Moderators: MickeyDavis, paulpressey25, humanrefutation
Ron Swanson wrote:Absolute worst outcome possible. A clean sweep by LA would have at least turned the heat up on salary cap discussions. Now we have to hear all the legacy baseball media **** wax poetically about how great this is for baseball (barfs). This league is **** broken.
MikeIsGood wrote:The worst case scenario tbh was always a Jays win. Of course the Dodgers looking like unstoppable juggernauts makes a more immediate impression, but they still won. The billion dollar team losing? Different story.
The sense of awe would be the same if the Blue Jays had prevailed instead – they supplied half the drama and half the highlights. Ultimately, the series crowned a credible champ not just because the Dodgers were favored for months, but because, in the end, they had to scratch and claw their way to the top. Just because their victory was projected doesn’t mean it was easy or predictable. The many jaw-dropping moments when the entire series seemed to hinge on a single swing or a swipe of the glove or mere centimeters (both because it was so close and because it was in Canada): Don’t tell me you saw those coming.
If this is what a broken sport feels like, don’t fix it.
Ron Swanson wrote:Nah, when articles like this were popping up everywhere yesterday...
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2025/nov/02/los-angeles-dodgers-world-series-payrollThe sense of awe would be the same if the Blue Jays had prevailed instead – they supplied half the drama and half the highlights. Ultimately, the series crowned a credible champ not just because the Dodgers were favored for months, but because, in the end, they had to scratch and claw their way to the top. Just because their victory was projected doesn’t mean it was easy or predictable. The many jaw-dropping moments when the entire series seemed to hinge on a single swing or a swipe of the glove or mere centimeters (both because it was so close and because it was in Canada): Don’t tell me you saw those coming.
If this is what a broken sport feels like, don’t fix it.
*wank off motion*
https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/46824017/2025-world-series-dodgers-blue-jays-greatest-ever-tim-kurkjian
Yep. The Dodgers having to "scratch and claw" (with their **** half a billion dollar payroll) in 7-games is gonna be the rallying cry for every big market/anti-salary cap apologist. Tim Kurkjian doesn't get to wax poetically about how "there's nothing wrong with this beautiful sport that just gave us the best World Series EVER" (re: straw-manning) if this were a 4-game sweep or even just a relatively uncompetitive 5-game win by LA. Worst possible outcome was always a close fought Dodgers win so that the league and all the pretentious national writers can hold it over all us other baseball peasants' heads and go "see, you still have a chance", "yOU jUSt NeEd tp sPEnD beTTeR", and all that condescending garbage.
Eeavers57 wrote:I am just spit balling and could be completely off base here, and feel free to let me know if am, but I think the MLB is trending towards how European soccer/futbol operates. You have the powerhouses who spend on transfers and players and the other teams who develop talent and sell them for profit. That's just the reality.
Now I don't necessarily think the answer is a salary cap, but rather other tweaks (which probably aren't feasible but still pose questions). Harsher "penalties" for the big spenders for one, trading draft picks for another (I don't understand why this is not allowed other than not allowed in CBA).
For the spending issue, I think the pay structure of <6 year service time players is really out of touch. And I say that in terms of, if I am a team that is rebuilding, I am going to want to play a lot of rookies to develop them and see what I have. Is it the team's fault that they all make 820k and my payroll is then around 24.6M for 3/4 of my 40 man? It makes no sense to pay 10 random guys 60M to "hit" my ~85M or whatever floor. I think the salary floor stipulation is a joke.
Again, my take, and just needed to get it out
MikeIsGood wrote:Ron Swanson wrote:Nah, when articles like this were popping up everywhere yesterday...
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2025/nov/02/los-angeles-dodgers-world-series-payrollThe sense of awe would be the same if the Blue Jays had prevailed instead – they supplied half the drama and half the highlights. Ultimately, the series crowned a credible champ not just because the Dodgers were favored for months, but because, in the end, they had to scratch and claw their way to the top. Just because their victory was projected doesn’t mean it was easy or predictable. The many jaw-dropping moments when the entire series seemed to hinge on a single swing or a swipe of the glove or mere centimeters (both because it was so close and because it was in Canada): Don’t tell me you saw those coming.
If this is what a broken sport feels like, don’t fix it.
*wank off motion*
https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/46824017/2025-world-series-dodgers-blue-jays-greatest-ever-tim-kurkjian
Yep. The Dodgers having to "scratch and claw" (with their **** half a billion dollar payroll) in 7-games is gonna be the rallying cry for every big market/anti-salary cap apologist. Tim Kurkjian doesn't get to wax poetically about how "there's nothing wrong with this beautiful sport that just gave us the best World Series EVER" (re: straw-manning) if this were a 4-game sweep or even just a relatively uncompetitive 5-game win by LA. Worst possible outcome was always a close fought Dodgers win so that the league and all the pretentious national writers can hold it over all us other baseball peasants' heads and go "see, you still have a chance", "yOU jUSt NeEd tp sPEnD beTTeR", and all that condescending garbage.
How is the Jays winning in the 9th of Game 7 any better? "yOU jUSt NeEd tp sPEnD lIkE TOroNTo"
Ron Swanson wrote:Eeavers57 wrote:I am just spit balling and could be completely off base here, and feel free to let me know if am, but I think the MLB is trending towards how European soccer/futbol operates. You have the powerhouses who spend on transfers and players and the other teams who develop talent and sell them for profit. That's just the reality.
Now I don't necessarily think the answer is a salary cap, but rather other tweaks (which probably aren't feasible but still pose questions). Harsher "penalties" for the big spenders for one, trading draft picks for another (I don't understand why this is not allowed other than not allowed in CBA).
For the spending issue, I think the pay structure of <6 year service time players is really out of touch. And I say that in terms of, if I am a team that is rebuilding, I am going to want to play a lot of rookies to develop them and see what I have. Is it the team's fault that they all make 820k and my payroll is then around 24.6M for 3/4 of my 40 man? It makes no sense to pay 10 random guys 60M to "hit" my ~85M or whatever floor. I think the salary floor stipulation is a joke.
Again, my take, and just needed to get it out
Yes, this has always been the logical compromise you give the Players' Union for a salary cap tradeoff. "We'll rip up the arbitration process and let you guys get paid sooner if you agree to a soft cap and a salary floor". All major North American sports make a salary cap work. There's no excuses anymore for MLB's archaic structure.