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.
ReasonablySober wrote: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.
I've said it before, but this is a case of being careful what you wish for. Even if you institute a salary cap, the Brewers are going to be at or near the bottom the list of FA destinations, just like they are in the NBA. MLB's current system is actually beneficial to a team like Milwaukee in that they get to hold on to player rights for eight or nine years, right up to the point when players decline.
MickeyDavis wrote:ReasonablySober wrote:Ron Swanson wrote:
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.
I've said it before, but this is a case of being careful what you wish for. Even if you institute a salary cap, the Brewers are going to be at or near the bottom the list of FA destinations, just like they are in the NBA. MLB's current system is actually beneficial to a team like Milwaukee in that they get to hold on to player rights for eight or nine years, right up to the point when players decline.
If there was a cap and even playing field why would the Brewers be at the bottom? Weather isn't a factor in baseball. It's a nice stadium with a good fan base.
The NBA also has player caps in addition to team caps and allows team to pay more for their own free agents. Giannis can leave but he won't be paid more by anyone else.
ReasonablySober wrote:MickeyDavis wrote:ReasonablySober wrote:
I've said it before, but this is a case of being careful what you wish for. Even if you institute a salary cap, the Brewers are going to be at or near the bottom the list of FA destinations, just like they are in the NBA. MLB's current system is actually beneficial to a team like Milwaukee in that they get to hold on to player rights for eight or nine years, right up to the point when players decline.
If there was a cap and even playing field why would the Brewers be at the bottom? Weather isn't a factor in baseball. It's a nice stadium with a good fan base.
The NBA also has player caps in addition to team caps and allows team to pay more for their own free agents. Giannis can leave but he won't be paid more by anyone else.
Because they play in Milwaukee.
MickeyDavis wrote:ReasonablySober wrote:MickeyDavis wrote:
If there was a cap and even playing field why would the Brewers be at the bottom? Weather isn't a factor in baseball. It's a nice stadium with a good fan base.
The NBA also has player caps in addition to team caps and allows team to pay more for their own free agents. Giannis can leave but he won't be paid more by anyone else.
Because they play in Milwaukee.
I don't buy that. Sure some players want the bright lights of NY or LA but if Milwaukee could pay what any other team could pay they would be a good destination for a lot of FA's. Look at Green Bay.
ReasonablySober wrote:MickeyDavis wrote:ReasonablySober wrote:
Because they play in Milwaukee.
I don't buy that. Sure some players want the bright lights of NY or LA but if Milwaukee could pay what any other team could pay they would be a good destination for a lot of FA's. Look at Green Bay.
Nobody wants to play in GB either.