Will a possible MLB lockout in 2027 matter to you?

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by erock28

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.

And honestly, they probably should -- there is nothing stopping them from doing so and they are in a clear position to compete for championships. The new CBA might put restrictions on their spending in the future, so they might as go all-in and exploit the current system in the meantime.

[erock28]

Originally Posted by fabiani12333

And honestly, they probably should -- there is nothing stopping them from doing so and they are in a clear position to compete for championships. The new CBA might put restrictions on their spending in the future, so they might as go all-in and exploit the current system in the meantime.

Bolded raises an issue that isn't discussed much. If baseball puts the collective good ahead of the good of a few - implements a cap, floor and evenly distributes TV revenue - what will come of the long term contracts? I mean, the Dodgers already have $215MM committed in 2028, lol.

I've almost reached the point where I'd gladly accept if MLB splits into two leagues. They've been actively talking expansion...add two teams and have a Major League of 12 teams, and a mini-Major League of 20 teams. No dilution of talent overall. No salary cap in the Major League, cap and floor in the mini-Majors. I'd celebrate a mini-Major championship just as much as a World Series championship in todays game...God knows the odds of winning the real one just get longer by the year.

[JRX]

Originally Posted by fabiani12333

And honestly, they probably should -- there is nothing stopping them from doing so and they are in a clear position to compete for championships. The new CBA might put restrictions on their spending in the future, so they might as go all-in and exploit the current system in the meantime.

They'll also just have both defer money.

[JRX]

Right now if someone said the Dodgers will sign Bellinger, Tucker, Diaz, and Murakami I wouldn't be surprised in the least. Right now they're projected payroll is around 100M less than this year so they will reload. They have about 30M in retained salaries this year that drops off. They can easily add multiple top players.

[carlo16]

Originally Posted by fabiani12333

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.

Sounds like Socialism. Are any teams losing money?

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by carlo16

Sounds like Socialism. Are any teams losing money?

It's a league. It is pretty much socialism by nature.

I'm as staunch a capitalist as they come, but that's not what a league is. So trying to apply pure free-market capitalism to a league made up of 30 different owners is foolish.

Think of it more like a large corporation with smaller subsidiaries under the same umbrella. You won't have an issue if Collectors takes resources from SGC and gives them to PSA as anti-capitalism would you?

[carlo16]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

It's a league. It is pretty much socialism by nature.

I'm as staunch a capitalist as they come, but that's not what a league is. So trying to apply pure free-market capitalism to a league made up of 30 different owners is foolish.

I was mostly being hyperbolic but that said I’m not for big time changes until teams start losing money or franchise values start to decrease.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by carlo16

I was mostly being hyperbolic but that said I’m not for big time changes until teams start losing money or franchise values start to decrease.

I guess to address those things, we don't know the financials of the vast majority of teams. It's entirely possible, and most probable, that several teams operate at a net loss.

And since many owners are only billionaires on paper, much of their net worth is tied up in the team's value (and/or other businesses that they may own), looking at the value of a team isn't really all that relevant. The value of a team isn't a realized gain, and isn't a revenue stream. The Cincinnati Reds can be worth whatever number you want to put on the team, but that won't give the Castellini's more cash to throw at the team.

So neither of those points is a counterargument for why the MLB shouldn't address its broken economic structure.

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by carlo16

I was mostly being hyperbolic but that said I’m not for big time changes until teams start losing money or franchise values start to decrease.

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

I guess to address those things, we don't know the financials of the vast majority of teams. It's entirely possible, and most probable, that several teams operate at a net loss.

And since many owners are only billionaires on paper, much of their net worth is tied up in the team's value (and/or other businesses that they may own), looking at the value of a team isn't really all that relevant. The value of a team isn't a realized gain, and isn't a revenue stream. The Cincinnati Reds can be worth whatever number you want to put on the team, but that won't give the Castellini's more cash to throw at the team.

So neither of those points is a counterargument for why the MLB shouldn't address its broken economic structure.

I think what the question carlo was alluding to was why should small-market team owners care about the competitive imbalance in the game as long as they are doing well financially and their franchise valuations are still strong. My response to that would be that they could be doing better financially than they are if the league allowed for more competitive balance in the game. Their franchise valuations would be higher if they could actually compete against big-market teams for a championship once in a while. If their fans believed they had a legitimate shot at winning a title.

I forsee the future of MLB small-market teams being grim if the league doesnt make changes to the competitive structure of the game. I could see valuations of small-market franchises dropping over time or being forced to sell to private equity firms who will run them with a hyper-focus on cost-cutting and profitability -- not on-field success.

[fabiani12333]

If you're an MLB owner of a small-market team, you want to be able to sell the idea to potential customers that your team can be competitive with big-market teams and possibly win a championship at some point. This helps your team's valuation, if for no other reason. A future buyer will value your team based in part on its potential for on-field success.

If you're an MLB player, you want small-market teams to think they can compete with the big markets so they'll spend more on their players. You don't want them doing as little as possible because they have no incentive to try.

[premium1981]

Originally Posted by fabiani12333

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.

The Padres spending piles of money and failing proves my argument wrong? That money does not buy championships? What kind of jacked up logic is that?

How about we talk about the Dodgers not even having the best record in the NL with this team? Not even second best. The Brewers had the best record in both leagues with the 18th highest payroll. Everyone knows the playoffs is about who gets hot at the right time. That is why baseball is awesome, anyone can be beat in the playoffs. The Brewers just played like garbage for a series, but it does not take away everything else from the entire season.

When the Brewers have the best record in baseball with the 18th ranked payroll and the Mets have the 2nd highest payroll in baseball and completely miss the playoffs it plainly proves that money is far from the deciding factor. Yes, it plays a role in increasing your odds. But thats it.

Before the season started, multiple analysis said the Dodgers would be better than everyone, and several people said the Braves would be one of the teams capable of beating them in the NL. Not only was the Dodgers not the best team in the NL, the Braves were a dumpster fire with injuries and underperformance issues. Luck, healthy, chemistry, etc.

Here is the ironic part. If some here got their way, and all money was evenly divided by the teams and all players were redrafted so MLB becomes a Utopia, we would end up with a Milwaukee vs Minnesota World Series and then the complaints would be about how crappy of a World Series it was and no one wanted to watch it. There is always something to cry about.

[Fenway55]

Originally Posted by ewokpelts

A lockout that loses games will be devastating for the game. And for what, so the marlins can spend less per year and make more revenue sharing?!

No one will care if there is a lockout that wipes out - or postpones - games in April or perhaps even May.

Originally Posted by ewokpelts

The answer is six.

The answer is five.

Originally Posted by carlo16

Sounds like Socialism. Are any teams losing money?

Having business partners is not socialism.

It would be socialism if the NFL and MLB had to pool their revenue and share it. It is not socialism when the 30 members of MLB get together and share revenues. Those 30 teams are not in competition with each other (oh sure they compete on the field, but the Dodgers do not want the Brewers, Royals and Rays to go out of business).

[premium1981]

Originally Posted by Fenway55

but the Dodgers do not want the Brewers, Royals and Rays to go out of business

What teams are currently in danger of going out of business? And if they were, you think they would actually go under? Not be purchased by someone else? Let's get real here. Not only are teams not going out of business, but MLB is about to expand.

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by premium1981

The Padres spending piles of money and failing proves my argument wrong? That money does not buy championships? What kind of jacked up logic is that?

How about we talk about the Dodgers not even having the best record in the NL with this team? Not even second best. The Brewers had the best record in both leagues with the 18th highest payroll. Everyone knows the playoffs is about who gets hot at the right time. That is why baseball is awesome, anyone can be beat in the playoffs. The Brewers just played like garbage for a series, but it does not take away everything else from the entire season.

When the Brewers have the best record in baseball with the 18th ranked payroll and the Mets have the 2nd highest payroll in baseball and completely miss the playoffs it plainly proves that money is far from the deciding factor. Yes, it plays a role in increasing your odds. But thats it.

Before the season started, multiple analysis said the Dodgers would be better than everyone, and several people said the Braves would be one of the teams capable of beating them in the NL. Not only was the Dodgers not the best team in the NL, the Braves were a dumpster fire with injuries and underperformance issues. Luck, healthy, chemistry, etc.

Here is the ironic part. If some here got their way, and all money was evenly divided by the teams and all players were redrafted so MLB becomes a Utopia, we would end up with a Milwaukee vs Minnesota World Series and then the complaints would be about how crappy of a World Series it was and no one wanted to watch it. There is always something to cry about.

The Padres were still outspent by the Dodgers by a lot. They still finished behind the Dodgers in the division each season. The Dodgers still won the World Series and the Padres didn't. That is why there needs to be a salary cap -- to keep teams like the Dodgers from beating their opponents by far outspending them.

The Dodgers didn't prioritize regular season performance. They just wanted to make sure they won the division. They signed starting pitchers that they knew would make more of a difference in the postseason than in the regular season.

The Brewers got outclassed by the Dodgers in the LCS because the Dodgers are stacked with elite talent, while the Brewers rely heavily on role players. Elite talent matters more during the postseason when team strategy is based more around match-ups and winning every single game.

MLB doesn't need to create complete parity -- they just need to put firm restrictions on the upper levels of spending, while also making sure small-market teams can actually compete against big market teams. Big market teams should still able to spend more on their payrolls, they just shouldn't be allowed to hoard all the best free-agents.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by fabiani12333

I think what the question carlo was alluding to was why should small-market team owners care about the competitive imbalance in the game as long as they are doing well financially and their franchise valuations are still strong. My response to that would be that they could be doing better financially than they are if the league allowed for more competitive balance in the game. Their franchise valuations would be higher if they could actually compete against big-market teams for a championship once in a while. If their fans believed they had a legitimate shot at winning a title.



I forsee the future of MLB small-market teams being grim if the league doesnt make changes to the competitive structure of the game. I could see valuations of small-market franchises dropping over time or being forced to sell to private equity firms who will run them with a hyper-focus on cost-cutting and profitability -- not on-field success.

His position was based on a false premise that small market owners actually are making large profits from their teams. I believe that to be inaccurate until they actually sell the team.

[base set]

Went to a Sports Bar tonight to get something to eat and see a little bit of the game. It took them 15 minutes to get the Baseball game on to a screen, about average for this place. Perhaps 20 customers there, all content with NCAA Div II sports and NBA. I was the only person who even knew the WORLD SERIES was on. The players will be Fools to go on strike in 27. I somewhat expect that to happen, though the brigade of 3 year Pitchers the sport relies on now might start an interesting fight inside the union next year.

[Fenway55]

Originally Posted by premium1981

What teams are currently in danger of going out of business?

Did I say that any were?

I think the whole point of my post was missed. I never said anyone was in danger of going out of business. All I said was MLB teams are not business competitors with each other. They don't want their partners to go out of business.

[carlo16]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

His position was based on a false premise that small market owners actually are making large profits from their teams. I believe that to be inaccurate until they actually sell the team.

What teams are losing money from a pure operational standpoint?

[premium1981]

Originally Posted by Fenway55

Did I say that any were?

I think the whole point of my post was missed. I never said anyone was in danger of going out of business. All I said was MLB teams are not business competitors with each other. They don't want their partners to go out of business.

I understood your point. And I agree that baseball needs competition and no one wants the other teams to go under. But that isn't happening and isn't going to happen. Ever. So its a moot point.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by carlo16

What teams are losing money from a pure operational standpoint?

There is more to business than operations. The numbers you are quoting are fake. Show me the true P & L from all 30 teams. You can't because most are privately held companies.

What teams could pay the Dodgers salaries from their revenues? 2, the Dodgers and Yankees. Small market teams couldn't even afford the Blue Jays salaries. The bottom third have no chance to compete without changes in the revenue and salary models.

[carlo16]

Originally Posted by rats60

There is more to business than operations. The numbers you are quoting are fake. Show me the true P & L from all 30 teams. You can't because most are privately held companies.

What teams could pay the Dodgers salaries from their revenues? 2, the Dodgers and Yankees. Small market teams couldn't even afford the Blue Jays salaries. The bottom third have no chance to compete without changes in the revenue and salary models.

What teams are losing money?

[premium1981]

Originally Posted by rats60

The bottom third have no chance to compete without changes in the revenue and salary models.

Spotrac has the Brewers listed at #22 for total payroll allocations in 2025. And they finished with the best record in baseball. I would consider that competing. You are wrong.

The very last team (Marlins) show 67.7 million vs the Mets (2nd highest payroll) at 341 million and they had a total of 4 games separating them in the NL East. I would consider that competing. You are wrong.

The mighty Athletics had the 29th ranked payroll at 78 million and finished 4 games better in the AL West than the Angels that had the 11th highest payroll at 206 million. I would consider that competing. You are wrong.

The whole "we can't compete" argument sounds good until you actually look at what happens on the field. The fact is, the bottom third that you are talking about are usually not trying. It can be from being tight with their money, or maybe they are rebuilding. I will continue to admit that money helps you win. But for people to keep saying over and over that other teams can't win is just plain wrong. Steve Cohen would buy a championship if he could. But he can't. The Mets are a poorly run organization, and it doesn't matter how much money you throw their way. It doesn't change that. And teams like the Brewers and Rays often end up on top with smaller salaries because they are well run organizations. Spin it however you wish, but they are competing just fine. Maybe instead of redistributing the wealth, teams should redistribute the front office brains who are making things work better than others. And the coaches who can get more from their players than other coaches. That is where a huge part of the separation comes from. And its also why so many teams have tried to buy championships and it falls flat.

In fact, if memory serves me correctly, the top spending team has won the World Series 3 times this century out of 25 tries.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by carlo16

What teams are losing money?

Since you can only seem to ask questions you know it is impossible to answer (given the very post you quoted explains why we can't know for sure), I'll ask you a question. Which teams are turning a net profit? I'll wait for your answer, replete with actual numbers, not just random guesses. But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the cost of running a baseball team is at the very least in the ballpark of the revenue of many small market teams, and in a lot of cases, it costs far more to run a team than the publicly known revenues. Owning a baseball team isn't the profit-maker some seem to believe it is. It is usually an investment that makes you no money until you sell the team (unless you are one of the fortunate few in the large markets).

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by premium1981

Spotrac has the Brewers listed at #22 for total payroll allocations in 2025. And they finished with the best record in baseball. I would consider that competing. You are wrong.

The very last team (Marlins) show 67.7 million vs the Mets (2nd highest payroll) at 341 million and they had a total of 4 games separating them in the NL East. I would consider that competing. You are wrong.

The mighty Athletics had the 29th ranked payroll at 78 million and finished 4 games better in the AL West than the Angels that had the 11th highest payroll at 206 million. I would consider that competing. You are wrong.

The whole "we can't compete" argument sounds good until you actually look at what happens on the field. The fact is, the bottom third that you are talking about are usually not trying. It can be from being tight with their money, or maybe they are rebuilding. I will continue to admit that money helps you win. But for people to keep saying over and over that other teams can't win is just plain wrong. Steve Cohen would buy a championship if he could. But he can't. The Mets are a poorly run organization, and it doesn't matter how much money you throw their way. It doesn't change that. And teams like the Brewers and Rays often end up on top with smaller salaries because they are well run organizations. Spin it however you wish, but they are competing just fine. Maybe instead of redistributing the wealth, teams should redistribute the front office brains who are making things work better than others. And the coaches who can get more from their players than other coaches. That is where a huge part of the separation comes from. And its also why so many teams have tried to buy championships and it falls flat.

In fact, if memory serves me correctly, the top spending team has won the World Series 3 times this century out of 25 tries.

We define competitng very differently.

Further, I don't think anyone is saying that it is impossible for a small market team to ever win a championship. Sports are one of those things where anyone can win on any given night. So to keep harping on the few examples where it happens is futile and missing the point. What people are saying is that it is a totally unleveled playing field providing major advantages to large market teams. THAT is the disparity that needs fixed. Of course small market teams can sometimes break through (although your examples of regular season success mean zero to me), but that doesn't change the disadvantages they face. And again, this is a league, not 30 independent businesses. And it's bad business for a league to allow that type of disparity in it's subsidiaries that are supposed to be putting an entertaining product on the field.

[carlo16]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Since you can only seem to ask questions you know it is impossible to answer (given the very post you quoted explains why we can't know for sure), I'll ask you a question. Which teams are turning a net profit? I'll wait for your answer, replete with actual numbers, not just random guesses. But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the cost of running a baseball team is at the very least in the ballpark of the revenue of many small market teams, and in a lot of cases, it costs far more to run a team than the publicly known revenues. Owning a baseball team isn't the profit-maker some seem to believe it is. It is usually an investment that makes you no money until you sell the team (unless you are one of the fortunate few in the large markets).

Do you know the answers to your questions?

You also keep saying we don’t know the numbers but at the same time seem confident teams aren’t making as much money as we think. Make up your mind.