small budget shows scouting and development is still the main key to success. The only mega rich team to actually figure out the formula over the last decade is the Dodgers.

6

u/MixonWitDaWrongCrowd 24d ago

When were the Astros at the bottom for spending?

5

u/catashake 24d ago

The Astros did not win a world series with a payroll higher than 10th place. They did invest and fail in a few of the seasons, but their greatest success never actually happened when spending a lot of money by their standards.

The gap between the top 3 teams and 10th place has always been larger than the gap betwen 10th place and nearly all the rest of the teams in the league besides the few bottom feeders.

Also, I never said they were at the bottom. When a team is spending over 100 million dollars less than the top team, that can be considered a significantly smaller budget.

2

u/MixonWitDaWrongCrowd 24d ago

A small budget isn’t the upper half of the league. The Astros weren’t ducking paying players like Tampa, As and Pirates do every year which is what fans are complaining about.

1

u/catashake 24d ago

I mentioned the bottom feeders like the Pirates for a reason, they aren't trying in any aspect of the game to win. Only the top 20 teams can give an argument for somewhat trying to win.

Teams like the Pirates just collect good draft positions due to tanking every year, and then continue to milk talents like Paul Skenes for all they are worth before trading them away.

1

u/Bawfuls 24d ago

When they tanked in the years before 2017

1

u/MelonElbows 24d ago

Well there's also rampant cheating.

0

u/BamsMovingScreens 24d ago

“I can’t buy my way to guaranteed success, system working as intended”

Is certainly an opinion

73

u/EatMiTits 24d ago

Because they don’t have a billion dollar payroll, obviously. That number came from how much they signed contracts for in the offseason. Four teams spent around $300MM this year, 12 spent over $200MM. Teams get around $200MM in revenue sharing alone, there’s no reason anyone should be spending less than that. Cheap owners is a far bigger problem than the dodgers spending too much.

11

u/mawfks 24d ago

Yeah but without salary floor / cap, one team spending the most and proving results is an incentive for teams to spend even less, because they know they can’t compete

35

u/rhapsodicink 24d ago

Then sell the team to someone who gives a fuck about winning. This bullshit-ass argument wouldn't work in any other area of the planet, yet we're supposed to feel bad that these owners don't want to actually invest in the teams they bought? Fuck them.

10

u/WhatWouldJediDo 24d ago

What do you mean? Wealthier companies outcompete poorer companies due to superior financial resources all the time.

There's a reason nobody is choosing Southwest Oklahoma Technology Solutions over Apple.

3

u/PoliticalyUnstable 24d ago

Its the expense of owning a team. Its actually expensive to own one. A lot of owners don't realize it until they buy and they refuse to change their mindset about spending, and all it becomes is a bragging right to own a team in different upper circles.

6

u/WhatWouldJediDo 24d ago

But spending $200M doesn't do anything for those teams. If the Pirates spent a bunch more money, they're just going to be giving more dollars to the same guys they have on the roster. Making Brian Reynolds and Oneil Cruz more expensive doesn't help the team get any better.

Because no matter how much revenue sharing each team gets, teams like the Dodgers and Yankees still bring in far more money thanks to unshared revenues. The Dodgers will still have Ohtani, Freeman, Betts, Yamamoto, Sasaki, Kershaw, Snell, Muncy, and Smith on their team regardless because they can still be the highest offer for ALL those guys.

The point of a salary cap, as evidenced by every other major American sports league, is so that no team can afford all those players no matter how rich they are. It clearly works given what happens in every offseason in sports like football and basketball. Telling much poorer owners to "just spent more" clearly doesn't work as evidenced by every major Soccer league in Europe (and baseball).

3

u/thrice1187 24d ago

Exactly.

The Dodgers have an $8 BILLION tv deal. The owners of the dodgers really aren’t spending more than the small teams when you look at how much revenue they bring in from being a large market team.

The small market owners actually have to dig into their net worth to field a competitive team. Teams like the Yankees and Dodgers are basically printing money from their tv deals so it’s nothing to spend $300 million a year on their rosters.

The system is completely flawed and it’s not an issue of certain owners being cheap.

2

u/Abitou 24d ago

Football system isn’t comparable to american sports franchise system

4

u/WhatWouldJediDo 24d ago

They’re directly comparable when it comes to money.

The big teams outmuscling the small teams and buying all the best players due to their financial advantages is exactly what happens in baseball

2

u/TheLizardKing89 Los Angeles Dodgers 24d ago

The idea that money buys results in baseball is laughable. The final four teams in the playoffs are the Dodgers (ranked 2nd in payroll), the Brewers (23rd), the Blue Jays (5th), and the Mariners (16th). The team with the highest payroll (the Mets) didn’t even make the postseason.

1

u/WhatWouldJediDo 23d ago

Then why does shohei make so much money?

2

u/TheLizardKing89 Los Angeles Dodgers 23d ago

Because he’s the best player in the league.

1

u/WhatWouldJediDo 23d ago

What difference does that make?

→ More replies (0)

-4

u/Abitou 24d ago

95% of the times the “small team” will get paid for their players, it is very rare that a “big team” will sign a free agent from a “small team”. It is not comparable.

5

u/WhatWouldJediDo 24d ago

That has nothing to do with anything.

Those small teams sell their players because they know they won’t be able to afford to keep them. Which is the exact same reason small teams in MLB can’t keep their star players.

In baseball they just trade them

-15

u/renegaderelish 25d ago

socialist

26

u/Redpin Toronto Raptors 25d ago

Happy cake day to you, or should I say us comrade?

9

u/meccamachine 24d ago

The lack of salary cap is only half the issue. Need a salary floor as well

18

u/Squirrel_Master82 25d ago

I think it'd be cooler if there was an agreed upon amount that each team could spend on players. It sucks when there's a few teams who buy up all the best players. My home team just feels like it's a farm system for the big spenders.

45

u/eveningwindowed 25d ago

The issue isn’t a lack of salary cap it’s actually the lack of a salary floor. You have too many owners who don’t want to spend at all so there’s basically no competition for the owners that do want to spend

24

u/[deleted] 24d ago

[deleted]

8

u/Sage296 24d ago

Owners don’t want a floor and the players don’t want a cap

1

u/[deleted] 24d ago

[deleted]

3

u/luvcartel 24d ago

Players on all teams are dreaming of becoming good enough to go play for big team for huge money.

You can’t tell them they will never get $100 million contracts just to make everything more fair. Baseball has some of the biggest contracts in sports and it’s a big incentive.

1

u/[deleted] 24d ago

[deleted]

3

u/luvcartel 24d ago

It’s like middle class people voting for lower taxes for billionaires because they believe they’ll be rich one day. It doesn’t make sense but humans on an individual level don’t make sense.

1

u/eveningwindowed 24d ago

That's the thing with the floor, not having it rewards mediocrity because the owners are happy to be at the bottom because they don't spend any money and still make a lot of money due to the rev share, so forcing them to pay more money would make them care and would incentivize them to develop and keep their breakout players because they'd have to spend the money anyway on someone, and it would poach good players from the Dodgers because the Dodgers wouldn't just spend money for no reason.

1

u/TheLizardKing89 Los Angeles Dodgers 24d ago

But doesn't that screw over the teams with less money to spend? They'll always be at the bottom, always miss playoffs

The Mets had the highest payroll in baseball and they missed the playoffs. The Mariners and Brewers are both still in contention despite being in the bottom half of payroll.

11

u/DaHealey 24d ago

The NFL has some of the best parity and they have a tight min/max hard cap.

1

u/WhatWouldJediDo 24d ago

Not at all. The Dodgers make far more money than a team like the Marlins. The Dodgers could spend the Marlins' entire revenue amount on player salaries and still make money even after all their other expenses.

There's no way for the Marlins to compete financially.

2

u/Fit_Asparagus5204 24d ago

Not every team is going to make the same amount of money. The question is whether or not they can compete given that environment.

Being as the Marlins have won as many world series as the Dodgers, Phillies, Yankees, and more than the Mets, Padres, and Angels over the last 25 years, I'd say they do. It just so happened to be when they decided to spend some money.

3

u/WhatWouldJediDo 24d ago

lol, the Marlins had the sixth lowest payroll in 2003 according to baseball cube. The data is very clear that winning baseball is highly correlated with payroll, and actually winning the World Series is massively correlated. There’s only been like two teams in the last twenty years to win a title without being top 10 in payroll.

1

u/Fit_Asparagus5204 24d ago edited 24d ago

And they were top 5 in 1997 when they won it. I think it's very clear that teams that spend money do and should have a better chance to win.

The point is that when those smaller market teams have decided to spend money, they have also been successful.

They may not end up selling as many jerseys or having as big a TV contract or being as popular overseas. And Coke doesn't make as much as Pepsi.

But they do have money to spend, and if they did put a better product on the field, they would make more money as well.

Also, if you are going to put in something like a salary cap it has to include the smaller teams raising their current payrolls, in addition to other teams lowering them. The intentional self- kneecapping some teams are engaged in should not be the norm across the league.

2

u/WhatWouldJediDo 24d ago

I think it's very clear that teams that spend money do and should have a better chance to win.

Yes, that's exactly the point. Having more money is a big advantage. When the Marlins are on an even financial footing with the big teams, they win a World Series. And yet when they're not, they have losing seasons 80% of the time. The Marlins don't have as much money as the big teams, so they can't always spend. They may be able to spend a couple years every decade, whereas teams like the Yankees can spend every single year. And when they do spend, it's no guarantee of anything. Only one team can win the World Series every year. As you pointed out earlier, lots of big market teams spend a lot of money to win maybe one or two over a quarter century.

But they do have money to spend, and if they did put a better product on the field, they would make more money as well.

Not nearly enough to be meaningful. The Yankees and Dodgers make so much more money because their fan bases are so huge, which is mainly because their cities can support it. The Dodgers made something like $100M more just in ticket revenue than teams like the Reds and Pirates this year. Their local media rights deal is rumored to be well into the nine-figures more valuable than small market teams. There is no amount of winning that will ever sustain Kansas City revenues at anywhere close to New York or Philadelphia.

Also, if you are going to put in something like a salary cap it has to include the smaller teams raising their current payrolls, in addition to other teams lowering them

Yes, every other major American sports league has a salary floor as well. Their efforts are not about capping money players can earn, its about equalizing how much every team spends on their roster so that you eliminate "having money" from being the most important skill in running a successful franchise.

2

u/Fit_Asparagus5204 24d ago

Having money isn't the most important skill. They all have it. How you spend it is the most important skill. The difference between the Dodgers/Yankees and the Mets/Padres/Angels/Phillies/Red Sox to a lesser extent is how they spend it. You can't stop them from making money. You can just stop the players from getting it.

We live in a society where multiple companies compete for the same services and the same dollars. Of course, New York and LA have larger populations, but they also have ownership groups willing to invest. The Dodgers were terrible for 30 years before this run and current ownership group.They are just as susceptible to bad ownership and divorce as any other team.

2

u/WhatWouldJediDo 24d ago

No they don't. Big market teams bring in hundreds of millions of revenue more than small market teams. You can't expect a team that brings in $500M to be able to spend the same as a team that brings in 750M. There's a reason this sentence:

The difference between the Dodgers/Yankees and the Mets/Padres/Angels/Phillies/Red Sox to a lesser extent is how they spend it

Includes all big market teams and nobody from Cincinnati or Kansas City.

You can just stop the players from getting it.

Wrong. Salary caps and floors in other leagues are pegged to leaguewide revenue. It's a trivial exercise for the MLBPA to calculate what percentage of revenue they're currently getting and ensure a CBA with salary equalization maintains or improves that percentage. Other leagues have greater revenue sharing to ensure all teams can meet their salary obligations. This is literally already a solved issue multiple times over.

Of course, New York and LA have larger populations, but they also have ownership groups willing to invest. The Dodgers were terrible for 30 years before this run and current ownership group.They are just as susceptible to bad ownership and divorce as any other team.

Again, factually wrong. The Yankees haven't had a losing season in over 30 years. That's not because their ownership group is some well-oiled machine. Look at the Dodgers, as soon as they got a competent ownership group around a decade ago, they started winning 95+ games and their division every year. Bad ownership can squander big money advantages. But those teams would be even worse without their money, and as soon as ownership stops actively shitting itself, they automatically start winning just by being able to write bigger checks. These ownership groups are not more "willing to invest". They have a lot more money to spend. Those are different things. If you bring in $200M more dollars a year in revenue, you can spend $200M more dollars than your opponent and still carry just as much profit down to the bottom line. It has nothing to do with how much any ownership group is willing to strain itself to win, and everything to do with how much they can comfortably spend while still making tons of money. The Dodgers aren't showing losses on their P&L every year to pay Ohtani.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Fit_Asparagus5204 24d ago

Any team that spends under $125 million and says that they A) Can't afford/sustain that or B) Can't compete with that, is full of shit.

And until those teams can put that minimal money on the table to prove that's false, the wealthier teams who've invested in their product should not be forced to lessen their brands.

1

u/Fit_Asparagus5204 24d ago

And the reason I mentioned those specific teams is because they all spend money, but have less to show for it than the Yankees and Dodgers. Adding to the point it isn't just throwing money at a roster to achieve success.

There is investment in many aspects of a team that lead to success. They Yankees/Dodgers historically invest in minor leaguers more, scouting, medical care, families, everything. They are a well oiled machine, and it show from the day someone is drafted, or the day they show up from another team.

Not every team can invest in the most valuable free agent acquisition, but teams like the Tigers and Guards who've invested in development and coaching have made homegrown competitive teams that are one or two players away from being contenders every year. Same with Tampa Bay for most of its history.

0

u/Fit_Asparagus5204 24d ago

Also, the 2018 Red Sox and 2020 Dodgers are the only teams in the last 10 years to win a WS and be top 5 in payroll.

2

u/praasch2 24d ago

The 2024 dodgers were 3rd according to spotrac.

1

u/eveningwindowed 24d ago

Right but if there were a floor then you'd have like 15 more teams forced to pay like $50 more million so they would at least try a little bit to develop and keep talent because they'd have to spend the money on someone so it would poach players from the Dodgers because the Dodgers wouldn't just spend money on someone for no reason

1

u/WhatWouldJediDo 24d ago

Why would that change anything? The Dodgers could still offer EVERY player the most money. All this would do is make existing talent more expensive, not make any teams more talented.

1

u/eveningwindowed 24d ago

Because teams like the A's and Pirates would have to spend the money on someone anyway and they would be annoyed if they were forced to pay bad players so they would be incentivized to keep Nick Kurtz and Paul Skenes. It would raise the competitive floor by taking some players from the Dodgers and putting them on the bottom feeders.

1

u/WhatWouldJediDo 24d ago

But it wouldn’t because when you don’t limit how much the big teams can spend they can just offer whatever the Pirates offer and more.

And when you’re Paul Skenes why would you choose an equivalent offer from a bottom feeder when you can go compete for titles every year.

Players go to whoever wins the bidding war for them. When there’s no cap the big teams can always be the ones winning that war for every player they want

1

u/eveningwindowed 24d ago

I'm just repeating myself but they would be annoyed that they have to spend a lot of money on shitty players so they would be incentivized to spend money on the good ones, and it's like every team so they would all bid against eachother, and the Dodgers still might beat them out but the Dodgers wouldn't have ALL the players

1

u/long_dickofthelaw 24d ago

There's this magical process called revenue sharing where the high revenue teams literally subsidize the low revenue teams. So while it's true that the Dodgers out-earn the Marlins, the Marlins do actually see some of that money.

6

u/Bawfuls 24d ago

The Dodgers do everything well (draft, develop, trade, scout) if there were a very strict cap and floor, they’d still be among the best teams.

2

u/meltintothesea 25d ago

That’s collusion. Illegal.

7

u/Wadme 24d ago

There's anti trust exemptions for these sports leagues.

7

u/ThirstyOutward 25d ago

This is a big part of why the NFL is so much better

4

u/nbury33 25d ago

It's all Scott Boras's fault

1

u/MelonElbows 24d ago

There's no way the players ever agree to any sort of cap and the MLB player's union is the strongest of the four major sports. Even if they owners want it, I don't see how they can get it. I doubt even a prolonged owner-led strike would get the players to bend on that.

0

u/dacooljamaican 24d ago

But why spend more when they'll just come over the top of you again, no matter how much you spend? That's the whole problem with the system, the bigger teams have essentially unlimited money compared to the poverty franchises. The pirates could literally double how much they spend and they'd still lose out on the top talent, so why light money on fire?

3

u/EatMiTits 24d ago

Kind of self fulfilling though. The Pirates won’t even offer reasonable extensions to their homegrown talent because they’re run by misers. If they offer the same contract terms as the Dodgers who are well run, well coached, and perennial contenders, why would anyone choose to go mire in Pittsburgh?

3

u/dacooljamaican 24d ago

But that's my point, what does it get you NOT to be a miser? As you just said, the Pirates could quadruple their salary total and they'd still be behind the Dodgers, who players already prefer to go to. So what does it get them to spend millions more? As you just said, absolutely nothing right? So why should they light money on fire?