OT: MLB CBA

[California Gold]

The Dodgers are just a well run organization and these other teams are just jealous. They have one of the best farm systems in the game consistently, they develop their own talent and also sign FAs. They have also had trades that have been beneficial for them. No payroll cap is going to stop them. When you have an owner willing to spend while others rarely ever spend the problem is on the other end. A salary floor would help the league much more than a cap would.

A notoriously cheap team the A's have been run that way for decades. You can't expect to compete with anyone just trying to be frugal.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

Actually, in 2025 the Suns had a 220m league leading payroll. The Pistons the lowest at 140m, hence the ratio is like 1.5.
Moreover, the lowest paying teams are cycling, depending on the stage the arw and if they are opening space under cap. All of them can get to 170m, staying below the LT.
Moreover, no team can stay consistently over 195 and facing the 2nd Apron penalties.
So, the real difference in terms of spending power is like 15% more. Between the cheapest and the highest spending, if not for short bursts where it can get to like 30%.

[Soca]

They do need a salary cap. 350 million dollar payrolls are too extreme. Even if you put in a cap floor that's still way too hard to compete with financially for small markets.

[magee]

I'm currently living in Pittsburgh right now and a salary cap would force the owner to spend. The revenue sharing has destroyed parity in the sport. As much as I wouldn't want to take away from what the market dictates what a player can make, the sport needs some sort of balance. Cities like Pittsburgh want to support their sports teams and would shell out accordingly. It's the only way for the sport to try and create balance.

Players can always agree to deferred contracts, so if there was a salary cap, if I was a player, I'd demand deferment options in a new CBA.

[wco81]

Outcome of the Dodgers vs. Brewers series and the rest of the playoffs could impact how the CBA negotiations go next year.

The winner of the National League Championship Series could determine whether Major League Baseball is played in 2027.

This might sound far-fetched. It is not. What looks like a best-of-seven baseball series, which starts Monday as the Milwaukee Brewers host the Los Angeles Dodgers in Game 1, will play out as a proxy of the coming labor war between MLB and the MLB Players Association.

Owners across the game want a salary cap -- and if the Dodgers, with their record $500 million-plus payroll, win back-to-back World Series, it will only embolden the league's push to regulate salaries. The Brewers, consistently a bottom-third payroll team, emerging triumphant would serve as the latest evidence that winners can germinate even in the game's smallest markets and that the failures of other low-revenue teams have less to do with spending than execution.

The truth, of course, exists somewhere in between. But in between is not where the two parties stake out their negotiating positions in what many expect to be a brutal fight to determine the future of the game's economics. And that is why whoever comes out victorious likely will be used as a cudgel when formal negotiations begin next spring for the next version of the collective bargaining agreement that expires Dec. 1, 2026.

If it's the Dodgers, MLB owners -- who already were vocal publicly and even more so privately about Los Angeles spending as much as the bottom six teams in payroll combined this year -- will likely cry foul even louder. Already, MLB is expected to lock out players upon the agreement's expiration. Back-to-back championships by the Dodgers could embolden MLB and add to a chorus of fans who see a cap as a panacea for the plague of big-money teams monopolizing championships over the past decade.

Such a scenario would not scare the union off its half-century-old anti-cap stance. The MLBPA has no intention of negotiating if a cap remains on the table, and considering MLB was on the cusp of losing games in 2022 because of a negotiation that didn't include a cap, players already have spoken among themselves about how to weather missing time in 2027. Certainly, the Brewers winning wouldn't ensure avoiding that, but if in any argument about the necessity of a cap, the union can counter that the juggernaut Dodgers lost to a team of self-proclaimed Average Joes with a payroll a quarter of the size, it reinforces the point that team-building acumen can exist regardless of financial might.

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/46576425/mlb-playoffs-2025-dodgers-brewers-nlcs-world-series-passan-labor-battle

[dballislife]

if you add in penalties, teams are paying 400-550 million a year while others are in the 60-80 range, and this is with teams deferring money until like 10-15 years in some cases

[dballislife]

the only solution is to sell the small market teams to the richest people, i mean all these current owners are rich but not like riches of the rich and a lot are really cheap...so sell the teams to the richest of all the richest people that dont even care about the money

[wco81]

MLB claims a collective loss of $1.8 billion in 2025, despite record revenues. It may be more accounting losses, as there's no sign that this free agent market this winter will be any different than in previous seasons.

Nor does there seem to be caution by owners heading into a new CBA negotiation when they will be pursuing salary caps.

Major League Baseball privately informed team owners that franchises collectively lost $1.8 billion last year during the annual general manager meetings in Las Vegas this week. The New York Mets led all teams with approximately $350 million in reported losses, though industry observers note these figures represent accounting losses rather than actual declines in franchise valuations or total revenues.

According to USA Today Sports, the financial disclosures come amid speculation about how teams will approach spending with potential labor negotiations on the horizon. However, general managers interviewed indicated their ownership groups have not imposed spending restrictions due to lockout concerns.

"Everyone lies at these things," one veteran GM told USA Today Sports. "That's what we do. You never know what to believe. Everyone says they don't have money when they do. The truth comes out in spring training and you find out who lied the least."

Multiple executives expressed confidence that offseason acquisition patterns will remain consistent despite the reported losses. One National League general manager noted similar concerns preceded the 2021 season without dampening market activity.

"We had the same thing going into the 2021 season and it didn't stop teams from spending," the NL GM said. "I don't see it having any effect. Now, a year from now, may be a completely different story. But not now. I haven't heard that from any team."

The Mets' substantial reported losses occur despite owner Steve Cohen's estimated $21 billion net worth. Industry analysts emphasize that franchise valuations and overall revenues have reached record levels across baseball, suggesting the accounting losses reflect tax strategies rather than financial distress.

No general managers surveyed by USA Today Sports reported receiving directives to reduce payroll in preparation for potential work stoppages.

https://baseball.realgm.com/wiretap/60426/MLB-Reports-Teams-Lost-Combined-$18-Billion-Last-Season

[threethehardway]

If the MLB adds a salary cap, they will ruin the sport.

Nobody besides losers want to see NFL or NBA style salary cap.

Owners should be forced to sell their team if they don't want to spend.

Owning a sports team shouldn't be a hobby for baby billionaires. Buy a fifth jet, buy an island. Nothing worse than a cheap wealthy person.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

According to Gemini, MLB players make about 50% of the revenues, just like NBA players do.
That's the bottom line, everuthing else is politics inside the players association and inside the ownership meetings. Who's getting the largest slice of that 50% they are entitled to.
Fore reference, about two thirds of the revenues goes to players, in European football.

[wco81]

MLB signed a new 3-year TV deal with ESPN, Netflix and NBC.

https://baseball.realgm.com/wiretap/60455/MLB-Strikes-New-TV-Deals-With-NBC-Netflix-ESPN-Worth-$750M-Per-Year

ESPN will pay about the same amount as their previous deal.

The fact that they could only get a 3-year deal, while NFL and NBA deals run 10 years, may be indicative that networks don't trust the ratings for MLB.

Free agency over the next few months should be interesting. Will teams spend big with the CBA negotiations looming?

Will Dodgers just outspend everyone else again coming off a WS title, showing the heavy imbalances plaguing the sport?

[Homer38]

Baseball needs a salary cap (and salary floor) and I hope it will happen, but I don't think it will be possible unless the commissioner and owners are ready to sacrifice 1-2 seasons without baseball, similar to the NHL in 2004-2005, so it's very unlikely but very probably a very bad idea too!

[Homer38]

One thing is certain,it will be ugly once again(maybe even worst that 2022)in their next negociation after next season!

[Anticon]

They can do without a salary cap.

But they at least should put some better limits on contract length / size and get rid of that deferred salary nonsense.

The Ohtani contract is totally ridiculous... 20 years with less than 5% when the player will actually be playing.

[Duke4life831]

The NFL PA should be the ones striking. Biggest league in the world but can't get contract guarantees and owners keep forcing them to play more games on less rest.

And if Im the owners I would continue to die on that hill. No guarantee contracts is good for the front office, but most importantly good for the fans perspective. It allows teams a better chance to turn around a bad situation and that's pretty important to keep the fans hopes alive. Its one of the reasons why going from worst to first in a division in football isnt all that uncommon. Teams can cut bait with bad contracts pretty easily most of the time and correct course. The ones that dont and get stuck with horrible guaranteed deals like the Browns with Watson, well they're the Browns for a reason.

[zeebneeb]

Turn it i to blurnsball, then I'll watch. As for the salaries, you have to have a cap, or the teams won't be on an equal footing.

[wco81]

One reason there's more parity in the NFL and the NBA is also trying to reach parity, besides the salary cap in those sports, is that they derive huge revenues from the national TV deals, so more teams have the ability to spend and either sign or retain the best players.

Instead, there's huge inequality in local TV revenues, which is why teams like the Dodgers can outspend even NY teams despite NY being a bigger market than LA.

So think about the competitive structure of the MLB when every free agency, only a handful of teams are able to bid for these big time free agents or when smaller market teams have to trade away their best players instead of keeping them.

That is what happened with Juan Soto and that is probably what will happen with Skenes and Skubal.

[California Gold]

One reason there's more parity in the NFL and the NBA is also trying to reach parity, besides the salary cap in those sports, is that they derive huge revenues from the national TV deals, so more teams have the ability to spend and either sign or retain the best players.

Instead, there's huge inequality in local TV revenues, which is why teams like the Dodgers can outspend even NY teams despite NY being a bigger market than LA.

So think about the competitive structure of the MLB when every free agency, only a handful of teams are able to bid for these big time free agents or when smaller market teams have to trade away their best players instead of keeping them.

That is what happened with Juan Soto and that is probably what will happen with Skenes and Skubal.

None of these things drive titles unlike the NBA and NFL though. That's the difference. The Dodgers exception being that they have a revenue source from a whole country is a pretty decent one off irregardless of their TV deal. There's plenty of big spenders in baseball, it doesn't guarantee a thing. Baseball has had pretty decent parity for a long time now, especially compared to the NFL and the NBA which continually seems to house dynasties. A salary floor is most certainly needed for cheap ownership to pony up to at least form competitive teams.

I'd go even further to say MLB Free Agency is a much smaller aspect of why teams win titles in baseball similar to the NFL. Half of your team has to be built through the farm for you to realistically expect to compete, whether thats trades made using your farm or outright promotion within your system of talent.

The Dodgers are the lone exception with having deferment which was suggested by Ohtani himself to build a competitive roster because he was happy to put that money aside (factor in what he's going to lose in inflation as well) to help the Dodgers field a better team right now whilst also costing them a lot in AAV.

[cornchip]

MLB signed a new 3-year TV deal with ESPN, Netflix and NBC.

https://baseball.realgm.com/wiretap/60455/MLB-Strikes-New-TV-Deals-With-NBC-Netflix-ESPN-Worth-$750M-Per-Year

ESPN will pay about the same amount as their previous deal.

The fact that they could only get a 3-year deal, while NFL and NBA deals run 10 years, may be indicative that networks don't trust the ratings for MLB.

Free agency over the next few months should be interesting. Will teams spend big with the CBA negotiations looming?

Will Dodgers just outspend everyone else again coming off a WS title, showing the heavy imbalances plaguing the sport?

The FOX/TNT deals for MLB run through 2028, I believe. Makes sense to renegotiate the deals all at once, especially when the labor side of things are more settled.

These are good deals for the MLB though. Invites more media players into their product. NBC is the absolute best network for sports. Netflix attracts the younger demo and could be a natural fit for MLB when their live programming infrastructure matures. I don't know how ESPN/MLB thought they could live without each other but this brings them back into the fold.

Pretty much MLB struck when the iron is hot. The 2028 deals are going to be the real measure.

[wco81]

One reason there's more parity in the NFL and the NBA is also trying to reach parity, besides the salary cap in those sports, is that they derive huge revenues from the national TV deals, so more teams have the ability to spend and either sign or retain the best players.

Instead, there's huge inequality in local TV revenues, which is why teams like the Dodgers can outspend even NY teams despite NY being a bigger market than LA.

So think about the competitive structure of the MLB when every free agency, only a handful of teams are able to bid for these big time free agents or when smaller market teams have to trade away their best players instead of keeping them.

That is what happened with Juan Soto and that is probably what will happen with Skenes and Skubal.

None of these things drive titles unlike the NBA and NFL though. That's the difference. The Dodgers exception being that they have a revenue source from a whole country is a pretty decent one off irregardless of their TV deal. There's plenty of big spenders in baseball, it doesn't guarantee a thing. Baseball has had pretty decent parity for a long time now, especially compared to the NFL and the NBA which continually seems to house dynasties. A salary floor is most certainly needed for cheap ownership to pony up to at least form competitive teams.

I'd go even further to say MLB Free Agency is a much smaller aspect of why teams win titles in baseball similar to the NFL. Half of your team has to be built through the farm for you to realistically expect to compete, whether thats trades made using your farm or outright promotion within your system of talent.

The Dodgers are the lone exception with having deferment which was suggested by Ohtani himself to build a competitive roster because he was happy to put that money aside (factor in what he's going to lose in inflation as well) to help the Dodgers field a better team right now whilst also costing them a lot in AAV.

Yes signing free agents to huge contracts is no guarantee of winning championships. A good example were the Mets this past season.

But think of the last time a WS winner didn't have a top 10 payroll. There may have been but I can't think of one off the top of my head.

How many WS have the A's or Rays won in the current baseball era? Billy Beane and Moneyball got a lot of hype and the A's did punch a lot above their weight but they never won rings in this high payroll era.

Instead they trade away good players when they can no longer pay them commensurate with their performance. Same story for the Rays.

In fact, same story for even the Red Sox, which is a fairly good sized market with a team which have recent history of winning rings. The owners didn't want to spend big like they do for Liverpool FC. So that is how the Dodgers got Betts, who won not only a WS with the Red Sox but an MVP as well.

So the Dodgers didn't sign him as a free agent but it's the imbalanced economics of the sport which led to him being traded. Otherwise, he'd have gotten a huge contract in free agency as well.

And there is no question at all whatsoever that Dodgers' free agent signings are responsible for the past two titles. Ohtani was a FA signing and so was t
Yamada, the WS MVP. Where would they be without one or both of these big free agents?

Another screwed thing about the MLB is that foreign players do not go through a draft like they do in the NBA. So some elite players have come to the MLB from Japan, Latin America and Cuba and it's like a way for the best teams to get top talent because they don't have the worst drafting position.

So Ohtani, Yamada and some other players hit the MLB market in their mid 20s, which is unprecedented because most players who come from the minor league system are unable to hit free agency until they're typically in their late '20s.