Will a possible MLB lockout in 2027 matter to you?

[carlo16]

Originally Posted by fabiani12333

I'm not calling for complete parity, where the big market teams no longer have a financial advantage over the small market teams, and all teams are on an even playing field. I'm saying the extreme imbalance needs to be corrected so that small market teams can actually have a decent shot at winning a championship. Think of the Cubs-Indians World Series in 2016, or the Dodgers-Rays World Series in 2020.

Ok that’s fair. Will that bring more revenue and/or profit to small market teams?

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by JustinVerlander07

Another one who wants to be passive aggressive!! Once again, no I don't believe that.

You guys are funny. Be men and call me out don't be scared.

Nobody is being passive aggressive. You are directly being called out for your poor arguments. I have addressed you directly multiple times.

If you don't believe that, then you need to reevaluate several of your posts and arguments. Because what you say and what you claim to believe don't jive.

Is that direct enough for your fragile psyche?

[erock28]

Originally Posted by JustinVerlander07

Signing Skubal doesn't mean you're a breakeven business, unless you know what their books look like. It's interesting you're expecting linear progression from players. If you followed the Tigers, maybe 1 of those 3 are signing a 2nd contract with Detroit, Riley Greene is the only one who has ever looked like a true building block and there are lots of questions if he is that block anyways. Look at their payroll, you have to sign someone at some point and Baez's $24 million is gone after 2027.

Perhaps the Pirates are a better example of being too 'poor' to sign Skenes and field a semblance of a competitive team. It's definitely not Detroit and Skubal.

You say you understand financials and then say stuff like this. If the Tigers ponied up the $40MM per year (and that could be closer to $50MM), they can't increase their payroll anywhere else to avoid chewing up all of their operating income. Tigers fans aren't going to flock to games just because their team signed him to a long term deal. They're not magically going to get their own TV network. Revenue isn't going to spike. Sure, some big money contracts will come off the books, and that can get backfilled by cheaper players...so it's possible to keep payroll around $160MM while paying Skubal $40MM+ and still generate operating income. But eventually you'll have to pay other players to stick around, or they go bye bye via free agency. Do I think Greene, Carpenter, or Torkelson will have earned a mega-deal when their time comes? Not necessarily - but looking at their profiles now, someone will give them long term security with a hefty pay increase. Willy Adames and Dansby Swanson are great examples of getting big contracts with sketchy career production. So the Tigers have a decision to make - is Skubal worth losing 3-4 other valuable players for the length of his contract?

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by carlo16

Ok that’s fair. Will that bring more revenue and/or profit to small market teams?

It'll at least shore up the marketability and valuations of the small market franchises. That'll make them more profitable than they otherwise would have been with the current system

[BoSoxFan1999]

I really wonder what a lockout/missed season would do to values of baseball cards. I mean Topps can still release product, but it won't be the same and enthusiasm not on the same level if the players aren't playing.

All these fans that usually go to games and spend money at the ballpark....what will they do with that money if there's no baseball? I could see some fans shifting that money into baseball cards, as some kind of replacement for actual baseball. But I still think overall a lockout will depress the baseball card market.

[JRX]

Originally Posted by BoSoxFan1999

I really wonder what a lockout/missed season would do to values of baseball cards. I mean Topps can still release product, but it won't be the same and enthusiasm not on the same level if the players aren't playing.

All these fans that usually go to games and spend money at the ballpark....what will they do with that money if there's no baseball? I could see some fans shifting that money into baseball cards, as some kind of replacement for actual baseball. But I still think overall a lockout will depress the baseball card market.

Savanna bananas is expanding. Families will go to that and not care if the majors aren't playing.

[JustinVerlander07]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Nobody is being passive aggressive. You are directly being called out for your poor arguments. I have addressed you directly multiple times.

If you don't believe that, then you need to reevaluate several of your posts and arguments. Because what you say and what you claim to believe don't jive.

Is that direct enough for your fragile psyche?

You say you aren't being passive aggressive while saying 'some people' immediately after I'm posting and you are indirectly talking about me? Unless your post wasn't about me, then I'll take back what I said, you tell me.

Originally Posted by erock28

You say you understand financials and then say stuff like this. If the Tigers ponied up the $40MM per year (and that could be closer to $50MM), they can't increase their payroll anywhere else to avoid chewing up all of their operating income. Tigers fans aren't going to flock to games just because their team signed him to a long term deal. They're not magically going to get their own TV network. Revenue isn't going to spike. Sure, some big money contracts will come off the books, and that can get backfilled by cheaper players...so it's possible to keep payroll around $160MM while paying Skubal $40MM+ and still generate operating income. But eventually you'll have to pay other players to stick around, or they go bye bye via free agency. Do I think Greene, Carpenter, or Torkelson will have earned a mega-deal when their time comes? Not necessarily - but looking at their profiles now, someone will give them long term security with a hefty pay increase. Willy Adames and Dansby Swanson are great examples of getting big contracts with sketchy career production. So the Tigers have a decision to make - is Skubal worth losing 3-4 other valuable players for the length of his contract?

You're not going from 0 to $40 million though, Skubal is projected to make over $20 million next season before his next deal would come in, so it's more of a $20 million increase from where he'll be. Perhaps not every market, but in the past when the Tigers are good, more people come to the games = increase in revenue (how much more it's obviously not enormous, but their revenues would surely go up with more people coming to the games). The projected payroll for the Tigers this season before they assumingly make a couple of modest additions (as has been their MO) is somewhere between $100 million and $120 million. I just don't see how you boast a $150-$160 million payroll and say "We aren't ever going to pay ANYONE".

[erock28]

Originally Posted by JustinVerlander07

You're not going from 0 to $40 million though, Skubal is projected to make over $20 million next season before his next deal would come in, so it's more of a $20 million increase from where he'll be. Perhaps not every market, but in the past when the Tigers are good, more people come to the games = increase in revenue (how much more it's obviously not enormous, but their revenues would surely go up with more people coming to the games). The projected payroll for the Tigers this season before they assumingly make a couple of modest additions (as has been their MO) is somewhere between $100 million and $120 million. I just don't see how you boast a $150-$160 million payroll and say "We aren't ever going to pay ANYONE".

I never said you're going from 0 to 40 - I said 10 to 40, or a $30MM difference, which is virtually all of their operating income. And yes, Skubal is projected to make $22.5MM in arby this off season. So if everything else remains status quo, their operating income will drop. Of course big dollar contracts are coming off the books in 2026, so they could in theory reduce payroll overall, have Skubal on arby, and be even more profitable in 2026. That isn't a debate. The debate is can the team afford to pay Skubal what LA or the Yankees could pay him, which is going to be north of $40MM per year, and likely over 8 seasons. They could - but many sacrifices to future rosters will need to be made, and they will have to accept trading being as competitive as possible for profitability. Plus they would have their fate tied to a single left arm that controls their success - one major injury and they're screwed. The big revenue clubs don't have that problem. Only 1 of the 11 players making $35MM plus are on a small revenue club (Burnes on the D-Backs), and that hasn't worked out too well.

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by erock28

I never said you're going from 0 to 40 - I said 10 to 40, or a $30MM difference, which is virtually all of their operating income. And yes, Skubal is projected to make $22.5MM in arby this off season. So if everything else remains status quo, their operating income will drop. Of course big dollar contracts are coming off the books in 2026, so they could in theory reduce payroll overall, have Skubal on arby, and be even more profitable in 2026. That isn't a debate. The debate is can the team afford to pay Skubal what LA or the Yankees could pay him, which is going to be north of $40MM per year, and likely over 8 seasons. They could - but many sacrifices to future rosters will need to be made, and they will have to accept trading being as competitive as possible for profitability. Plus they would have their fate tied to a single left arm that controls their success - one major injury and they're screwed. The big revenue clubs don't have that problem. Only 1 of the 11 players making $35MM plus are on a small revenue club (Burnes on the D-Backs), and that hasn't worked out too well.

Corbin Burnes being lost for the season basically created a chain of events which led the D-Backs to sell off at the deadline and miss the playoffs -- they would have been a wild card team if Burnes had stayed healthy.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by JustinVerlander07

You say you aren't being passive aggressive while saying 'some people' immediately after I'm posting and you are indirectly talking about me? Unless your post wasn't about me, then I'll take back what I said, you tell me.

I used the term "some people" because there are more people than just you who keep neglecting to consider the whole financial picture. It wasn't just directed at you. It was directed at several people I have engaged with in this thread. It wasn't passive aggressive. It was just directed at a group of people. Obviously, I wasn't hiding who I was referring to. I've been openly discussing it with several others.

[erock28]

Originally Posted by fabiani12333

Corbin Burnes being lost for the season basically created a chain of events which led the D-Backs to sell off at the deadline and miss the playoffs -- they would have been a wild card team if Burnes had stayed healthy.

To be fair, they were 28-31 when Burnes got hurt. Had he stayed healthy all year - the D-Backs got hot starting roughly August 1st - maybe they snag the last WC spot. But idk if Burnes gets you 4 more wins in 4 months.

What will ultimately be a problem is in a couple years as Carroll and Marte's contracts escalate is the amount of contributors to the club they'll lose to FA without a boost to revenue. Spending 67% on payroll absolutely cannot be sustained for a small revenue club.

[mwash1983]

Originally Posted by fabiani12333

And unlike 1994, there are so many other forms of entertainment to pass the time. Losing a season won't be the end of the world -- people will adjust and anticipate the return of games the following year.

Who is the big stars other than Ohtani and Judge who will be early to mid 30’s by then. There isn’t a homerun chase or a consecutive game streak, there isn’t anything to bring it back.

[mwash1983]

Honestly there won’t be any games missed due to someone that will be willing to pull the anti trust, the players will be cooked.

[ewokpelts]

Originally Posted by fabiani12333

It'll at least shore up the marketability and valuations of the small market franchises. That'll make them more profitable than they otherwise would have been with the current system

EVERY SINGLE MLB FRANCHISE IS WORTH M O R E THAN A BILLION DOLLARS!

The white sox were sold in 1981’for 20 million. Low end valuation is 1.8 billion. The orioles sold for 1.7 billion. Previous sale? 130 million.
Bud selig got the brewers out of bankruptcy court for Pennie’s on the dollar. Sold the team for 500 million 20 years ago. Team is worth more than a billion.

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by ewokpelts

EVERY SINGLE MLB FRANCHISE IS WORTH M O R E THAN A BILLION DOLLARS!

The white sox were sold in 1981’for 20 million. Low end valuation is 1.8 billion. The orioles sold for 1.7 billion. Previous sale? 130 million.
Bud selig got the brewers out of bankruptcy court for Pennie’s on the dollar. Sold the team for 500 million 20 years ago. Team is worth more than a billion.

But if they want to retain their valuations or grow them, MLB needs to shore up competitive balance. Past performance does not automatically inform future performance -- conditions have changed. The Dodgers have now essentially bought two World Series. Only teams in the top tier of payroll seem to have a shot at a title. Something needs to be done to make sure the game stays healthy long term.

[fabiani12333]

Year -- World Series winner -- total payroll rank

2025 -- Dodgers -- 1st
2024 -- Dodgers -- 3rd
2023 -- Rangers -- 4th
2022 -- Astros -- 8th
2021 -- Braves -- 10th
2020 -- Dodgers -- 1st
2019 -- Nationals -- 7th
2018 -- Red Sox -- 1st

Is it a coincidence the last eight World Series winners had a total payroll ranking in the top third of the league? No.

Something needs to be done to ensure smaller market teams have a shot to compete for a title. Otherwise, why should their fan bases continue to stay invested in them? Why would their franchise valuations stay strong if they are perennial non-contenders?

[fabiani12333]

As an outsider who has followed the league for decades, it seems to me that there is a distinct lack of good stewardship in the game. Instead, there is a lot of short-sightedness. Maybe I'm old-fashioned and the game has passed me by. But I feel like this pay-to-play model is really going to harm the league overall in the long run -- greed is going to kill the golden goose, so to speak.

[anusinha]

Originally Posted by fabiani12333

Year -- World Series winner -- total payroll rank

2025 -- Dodgers -- 1st
2024 -- Dodgers -- 3rd
2023 -- Rangers -- 4th
2022 -- Astros -- 8th
2021 -- Braves -- 10th
2020 -- Dodgers -- 1st
2019 -- Nationals -- 7th
2018 -- Red Sox -- 1st

Is it a coincidence the last eight World Series winners had a total payroll ranking in the top third of the league? No.

Something needs to be done to ensure smaller market teams have a shot to compete for a title. Otherwise, why should their fan bases continue to stay invested in them? Why would their franchise valuations stay strong if they are perennial non-contenders?

The EPL is the most popular league in the world and its the same 5ish teams at the top every year. Salary caps are un American, if a guy is worth 50 mill a year, then pay him what he’s worth.

[JRX]

Originally Posted by fabiani12333

Year -- World Series winner -- total payroll rank

2025 -- Dodgers -- 1st
2024 -- Dodgers -- 3rd
2023 -- Rangers -- 4th
2022 -- Astros -- 8th
2021 -- Braves -- 10th
2020 -- Dodgers -- 1st
2019 -- Nationals -- 7th
2018 -- Red Sox -- 1st

Is it a coincidence the last eight World Series winners had a total payroll ranking in the top third of the league? No.

Something needs to be done to ensure smaller market teams have a shot to compete for a title. Otherwise, why should their fan bases continue to stay invested in them? Why would their franchise valuations stay strong if they are perennial non-contenders?

Dodgers were 1 in 2024 for total payroll + tax at 456M, Mets were 2nd at 444M, Yankees 3rd at 378M per spotrac

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by anusinha

The EPL is the most popular league in the world and its the same 5ish teams at the top every year. Salary caps are un American, if a guy is worth 50 mill a year, then pay him what he’s worth.

But isn't that because European soccer fandom is based more on nationalism and regionalism? Blokes take it very seriously and personal -- it's more than just sport or entertainment to them; it's a sense of national and regional pride; there's a sense of duty to support your region's team.

I agree about the best players needing to get paid what they're worth. That's why players should get paid more at an earlier age when they're in their prime -- not past their prime at an older age.

[base set]

I have started thinking of a slightly different metric to MLB results. Next year will be ten years since a Central Division team represented either League in the World Series. The Midwest is now the land of AAAA teams growing talent for the coasts.

[Bcr]

Originally Posted by base set

I have started thinking of a slightly different metric to MLB results. Next year will be ten years since a Central Division team represented either League in the World Series. The Midwest is now the land of AAAA teams growing talent for the coasts.

Combination of cheap owners and players wanting to play for big markets on the coast

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by base set

I have started thinking of a slightly different metric to MLB results. Next year will be ten years since a Central Division team represented either League in the World Series. The Midwest is now the land of AAAA teams growing talent for the coasts.

This actually shows how the competitive balance in the league has shifted the last decade. The number of central division teams winning a championship or in the World Series was quite common prior to 2017:

Year -- Central Division team in the World Series:

2016: Indians and Cubs (won)
2015: Royals (won)
2014: Royals
2013: Cardinals
2012: Tigers
2011: Cardinals (won)

It's wild how it's completely flipped now and there is never a central division team in the World Series. And it's pretty clear why -- they are consistently outside the top-10 in total payroll spend.

I'll reiterate -- MLB's competitive and economic structures need an overhaul.

Edit: added Cubs in 2016

[49erRCCollector]

Originally Posted by fabiani12333

This actually shows how the competitive balance in the league has shifted the last decade. The number of central division teams winning a championship or in the World Series was quite common prior to 2017:

Year -- Central Division team in the World Series:

2016: Indians
2015: Royals (won)
2014: Royals
2013: Cardinals
2012: Tigers
2011: Cardinals (won)

It's wild how it's completely flipped now and there is never a central division team in the World Series. And it's pretty clear why -- they are consistently outside the top-10 in total payroll spend.

I'll reiterate -- MLB's competitive and economic structures need an overhaul.

I’m not entirely convinced that certain teams care less about championships. They know the fan base will come out of habit, and are ok maximizing profit over winning.

Not sure how to correct that. Not sure if punishing motivated teams is the answer, nor is revenue sharing with owners who just want the $$$, not a competitive league.

[ewokpelts]

Originally Posted by fabiani12333

This actually shows how the competitive balance in the league has shifted the last decade. The number of central division teams winning a championship or in the World Series was quite common prior to 2017:

Year -- Central Division team in the World Series:

2016: Indians
2015: Royals (won)
2014: Royals
2013: Cardinals
2012: Tigers
2011: Cardinals (won)

It's wild how it's completely flipped now and there is never a central division team in the World Series. And it's pretty clear why -- they are consistently outside the top-10 in total payroll spend.

I'll reiterate -- MLB's competitive and economic structures need an overhaul.

I like how you exclude the cubs from 2016 and the white sox from 2005