-OT - how can you watch the dodgers and not want super teams back in the NBA

[xBulletproof]

Absolutely not.

This is the reason I don't watch college sports. It's just all the same teams every year getting the best players. It's also why I don't watch baseball. The Dodgers have 2.4 billion in signed contracts. The Oakland A's have 150 million. The Brewers make 30 million a year on their TV deal. The Dodgers make 335 million. They might as well be in different leagues all together.

When KD signed with the Warriors I definitely took a step back from the NBA. What a waste of time.

[MavsDirk41]

I want superteams back in the NBA. Any team. I remember being so extremely happy whenever a team beats the "Heatles". There has to be a villain and an underdog in the NBA, it just makes the storyline more interesting to watch.

OKC is looking like theyre going to be hard to beat for the next decade.

OKC and San Antonio will probably battle for the West for the next 5-7 years. Could be some epic clashes in the playoffs.

[MavsDirk41]

I agree but only for casuals.

Exhibit A: I've never watched more baseball than I have in the past couple of years but I can probably only name 5 players off the top of my head and only understand the basic rules, terminologies etc

Same. I dont watch baseball much, but the last couple of years since the Dodgers got Ohtani I started watching more and trying to actually learn the sport. In contrast ive actually have not been as involved as I used to be with the NBA the last couple of years.

My opinion, but it feels like baseball has retaken basketball in terms of overall popularity the last couple of years. I thought basketball was in the lead during 2000s-2010s. More people that I meet know more about baseball recently.

Your feeling is correct. The world series ratings demolished the NBA Finals ratings. It wasn't even close.

And I never thought I'd see it in my lifetime, but the Lakers have been overtaken in Los Angeles. The dodgers have been more popular for a few years now, even before Ohtani. But the addition of Shohei has brought a lot more eyes. Let's be honest, he's a much more likeable and charismatic superstar than LeBron and still in his prime.

But now with Luka here and Lebron's time coming to an end, it feels like the Lakers are back on the rise again.

Not a Lakers fan but this sounds about right.

[SkyBill40]

Spoken like someone who doesn't know how baseball works. You don't win just by spending the most and acquiring the most talent in baseball. This isn't the NBA.

Spoken like someone who didn't watch the Dodgers win by doing precisely that.

Sent from my SM-F966U using RealGM mobile app

Hmm, the team that hit .204 and their pitching outside of ONE guy that saved their season. And even then it took a home run from one of their "cheap" players to save them in the 9th inning. If anything this World Series run and even leading into the postseason showed that a "cheap" team would've gone this far and won. Seattle had great pitching too and they were one pitching mistake away in their own game 7 from getting there and possibly winning it.

There's more data that shows that high payroll isn't a direct correlation to winning just this season alone than there is for it being some sort of advantage. What IS a problem is that there are teams essentially losing on purpose because they would rather tank than to pay any good player so they're left with trying to "catch up" with the bigger spending teams.

Hence why I said that there should be both a cap AND a floor. Institute both and the playing field gets a whole lot tighter and that nonsense deferment stuff goes away. But it would never get past MLBPA, so the point is moot and we're stuck with this crap.

[California Gold]

Spoken like someone who didn't watch the Dodgers win by doing precisely that.

Sent from my SM-F966U using RealGM mobile app

Hmm, the team that hit .204 and their pitching outside of ONE guy that saved their season. And even then it took a home run from one of their "cheap" players to save them in the 9th inning. If anything this World Series run and even leading into the postseason showed that a "cheap" team would've gone this far and won. Seattle had great pitching too and they were one pitching mistake away in their own game 7 from getting there and possibly winning it.

There's more data that shows that high payroll isn't a direct correlation to winning just this season alone than there is for it being some sort of advantage. What IS a problem is that there are teams essentially losing on purpose because they would rather tank than to pay any good player so they're left with trying to "catch up" with the bigger spending teams.

lol, I love that it's usually Dodgers fans that try to convince everyone that money isn't the reason for their success. As if never losing players for nothing, being able to hire the best scouts, have the best facilities attracting free agents, and literally dozens of other reasons why having more money >>> having less money. It's a huge advantage.

I don't think that's why the Dodgers attracted the players they have. In fact I'd say Los Angeles in itself is more of an advantage than money. Lots of baseball players are from Southern California and some have a desire to want to play there. That was pretty much the case with Freeman. Blake Snell wanted to stay on the West Coast and I'm sure he didn't believe in the Angels or Mariners if he wanted to win a title last winter. Ohtani, Yamamoto and Sasaki were a packaged trio, starting with Ohtani who very clearly wanted to stay on the West Coast. Money does factor in somewhat but that doesn't equate to winning. You also still need to put together a team that will fit together.

[California Gold]

Spoken like someone who didn't watch the Dodgers win by doing precisely that.

Sent from my SM-F966U using RealGM mobile app

Hmm, the team that hit .204 and their pitching outside of ONE guy that saved their season. And even then it took a home run from one of their "cheap" players to save them in the 9th inning. If anything this World Series run and even leading into the postseason showed that a "cheap" team would've gone this far and won. Seattle had great pitching too and they were one pitching mistake away in their own game 7 from getting there and possibly winning it.

There's more data that shows that high payroll isn't a direct correlation to winning just this season alone than there is for it being some sort of advantage. What IS a problem is that there are teams essentially losing on purpose because they would rather tank than to pay any good player so they're left with trying to "catch up" with the bigger spending teams.

Hence why I said that there should be both a cap AND a floor. Institute both and the playing field gets a whole lot tighter and that nonsense deferment stuff goes away. But it would never get past MLBPA, so the point is moot and we're stuck with this crap.

In baseball for a cap ceiling I think it would have to be a lot different than other sports because of how important pitching is. I think a cap floor at the very least at least pushes teams to spend though. A team that spends even 90-100 million in payroll is very likely to have a chance at winning if assembled well. You can be assembled well on the poor but that formula isn't going to last very long. Also yeah you hit on the head, the players aren't going to go for a cap with some of the absurd amounts of money that they can command. You could have a system in place that limits "stars" but I don't really think that's going to stop well run organizations from contending and winning. Baseball is too random for stars to be the only players to matter, its the "role" players that ultimately are the difference between winning and losing series' in October.