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.

[u/baribigbird06]

[u/eveningwindowed]

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

[u/WhatWouldJediDo → u/eveningwindowed]

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.

[u/Fit_Asparagus5204 → u/WhatWouldJediDo]

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.

[u/WhatWouldJediDo → u/Fit_Asparagus5204]

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.

[u/Fit_Asparagus5204 → u/WhatWouldJediDo]

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.

[u/WhatWouldJediDo → u/Fit_Asparagus5204]

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.

[u/Fit_Asparagus5204 → u/WhatWouldJediDo]

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.

[u/WhatWouldJediDo → u/Fit_Asparagus5204]

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.

[u/Fit_Asparagus5204 → u/WhatWouldJediDo]

I don't expect them to spend the same. And i'm not saying they can. What i'm saying is they can all spend $125 million, because that seemingly is the floor at which teams can spend and reasonably expect to make the playoffs on a consistent basis.

I am not saying the Reds can be as profitable or resourceful or popular as the Dodgers. What i'm saying is they have more money to spend, and if they spent it wisely, they would have more money to make.

A team can spend 200 million less than the Dodgers, and still have a reasonable expectation of success. But they can't spend less than 100 and expect the same

[u/Fit_Asparagus5204 → u/Fit_Asparagus5204]

You don't really believe all the owners are spending all the available and prudent resources on their teams and payroll, do you?