Will a possible MLB lockout in 2027 matter to you?

[TBTC Baseball]

Originally Posted by carlo16

Also the dodgers making 4 finals in 13 years barely even makes them a dynasty.

NLDS 13 years in a row.

[erock28]

Originally Posted by carlo16

I can’t imagine even one person is disputing baseballs economics are problematic for the overall health of the sport. I also don’t think it’s the Armageddon people make it out to be.
Also the dodgers making 4 finals in 13 years barely even makes them a dynasty.

People don't notice a slow trickle until a puddle forms. People recognize a tidal wave from a mile away. The revenue disparity was more of a trickle up until the early 2010s. Since it's been a tidal wave only getting bigger. The strike of 1994 turned a lot of people off the game. Baseball had to manufacture a solution to get fans back to the game - I'm not sure that will work again. If there is a lengthy strike, or a "solution" that keeps the status quo, MLB will lose fans. Armageddon for all? No. But it could be an eventual death blow to small market teams.

As for the Dodgers, the 13 years in a row is making the NL final four, or NLDS or better. But while we're at it, 5 WS appearances in 9 years absolutely is a dynasty.

[carlo16]

Originally Posted by erock28

People don't notice a slow trickle until a puddle forms. People recognize a tidal wave from a mile away. The revenue disparity was more of a trickle up until the early 2010s. Since it's been a tidal wave only getting bigger. The strike of 1994 turned a lot of people off the game. Baseball had to manufacture a solution to get fans back to the game - I'm not sure that will work again. If there is a lengthy strike, or a "solution" that keeps the status quo, MLB will lose fans. Armageddon for all? No. But it could be an eventual death blow to small market teams.

As for the Dodgers, the 13 years in a row is making the NL final four, or NLDS or better. But while we're at it, 5 WS appearances in 9 years absolutely is a dynasty.

What tidal wave? This isn’t news. People have known about the problematic economics for decades. You haven’t uncovered anything.
It’s a problem but, and it’s just my opinion, I don’t think it’s the end of the world until trans are losing money, folding or franchise values decrease.

Also what’s more likely…..teams losing money and keeping the finances a secret or teams making money and keeping the books closed?

[erock28]

Originally Posted by carlo16

What tidal wave? This isn’t news. People have known about the problematic economics for decades. You haven’t uncovered anything.
It’s a problem but, and it’s just my opinion, I don’t think it’s the end of the world until trans are losing money, folding or franchise values decrease.

Also what’s more likely…..teams losing money and keeping the finances a secret or teams making money and keeping the books closed?

In 2003, only the Yankees paid the luxury tax, under $12MM.
In 2012, only the Yankees paid the luxury tax, under $19MM.
In 2024, nine teams paid it. The top 3 were the Dodgers, Mets and Yankees, at $103MM, $97MM, and $62MM, respectively.

That's a massive surge (tidal wave) that shows zero signs of slowing down when you hear the Dodgers will jump another $200MM in revenue in 2025.

To answer your question, as private owned entities we'll never see their financials, nor do I think if we did see them would they not be "cooked books" - able to find some legal loophole to prove a narrative. What would fix it is a salary floor to go along with greater revenue sharing (specifically TV).

[carlo16]

Originally Posted by erock28

In 2003, only the Yankees paid the luxury tax, under $12MM.
In 2012, only the Yankees paid the luxury tax, under $19MM.
In 2024, nine teams paid it. The top 3 were the Dodgers, Mets and Yankees, at $103MM, $97MM, and $62MM, respectively.

That's a massive surge (tidal wave) that shows zero signs of slowing down when you hear the Dodgers will jump another $200MM in revenue in 2025.

To answer your question, as private owned entities we'll never see their financials, nor do I think if we did see them would they not be "cooked books" - able to find some legal loophole to prove a narrative. What would fix it is a salary floor to go along with greater revenue sharing (specifically TV).

Jesus I didn’t know my wife had so many accounts on here.


Salary cap salary floor tv revenue sharing etc I got all fixes. Be prepared for no baseball in 2027. I just think it’s not as big a deal as some of you. I think teams are making plenty of money and many could spend more and be more competitive. Another 30 mil a year might buy you 5-10 wins. How many teams missed the playoffs by 5-10 games. Get in and have a run. What was Torontos odds on April 1st. I have no clue. Someone look it up.

And yes I know Toronto spent money. Nobody had them on their World Series bingo card.

[JRX]

Originally Posted by carlo16

Jesus I didn’t know my wife had so many accounts on here.


Salary cap salary floor tv revenue sharing etc I got all fixes. Be prepared for no baseball in 2027. I just think it’s not as big a deal as some of you. I think teams are making plenty of money and many could spend more and be more competitive. Another 30 mil a year might buy you 5-10 wins. How many teams missed the playoffs by 5-10 games. Get in and have a run. What was Torontos odds on April 1st. I have no clue. Someone look it up.

And yes I know Toronto spent money. Nobody had them on their World Series bingo card.

They said last night toronto was +6000 at start of season. Still need 1 more win though.

[carlo16]

Originally Posted by JRX

They said last night toronto was +6000 at start of season. Still need 1 more win though.

Ooof what a time to hedge

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by carlo16

I think teams are making plenty of money

Formulating an opinion on this premise is flawed. While we don't know each team's specific financials, we have enough information to know this is not accurate. Take a step back and start over without making the assumption small market teams are making plenty of money. Does that change your conclusion at all?

[carlo16]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Formulating an opinion on this premise is flawed. While we don't know each team's specific financials, we have enough information to know this is not accurate. Take a step back and start over without making the assumption small market teams are making plenty of money. Does that change your conclusion at all?

I took a step back and formed an opinion that water wasn’t wet. Went out in the rain and got wet.

[Soxrule111]

Originally Posted by carlo16

I took a step back and formed an opinion that water wasn’t wet. Went out in the rain and got wet.

Water isnt wet though.

https://www.blowoutforums.com/showthread.php?t=1618862

[carlo16]

Originally Posted by Soxrule111

Water isnt wet though.

https://www.blowoutforums.com/showthread.php?t=1618862

Damnit counselor. You’re right I’m wrong. You’re smart I’m stupid. You’re attractive I’m not so good looking.

[duwal]

Originally Posted by TBTC Baseball

NLDS 13 years in a row.

with how weak that NL West division was most of those years how many times were the Dodgers the overwhelming favorite to win it though at the start of the year?

[Soxrule111]

Originally Posted by carlo16

Damnit counselor. You’re right I’m wrong. You’re smart I’m stupid. You’re attractive I’m not so good looking.

https://media4.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2...vYfS/giphy.gif


idk how to post these

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by duwal

with how weak that NL West division was most of those years how many times were the Dodgers the overwhelming favorite to win it though at the start of the year?

NL West:

2013:
1. Dodgers -- 92 wins -- 1st in total payroll
2. Diamondbacks -- 81 wins -- 19th in total payroll

2014:
1. Dodgers -- 94 wins -- 1st in total payroll
2. Giants -- 88 wins (wild card and WS winner) -- 7th in total payroll

2015:
1. Dodgers -- 92 wins -- 1st in total payroll
2. Giants -- 84 wins -- 4th in total payroll

2016:
1. Dodgers -- 91 wins -- 1st in total payroll
2. Giants -- 87 wins (wild card) -- 6th in total payroll

2017:
1. Dodgers -- 104 wins -- 1st in total payroll
2. Diamondbacks -- 93 wins (wild card) -- 23rd in total payroll

2018:
1. Dodgers -- 92 wins -- 1st in total payroll
2. Rockies -- 91 wins (wild card) -- 13th in total payroll

2019:
1. Dodgers -- 106 wins -- 4th in total payroll
2. Diamondbacks -- 85 wins -- 19th in total payroll

2020:
1. Dodgers -- 43 wins (WS winner) -- 1st in total payroll
2. Padres -- 37 wins (wild card) -- 11th in total payroll

2021:
1. Giants -- 107 wins -- 9th in total payroll
2. Dodgers -- 106 wins (wild card) -- 1st in total payroll

2022:
1. Dodgers -- 111 wins -- 2nd in total payroll
2. Padres -- 89 wins (wild card) -- 5th in total payroll

2023:
1. Dodgers -- 100 wins -- 7th in total payroll
2. Diamondbacks -- 84 wins (wild card) -- 21st in total payroll

2024:
1. Dodgers -- 98 wins (WS winner) -- 3rd in total payroll
2. Padres -- 93 wins (wild card) -- 14th in total payroll

2025:
1. Dodgers -- 93 wins -- 1st in total payroll
2. Padres -- 90 wins (wild card) -- 9th in total payroll

-- The Dodgers have outspent their divisional opponents every season since the 2013 season, and they've won the division every season in that time except for the 2021 season. This despite the NL producing two playoff teams in 10 of those 13 seasons.

-- Conclusion: The outspending of their divisional opponents has resulted in the Dodgers' divisional dominance since 2013.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by carlo16

Damnit counselor. You’re right I’m wrong. You’re smart I’m stupid. You’re attractive I’m not so good looking.

Did you think you were responding to me?



I guess you weren't being sarcastic with this post.

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by carlo16

I can’t imagine even one person is disputing baseballs economics are problematic for the overall health of the sport. I also don’t think it’s the Armageddon people make it out to be.
Also the dodgers making 4 finals in 13 years barely even makes them a dynasty.

It's not an Armageddon-level threat like a giant asteroid hitting Earth -- it'll just result in the steady decline in the overall health and popularity of the sport. Right now, Ohtani and the Dodgers are generating big international ratings for the league, but in a half decade from now, you'll see the results of the league being so top heavy -- fewer overall fans and several franchises being permanently brand-damaged from years of little to no competitive baseball and relevance.

If I'm one of the smaller market franchise owners, I'm pushing for the league to shore up competitive balance to insure the long-term strength of franchise values.

[BoSoxFan1999]

There is no way any kind of hard salary cap is implemented unless a hard salary floor is also set. Thing is a salary floor would benefit the low to mid-tier players more than the superstars, which would be potentially significantly impacted by a cap. Are the 8-9 figure players willing to sacrifice some off the top for the benefit of the little guys? Doubtful.
I also think a salary floor is a no-go for many of the cheapskate owners.

I truly think games will be missed in '27, and a loss of the entire season is very possible.

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by BoSoxFan1999

There is no way any kind of hard salary cap is implemented unless a hard salary floor is also set. Thing is a salary floor would benefit the low to mid-tier players more than the superstars, which would be potentially significantly impacted by a cap. Are the 8-9 figure players willing to sacrifice some off the top for the benefit of the little guys? Doubtful.
I also think a salary floor is a no-go for many of the cheapskate owners.

I truly think games will be missed in '27, and a loss of the entire season is very possible.

The star players would be more willing to sacrifice free-agency value if they were getting paid more earlier in the career. It would require higher salaries for pre-arb players or reaching free-agency sooner -- perhaps a restricted free-agency system like in the NBA where a player's current team needs to match offers.

If the owners and players were to truly split the league revenues, a hard cap and floor would be a no-brainer. A split of revenue incentivizes both side to care about the health and success of the game. The issue would be figuring out how the money would be distributed -- what would make everyone happy or at least content.

[BoSoxFan1999]

Originally Posted by fabiani12333

The star players would be more willing to sacrifice free-agency value if they were getting paid more earlier in the career. It would require higher salaries for pre-arb players or reaching free-agency sooner -- perhaps a restricted free-agency system like in the NBA where a player's current team needs to match offers.

If the owners and players were to truly split the league revenues, a hard cap and floor would be a no-brainer. A split of revenue incentivizes both side to care about the health and success of the game. The issue would be figuring out how the money would be distributed -- what would make everyone happy or at least content.

One more reason to root against the Dodgers is if they win again, even more people (especially other disgruntled owners) will be convinced their seemingly unlimited wallet has broken baseball and a salary cap is an absolute must (let's just ignore the Mets for a moment LOL). A Dodgers repeat may increase the odds of the 2027 season being cancelled.

[JRX]

Originally Posted by BoSoxFan1999

There is no way any kind of hard salary cap is implemented unless a hard salary floor is also set. Thing is a salary floor would benefit the low to mid-tier players more than the superstars, which would be potentially significantly impacted by a cap. Are the 8-9 figure players willing to sacrifice some off the top for the benefit of the little guys? Doubtful.
I also think a salary floor is a no-go for many of the cheapskate owners.

I truly think games will be missed in '27, and a loss of the entire season is very possible.

We could be headed for a situation where the union leadership is against it but the rank and file are for it.

[JRX]

The biggest fallacy with a cap is there won't be huge contracts anymore when we see that all the time in the NFL and NBA. So if along with a cap they increase the min sal and reduce the years of arb it won't matter what the big money players think.

[carlo16]

Originally Posted by fabiani12333

It's not an Armageddon-level threat like a giant asteroid hitting Earth -- it'll just result in the steady decline in the overall health and popularity of the sport. Right now, Ohtani and the Dodgers are generating big international ratings for the league, but in a half decade from now, you'll see the results of the league being so top heavy -- fewer overall fans and several franchises being permanently brand-damaged from years of little to no competitive baseball and relevance.

If I'm one of the smaller market franchise owners, I'm pushing for the league to shore up competitive balance to insure the long-term strength of franchise values.

Fans are going to start leaving in the next 5 years? Why hasn’t that already happened? I thought this was a trickle leading to a tidal wave.

[Handsome Wes]

Originally Posted by BoSoxFan1999

One more reason to root against the Dodgers is if they win again, even more people (especially other disgruntled owners) will be convinced their seemingly unlimited wallet has broken baseball and a salary cap is an absolute must (let's just ignore the Mets for a moment LOL). A Dodgers repeat may increase the odds of the 2027 season being cancelled.

I know that the Dodgers have basically circumvented the rules in ways that would not have been permitted by any other team, but I think we just need to reject the framing that a Dodgers win will ruin baseball.

It's not like the Blue Jays are plucky young upstarts. They have the fifth-highest payroll in the league and their top player is making a half-billion dollars.

...if the 2027 season gets cancelled, it won't be because of the Dodgers, or the Blue Jays, or the Red Sox or the Mets.

It will be because you have situations where someone like Paul Skenes or Tarik Skubal gets traded because their respective owners don't want to pay their top players (who then get dealt to the Dodgers or Blue Jays or Red Sox or Mets), which will in turn lead to those owners complaining that they can't compete under the current economic structure.

[JustinVerlander07]

Originally Posted by Handsome Wes

It will be because you have situations where someone like Paul Skenes or Tarik Skubal gets traded because their respective owners don't want to pay their top players (who then get dealt to the Dodgers or Blue Jays or Red Sox or Mets), which will in turn lead to those owners complaining that they can't compete under the current economic structure.

A fake premise by those owners too! The Tigers could very comfortably pay Skubal $50 million a year if they wanted to. They have basically zero money committed after 2027. Just another reason I say these owners choose not to spend, they definitely could!

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by carlo16

Fans are going to start leaving in the next 5 years? Why hasn’t that already happened? I thought this was a trickle leading to a tidal wave.

The disparity has been increasing in recent years, ever since the decline and subsequent collapse of the RSN model. Small market teams are no longer shopping for big free-agents, and the biggest market franchises are hoarding all the best free-agents.

A third of the league isn't even trying to compete anymore. The addition of a third wild card didn't help much in promoting competition.

Now is the time to reshape the competitive and economic structures of the league to ensure longer term health of the league and small market franchises.