Will a possible MLB lockout in 2027 matter to you?

[itsbaytime]

Originally Posted by ewokpelts

How many Super Bowls have the chiefs been to the last seven years?

That has to with a great draft pick, good coaching, talent acquisition and some luck. They still had to lose Tyreke Hill because of salary, they lost prime Kareem Hunt to legal issues, they have lost plenty of defensive and offensive players over the last however many years due to budget constraints. The NFL at least allows teams to have a chance. You still have to be good at what you do. The MLB has such a disparity that the really, really smart teams at what they do still only have very small windows to make it over the hump. Even 1 large contract like Bobby Witt can handcuff a team a few years later if they mess up in some other way. The whole thing needs fixed and it will honestly be a much more level playing field if they figure it out.

[ewokpelts]

Originally Posted by itsbaytime

That has to with a great draft pick, good coaching, talent acquisition and some luck. They still had to lose Tyreke Hill because of salary, they lost prime Kareem Hunt to legal issues, they have lost plenty of defensive and offensive players over the last however many years due to budget constraints. The NFL at least allows teams to have a chance. You still have to be good at what you do. The MLB has such a disparity that the really, really smart teams at what they do still only have very small windows to make it over the hump. Even 1 large contract like Bobby Witt can handcuff a team a few years later if they mess up in some other way. The whole thing needs fixed and it will honestly be a much more level playing field if they figure it out.

The answer is six.

Now how many nfc title games have the eagles been to the last ten years?

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by ewokpelts

The answer is six.

Now how many nfc title games have the eagles been to the last ten years?

The NFL is very QB-dependent when it comes to Super Bowl contention. The teams who win the Super Bowl typically have the best QB -- not always, as we saw with the Eagles during their two championship runs. But the clutch play from Tom Brady and Patrick Mahomes in the playoffs was the difference maker in winning a championship.

MLB is more of a team-centric sport -- a great hitter like Shohei Ohtani typically only bats four or five times a game and only when their turn in the lineup comes up. And as we saw with Ohtani last night, a great or hot hitter can get the Bonds treatment and get pitched around. A QB will literally possess the ball on every offensive play -- this is unavoidable.

I think the NBA is a better comparison. There have been seven different champions the last seven seasons, with wide variance in market sizes. The main factor in whether or not a team is a contender in the NBA is if they have an MVP-caliber player or not. For example, Shai Gilgeous-Alexander won the MVP and championship last season playing in one of the smallest markets in the league.

[ewokpelts]

Originally Posted by fabiani12333

The NFL is very QB-dependent when it comes to Super Bowl contention. The teams who win the Super Bowl typically have the best QB -- not always, as we saw with the Eagles during their two championship runs. But the clutch play from Tom Brady and Patrick Mahomes in the playoffs was the difference maker in winning a championship.

MLB is more of a team-centric sport -- a great hitter like Shohei Ohtani typically only bats four or five times a game and only when their turn in the lineup comes up. And as we saw with Ohtani last night, a great or hot hitter can get the Bonds treatment and get pitched around. A QB will literally possess the ball on every offensive play -- this is unavoidable.

I think the NBA is a better comparison. There have been seven different champions the last seven seasons, with wide variance in market sizes. The main factor in whether or not a team is a contender in the NBA is if they have an MVP-caliber player or not. For example, Shai Gilgeous-Alexander won the MVP and championship last season playing in one of the smallest markets in the league.

Are we moving the goalposts?!

[carlo16]

Originally Posted by fabiani12333

The NFL is very QB-dependent when it comes to Super Bowl contention. The teams who win the Super Bowl typically have the best QB -- not always, as we saw with the Eagles during their two championship runs. But the clutch play from Tom Brady and Patrick Mahomes in the playoffs was the difference maker in winning a championship.

MLB is more of a team-centric sport -- a great hitter like Shohei Ohtani typically only bats four or five times a game and only when their turn in the lineup comes up. And as we saw with Ohtani last night, a great or hot hitter can get the Bonds treatment and get pitched around. A QB will literally possess the ball on every offensive play -- this is unavoidable.

I think the NBA is a better comparison. There have been seven different champions the last seven seasons, with wide variance in market sizes. The main factor in whether or not a team is a contender in the NBA is if they have an MVP-caliber player or not. For example, Shai Gilgeous-Alexander won the MVP and championship last season playing in one of the smallest markets in the league.

The NBA has had 15 different champions since 1980. Parity? Every MLB makes a profit. Look up Super Bowls. Much more parity of champions in mlb than NBA or NFL in the last 50 years. I agree there is a competitive imbalance but what exactly is the problem?
The players won’t accept a cap because they don’t care about competitive balance. The owners want a cap, not for competitive balance, but to save money.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by carlo16

The NBA has had 15 different champions since 1980. Parity? Every MLB makes a profit. Look up Super Bowls. Much more parity of champions in mlb than NBA or NFL in the last 50 years. I agree there is a competitive imbalance but what exactly is the problem?
The players won’t accept a cap because they don’t care about competitive balance. The owners want a cap, not for competitive balance, but to save money.

False. The small market owners want revenue sharing and a cap so they can be competitive and not lose money. Only 1 small market team has won a championship in the last 35 years in MLB. In the NBA and NFL, anyone can win. In the NBA, Oklahoma City won in 2025, Milwaukee in 2021 and Cleveland in 2016. San Antonio won 5 between 1999 and 2015. In the NFL Kansas City won in 2019, 2022 and 2023. Green Bay in 2010, New Orleans in 2009, Pittsburgh in 2005 and 2008 and Indianapolis in 2006. Imagine a MLB where small market teams win 5 of 6 World Series. That would be parity, not a bunch of large and medium market teams winning while the bottom third can't keep up.

[premium1981]

A) Every single team can spend more money. They choose not to do so.
B) Players like Ohtani and Soto want the spotlight of the big cities and they will never sign with a team like Milwaukee.

The Mets have shown year after year that money doesn't buy championships. Money is only one part of the formula. I refuse to feel sorry for the small market teams who do nothing but cry every year about the big spenders without ever trying themselves. The Pirates appear to have the best pitcher in baseball, and another one about to bloom right behind him, and they are tearing their team down for a rebuild. Even if their rebuild is successful it will take a few years, and then Skenes will be signing elsewhere, most like the Yankees or a team that actually tries to win. You can't blame Skenes, and you can't blame the Yankees. Blame the Pirates for not trying. Their 2024 revenue was $326 million.

Now, before someone gives the speech about "losses" the Pirates took when accounting for all expenses, I don't want to hear it. For anyone who runs a business or knows how they work, a lot of "expenses and losses" are on paper only. Depreciation on assets for an example. But, putting all of that aside, if you invest in your club it usually pays off as long as its done correctly. Heck, back to Ohtani, everyone said that was the most ridiculous overpay ever by the Dodgers, and they say they have already recouped the entire value of that contract. When you invest in your team it pays off in additional revenue. The Braves from 2021 to 2024 invested a lot of money in their players and infrastructure and increased their season revenue by 100m in those 3 years. Total increase in revenue for those 3 years was close to 200m. Now teams like the Pirates are going to be on a lower scale, but it still works. And finally, lets say that none of any of this matters. The Pirates are losing money, and they will not increase any revenue from spending. Their owner is worth more than a billion dollars. He could afford to take a hit for a couple of years while trying to make his team relevant. But no, they don't try. That isn't the fault of the Dodgers or Yankees. If its such a bad business to be in, he could sell the team and cash in. Win win for everyone.

[carlo16]

Originally Posted by rats60

False. The small market owners want revenue sharing and a cap so they can be competitive and not lose money. Only 1 small market team has won a championship in the last 35 years in MLB. In the NBA and NFL, anyone can win. In the NBA, Oklahoma City won in 2025, Milwaukee in 2021 and Cleveland in 2016. San Antonio won 5 between 1999 and 2015. In the NFL Kansas City won in 2019, 2022 and 2023. Green Bay in 2010, New Orleans in 2009, Pittsburgh in 2005 and 2008 and Indianapolis in 2006. Imagine a MLB where small market teams win 5 of 6 World Series. That would be parity, not a bunch of large and medium market teams winning while the bottom third can't keep up.

A. If you think the owners want a cap because they care about winning over saving money I envy your bliss.
B. NBA and NFl is apple to oranges where the NBA one player can legit win a championship. Look as those teams you mentioned. And the NFL a QB can come pretty close.

[JRX]

Originally Posted by carlo16

A. If you think the owners want a cap because they care about winning over saving money I envy your bliss.
B. NBA and NFl is apple to oranges where the NBA one player can legit win a championship. Look as those teams you mentioned. And the NFL a QB can come pretty close.

The owners want to increase the value of their franchises, thats it. Reducing how much can be spent in terms of a cap is part of it. Growing the sport is also part of it and to do that it needs to be more competitive.

[base set]

Every single year, a #1 or a #2 payroll team doesn’t win The Championship.

[ewokpelts]

Originally Posted by carlo16

The NBA has had 15 different champions since 1980. Parity? Every MLB makes a profit. Look up Super Bowls. Much more parity of champions in mlb than NBA or NFL in the last 50 years. I agree there is a competitive imbalance but what exactly is the problem?
The players won’t accept a cap because they don’t care about competitive balance. The owners want a cap, not for competitive balance, but to save money.

Correct. A cap only Controls COSTS

[erock28]

Originally Posted by premium1981

A) Every single team can spend more money. They choose not to do so.
B) Players like Ohtani and Soto want the spotlight of the big cities and they will never sign with a team like Milwaukee.

The Mets have shown year after year that money doesn't buy championships. Money is only one part of the formula. I refuse to feel sorry for the small market teams who do nothing but cry every year about the big spenders without ever trying themselves. The Pirates appear to have the best pitcher in baseball, and another one about to bloom right behind him, and they are tearing their team down for a rebuild. Even if their rebuild is successful it will take a few years, and then Skenes will be signing elsewhere, most like the Yankees or a team that actually tries to win. You can't blame Skenes, and you can't blame the Yankees. Blame the Pirates for not trying. Their 2024 revenue was $326 million.

Now, before someone gives the speech about "losses" the Pirates took when accounting for all expenses, I don't want to hear it. For anyone who runs a business or knows how they work, a lot of "expenses and losses" are on paper only. Depreciation on assets for an example. But, putting all of that aside, if you invest in your club it usually pays off as long as its done correctly. Heck, back to Ohtani, everyone said that was the most ridiculous overpay ever by the Dodgers, and they say they have already recouped the entire value of that contract. When you invest in your team it pays off in additional revenue. The Braves from 2021 to 2024 invested a lot of money in their players and infrastructure and increased their season revenue by 100m in those 3 years. Total increase in revenue for those 3 years was close to 200m. Now teams like the Pirates are going to be on a lower scale, but it still works. And finally, lets say that none of any of this matters. The Pirates are losing money, and they will not increase any revenue from spending. Their owner is worth more than a billion dollars. He could afford to take a hit for a couple of years while trying to make his team relevant. But no, they don't try. That isn't the fault of the Dodgers or Yankees. If its such a bad business to be in, he could sell the team and cash in. Win win for everyone.

So many bad takes mixed in here. Starting with the Braves. They were 6th in revenue in 2024. Why? TV contract and geography, which go hand in hand. They are the "home team" for 6 states. Part of the reason we haven't seen a team in Nashville or Charlotte yet is the Braves will fight tooth and nail to not cede those markets. Larger geographical influence + bigger TV contract = a LOT more money for the team. Comparing that to the Pirates? A small city with 6 other MLB teams within 300 miles of it? Pirates were 27th in revenue in 2024, almost $185MM less than Atlanta. I'm not even remotely close to defending Nutting - who is also part of the problem and why there should be a salary floor - but what motivation is there to extend Skenes early? Or even try and lock him up to a market value long term contract? They could pay him $40MM a year, chew up likely all of the teams profit, and still have the same overall craptastic roster. There is no way, shape or form that a massive investment in players will yield in-line revenue growth for a market like Pittsburgh. Hell, we witnessed it in San Diego a few years back. San Diego - the 8th largest city by population in the US, 10th in MLB revenue, 6th in 2025 payroll - had to take out a loan in the 4th quarter to make payroll in 2023! The overspent on payroll, "going for it", and lost actual cash. Not paper losses such as depreciation you alluded to before - actual cash. You expect PITTSBURGH to have different results?!

Your point of everyone could spend more but choose not to...isn't that anyone in life? I know people who are drowning in CC debt because they simply HAVE to have something, or try to keep up with the Joneses. Running a business/owning a team is no different than family budgeting but on a much larger scale. My family lives well. We also live within our means. Could we afford a $20K vacation every year? Absolutely. But I know doing so would cause some other strains and lead to sacrifices elsewhere...so those vacations don't happen. I have other friends who live VERY well, and that annual vacation doesn't impact them because they're in a better financial spot. It shouldn't need to be dragged on why the CC debt people, myself, and the super rich people have different budgets and spending plans based on income/revenue. It flat out makes zero business sense to spend more than you can make, much like it does in real life budgeting. Whether you take on CC debt, take out a loan to cover losses or tap into savings, no one wants to burn cash. Even billionaire team owners shouldn't be expected to strain themselves financially. With the revenue gap widening significantly over the last 10 years via mega TV deals, it's becoming less and less likely for small market/revenue teams to acquire that extra player or two to get over the hump. To stress again - I'm not defending Bob Nutting in the least. He's as cheap as they come and refuses to put much into the team, which is terrible for the great and loyal fans of Pittsburgh. And he owns a team that continues to gain in value YOY. But I can't blame anyone for budgeting responsibly - no one should feel the need to burn cash because fans think they should. Revenue constraints dictate decisions of most team owners.

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by carlo16

The NBA has had 15 different champions since 1980. Parity?

Here is what Google AI has to say:

The NBA's new Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) went into effect on July 1, 2023, and runs through the 2029-30 season, with an opt-out option available after the 2028-29 season. Key changes include new financial penalties for high-spending teams through a "second apron," a 65-game minimum to be eligible for major awards like All-NBA, and limitations on trading future first-round picks and sending cash in trades. These changes aim to promote competitive balance by curbing excessive spending and restricting the formation of "super teams".

The NBA has taken steps to improve competitive balance in the league. The new rules mean it'll be less likely for teams buy or trade their way to championships.

[ottobord]

Since 1990 (date picked at random) this is what I'm getting. MLB has had the most parity: Different teams that have won a championship.

MLB -19
NHL - 18
NFL - 16
NBA -14

[JRX]

Originally Posted by ottobord

Since 1990 (date picked at random) this is what I'm getting. MLB has had the most parity: Different teams that have won a championship.

MLB -19
NHL - 18
NFL - 16
NBA -14

Dodgers have been in 5 of the past 9 and their uber spending only started last year. There's potentially enough randomness to prevent them from getting their every year, but if they're going to run payrolls close to 600M a year post luxury tax there's a decent chance they do get there every year. They could easily sign Bellinger or Tucker to bolster their of offense and they probably will. Heck they may sign both.

[premium1981]

Originally Posted by erock28

So many bad takes mixed in here. Starting with the Braves. They were 6th in revenue in 2024. Why? TV contract and geography, which go hand in hand. They are the "home team" for 6 states. Part of the reason we haven't seen a team in Nashville or Charlotte yet is the Braves will fight tooth and nail to not cede those markets. Larger geographical influence + bigger TV contract = a LOT more money for the team. Comparing that to the Pirates? A small city with 6 other MLB teams within 300 miles of it? Pirates were 27th in revenue in 2024, almost $185MM less than Atlanta. I'm not even remotely close to defending Nutting - who is also part of the problem and why there should be a salary floor - but what motivation is there to extend Skenes early? Or even try and lock him up to a market value long term contract? They could pay him $40MM a year, chew up likely all of the teams profit, and still have the same overall craptastic roster. There is no way, shape or form that a massive investment in players will yield in-line revenue growth for a market like Pittsburgh. Hell, we witnessed it in San Diego a few years back. San Diego - the 8th largest city by population in the US, 10th in MLB revenue, 6th in 2025 payroll - had to take out a loan in the 4th quarter to make payroll in 2023! The overspent on payroll, "going for it", and lost actual cash. Not paper losses such as depreciation you alluded to before - actual cash. You expect PITTSBURGH to have different results?!

Your point of everyone could spend more but choose not to...isn't that anyone in life? I know people who are drowning in CC debt because they simply HAVE to have something, or try to keep up with the Joneses. Running a business/owning a team is no different than family budgeting but on a much larger scale. My family lives well. We also live within our means. Could we afford a $20K vacation every year? Absolutely. But I know doing so would cause some other strains and lead to sacrifices elsewhere...so those vacations don't happen. I have other friends who live VERY well, and that annual vacation doesn't impact them because they're in a better financial spot. It shouldn't need to be dragged on why the CC debt people, myself, and the super rich people have different budgets and spending plans based on income/revenue. It flat out makes zero business sense to spend more than you can make, much like it does in real life budgeting. Whether you take on CC debt, take out a loan to cover losses or tap into savings, no one wants to burn cash. Even billionaire team owners shouldn't be expected to strain themselves financially. With the revenue gap widening significantly over the last 10 years via mega TV deals, it's becoming less and less likely for small market/revenue teams to acquire that extra player or two to get over the hump. To stress again - I'm not defending Bob Nutting in the least. He's as cheap as they come and refuses to put much into the team, which is terrible for the great and loyal fans of Pittsburgh. And he owns a team that continues to gain in value YOY. But I can't blame anyone for budgeting responsibly - no one should feel the need to burn cash because fans think they should. Revenue constraints dictate decisions of most team owners.

So many bad takes mixed in here. First off, the Braves was just an example, because its the team I know the best. I know what they have done, what they haven't done, what has seemed to work, and what hasn't. If they had stuck with the status quo several years ago, their revenue would not have increased like I showed. That is a fact. It was investing in the team, and the area around the stadium that created a lot of the new revenue. They did it so well, that other teams and stadiums are attempting to duplicate what they have done.

Secondly, when it comes to "budgeting" by an owner, thats fine. I don't care if he spends or doesn't. But other teams shouldn't be forced to stop spending or to fork over part of their own money just because other owners are cheap. The Pirates were just an example, there are many other teams that fit the same mold. And your example of the Padres does nothing but solidify that money does not buy championships. You still have to make the right business decisions and have the right players and a lot of luck. The Dodgers were lucky their arm injuries were at the front of the season. They could have just as easily been late season injuries and we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

There is no need to continue back and forth, because you are not going to change my mind and I am not going to change your mind. The only reason fans complain about this is because their team isn't spending. If whatever team you root for signed all of these MVP's you would talking about how incredible it was. People don't really want parity. They want their team to look like the Dodgers.

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by premium1981

A) Every single team can spend more money. They choose not to do so.
B) Players like Ohtani and Soto want the spotlight of the big cities and they will never sign with a team like Milwaukee.

The Mets have shown year after year that money doesn't buy championships. Money is only one part of the formula. I refuse to feel sorry for the small market teams who do nothing but cry every year about the big spenders without ever trying themselves. The Pirates appear to have the best pitcher in baseball, and another one about to bloom right behind him, and they are tearing their team down for a rebuild. Even if their rebuild is successful it will take a few years, and then Skenes will be signing elsewhere, most like the Yankees or a team that actually tries to win. You can't blame Skenes, and you can't blame the Yankees. Blame the Pirates for not trying. Their 2024 revenue was $326 million.

Now, before someone gives the speech about "losses" the Pirates took when accounting for all expenses, I don't want to hear it. For anyone who runs a business or knows how they work, a lot of "expenses and losses" are on paper only. Depreciation on assets for an example. But, putting all of that aside, if you invest in your club it usually pays off as long as its done correctly. Heck, back to Ohtani, everyone said that was the most ridiculous overpay ever by the Dodgers, and they say they have already recouped the entire value of that contract. When you invest in your team it pays off in additional revenue. The Braves from 2021 to 2024 invested a lot of money in their players and infrastructure and increased their season revenue by 100m in those 3 years. Total increase in revenue for those 3 years was close to 200m. Now teams like the Pirates are going to be on a lower scale, but it still works. And finally, lets say that none of any of this matters. The Pirates are losing money, and they will not increase any revenue from spending. Their owner is worth more than a billion dollars. He could afford to take a hit for a couple of years while trying to make his team relevant. But no, they don't try. That isn't the fault of the Dodgers or Yankees. If its such a bad business to be in, he could sell the team and cash in. Win win for everyone.

Why would a small market team's owner boost their team's payroll when the big market teams will still far outspend them, hoard all the best free-agents, and win almost all the championships?

If I'm a small market team and I see what the big market teams are doing, I do what the Pirates and A's have been doing and don't spend one more dollar than necessary foolishly trying to compete with the big dogs.

[TBTC Baseball]

Originally Posted by premium1981

A) Every single team can spend more money. They choose not to do so.
B) Players like Ohtani and Soto want the spotlight of the big cities and they will never sign with a team like Milwaukee.

The Mets have shown year after year that money doesn't buy championships. Money is only one part of the formula. I refuse to feel sorry for the small market teams who do nothing but cry every year about the big spenders without ever trying themselves. The Pirates appear to have the best pitcher in baseball, and another one about to bloom right behind him, and they are tearing their team down for a rebuild. Even if their rebuild is successful it will take a few years, and then Skenes will be signing elsewhere, most like the Yankees or a team that actually tries to win. You can't blame Skenes, and you can't blame the Yankees. Blame the Pirates for not trying. Their 2024 revenue was $326 million.

Now, before someone gives the speech about "losses" the Pirates took when accounting for all expenses, I don't want to hear it. For anyone who runs a business or knows how they work, a lot of "expenses and losses" are on paper only. Depreciation on assets for an example. But, putting all of that aside, if you invest in your club it usually pays off as long as its done correctly. Heck, back to Ohtani, everyone said that was the most ridiculous overpay ever by the Dodgers, and they say they have already recouped the entire value of that contract. When you invest in your team it pays off in additional revenue. The Braves from 2021 to 2024 invested a lot of money in their players and infrastructure and increased their season revenue by 100m in those 3 years. Total increase in revenue for those 3 years was close to 200m. Now teams like the Pirates are going to be on a lower scale, but it still works. And finally, lets say that none of any of this matters. The Pirates are losing money, and they will not increase any revenue from spending. Their owner is worth more than a billion dollars. He could afford to take a hit for a couple of years while trying to make his team relevant. But no, they don't try. That isn't the fault of the Dodgers or Yankees. If its such a bad business to be in, he could sell the team and cash in. Win win for everyone.

The Pirates revenue is less than the Dodgers' players only payroll, and you expect them to be able to compete?

You talk about losses on paper only, but don't recognize that the billionaire's "worth" is going to be mostly on paper also (investments, real estate, etc). Even if it was liquid he will be broke quickly if he has to dip into his piggy bank for $100-200M every year just to keep up.

[itsbaytime]

Originally Posted by premium1981

So many bad takes mixed in here. First off, the Braves was just an example, because its the team I know the best. I know what they have done, what they haven't done, what has seemed to work, and what hasn't. If they had stuck with the status quo several years ago, their revenue would not have increased like I showed. That is a fact. It was investing in the team, and the area around the stadium that created a lot of the new revenue. They did it so well, that other teams and stadiums are attempting to duplicate what they have done.

Secondly, when it comes to "budgeting" by an owner, thats fine. I don't care if he spends or doesn't. But other teams shouldn't be forced to stop spending or to fork over part of their own money just because other owners are cheap. The Pirates were just an example, there are many other teams that fit the same mold. And your example of the Padres does nothing but solidify that money does not buy championships. You still have to make the right business decisions and have the right players and a lot of luck. The Dodgers were lucky their arm injuries were at the front of the season. They could have just as easily been late season injuries and we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

There is no need to continue back and forth, because you are not going to change my mind and I am not going to change your mind. The only reason fans complain about this is because their team isn't spending. If whatever team you root for signed all of these MVP's you would talking about how incredible it was. People don't really want parity. They want their team to look like the Dodgers.

I would never want my team to look like the Dodgers or Yankees. I think it is embarassing and I don't root for bullies. I like competition. If you get better within the rules of a fair system and stay on top, then more power to you. If you can just outspend everyone every single year and think that is fair, then I don't know what to tell you.

[hxcmilkshake]

Originally Posted by itsbaytime

I would never want my team to look like the Dodgers or Yankees. I think it is embarassing and I don't root for bullies. I like competition. If you get better within the rules of a fair system and stay on top, then more power to you. If you can just outspend everyone every single year and think that is fair, then I don't know what to tell you.

So what's fair? Don't complain without having a solution.

Sent from my SM-S928U using Tapatalk

[erock28]

Originally Posted by premium1981

So many bad takes mixed in here. First off, the Braves was just an example, because its the team I know the best. I know what they have done, what they haven't done, what has seemed to work, and what hasn't. If they had stuck with the status quo several years ago, their revenue would not have increased like I showed. That is a fact. It was investing in the team, and the area around the stadium that created a lot of the new revenue. They did it so well, that other teams and stadiums are attempting to duplicate what they have done.

Secondly, when it comes to "budgeting" by an owner, thats fine. I don't care if he spends or doesn't. But other teams shouldn't be forced to stop spending or to fork over part of their own money just because other owners are cheap. The Pirates were just an example, there are many other teams that fit the same mold. And your example of the Padres does nothing but solidify that money does not buy championships. You still have to make the right business decisions and have the right players and a lot of luck. The Dodgers were lucky their arm injuries were at the front of the season. They could have just as easily been late season injuries and we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

There is no need to continue back and forth, because you are not going to change my mind and I am not going to change your mind. The only reason fans complain about this is because their team isn't spending. If whatever team you root for signed all of these MVP's you would talking about how incredible it was. People don't really want parity. They want their team to look like the Dodgers.

Agreed on no need for a back and forth. As for your last couple sentences bolded - you are spot on that of course I would love it if the Brewers could spend $550MM on payroll/tax. I've mentioned ad nauseum that if I'm a Dodger fan, I LOVE my teams ownership. They could - if they chose - be a $250MM team and be EXTREMELY profitable. Instead they pour it into players to try and win championships. In a sense, very admirable. But unless you are a fan of one of the elite revenue teams, there is zero chance of being able to do that. The Dodgers TV contract alone is 100% of Brewer revenue in 2024. To your last points, people don't necessarily want parity - but they want their team to have a legitimate chance to compete. The NFL provides this with TV equality. Every year you see a team go from last to first in a division, and a supposed contender go off the tracks. See the Colts and Commanders this year. Status quo kept revenue wise in MLB, you'll never see the Pirates win a division and the Dodgers slip to 4th in the west.

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by premium1981

And your example of the Padres does nothing but solidify that money does not buy championships. You still have to make the right business decisions and have the right players and a lot of luck. The Dodgers were lucky their arm injuries were at the front of the season. They could have just as easily been late season injuries and we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

Or, you know, it actually proves your argument wrong -- the Padres dramatically boosted their payroll and they still fell short against the Dodgers. So, I ask again, why should small market teams even try to compete for a championship when teams like the Dodgers will still outspend them by a lot, sign all the best free-agents, and win almost all the championships?

As for the Dodgers' luck in regards to starting pitching health -- they have literally four aces in their rotation. They made sure to have the depth needed to give them the best shot to repeat as champions. They paced and timed the returns of Snell and Ohtani late in the season -- they had a plan.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by premium1981

You still have to make the right business decisions and have the right players and a lot of luck.

This can be true at the same time that there are major competitive advantages to big market teams.

And just because a small market team could "do better" doesn't mean the economics of the league don't need fixed.

This is a league, not 30 independent businesses. You can't look at it as if they are.

[erock28]

Originally Posted by JRX

Dodgers have been in 5 of the past 9 and their uber spending only started last year. There's potentially enough randomness to prevent them from getting their every year, but if they're going to run payrolls close to 600M a year post luxury tax there's a decent chance they do get there every year. They could easily sign Bellinger or Tucker to bolster their of offense and they probably will. Heck they may sign both.

Some have estimated their revenue will grow to a billion in 2025 - up from 752 million in 2024. So yes, they absolutely could sign both and tack on Okamoto and Murikami for good measure. And still be a profitable franchise.

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

This can be true at the same time that there are major competitive advantages to big market teams.

And just because a small market team could "do better" doesn't mean the economics of the league don't need fixed.

This is a league, not 30 independent businesses. You can't look at it as if they are.

It's so refreshing to see such common sense comments in this thread.

As you said, MLB teams are interdependent with each other -- this isn't free-market competition where individual businesses are directly fighting with each other for market share and are trying to put each other out of business. The Dodgers and Yankees need their smaller-market competitors to be successful -- not roll over and expose their bellies.