MLB is cooked and crooked ... how the Brewers win as much as they do is shocking!

[treego14]

MLB All-Stars react to Dodgers' massive $400 million payroll for 2026 season: 'I f---ing love it' | Alto
https://alto.gab.com/feed/fox/item/95576

[Team Canada]

I had to laugh at Machado's comment that every team could spend like the Dodgers if they wanted to. Uh, no.

[sveumrules]

12 hours ago, Team Canada said:

I had to laugh at Machado's comment that every team could spend like the Dodgers if they wanted to. Uh, no.

I've seen this idea posted elsewhere on the internet, and I think there are a decent number of fans (& players too I guess) who honestly seem to believe it.

Could lower payroll teams spend more than they do? Certainly.

But even if every team in the league had the financial capability to spend like the Dodgers (they don't) all that would mean is a bunch of players getting obscenely overpriced contracts because there aren't enough legit superstars and all star calibre players to warrant that kind of spending.

Using the current OD payroll projections on Cots and assuming even a measly $125M salary floor would leave ten teams needing to spend something like a combined $305M to get there.

Machado's own Padres are a great example of the limitations of smaller markets trying to spend (& trading many of their prospects) to hang with the Big Boys. 

They've had a nice run with their 433 wins since 2021 ranking 10th in MLB (Brewers 463 wins are 3rd over the same stretch) but now that Papa Seidler passed and the kids don't want to spend as freely they are more of a Top 10 kind of payroll instead of the Top three to five payroll they were running at peak in 2022/23 and are left with one of the weaker farm systems in the game paired with a patchwork MLB roster around a mostly aged & expensive core of Machado (33 yo with 8/$266M remaining), Bogaerts (33 yo with 8/$200M remaining), Michael King (31 yo with 3/$75M remaining), Nick Pivetta (33 yo with $19M plus two player options worth $32M remaining), Joe Musgrove (33 yo with 2/$40M remaining), and Jake Cronenworth (32 yo with 5/$60M remaining).

The Merrill extension was good, and Tatis is still a bargain at $70M over the next three years but the last $216M covering his age 30 to 35 seasons could become a little more onerous down the road when pushing forty Xander and Manny are already making $60M combined most of those same years.

[Austin Tatious]

I’ve long ago accepted the Brewers’ financial inequity and am proud of how Mark A has pivoted and been very smart about how he’s arranged his resources to build a consistent winner.   

[Gump]

We do really good for the payroll we got haha

[MNBrew]

Having deep pockets isn't the solution for everything.  It may create the possibility of more options in cases of injuries, poor performance, and judgement errors (i.e., bad big contracts), but I'd still gladly take the Brewers' 2025 talent evaluations & development, under-the-radar shrewd moves, organizational smarts, and the results that followed vs. the Mets' 2025 spending every time.  It would be fun to be among the big spenders every winter.  But it's so much more satisfying winning in the regular season vs. just on paper in the winter.

[Fear The Chorizo]

In all honesty, if every other team spent as much as the Dodgers currently do, do you know what would happen?

 

The Dodgers would just spend a ton more, because they print money and can because the current MLB rules wouldnt prevent it.

The argument about the financial disparity in baseball being because of small market teams not spending themselves into oblivion is misleading, inaccurate, and ignorant.  Bring on the strike if that is the position taken by the players making quotes (who obviously are among the minority of players who actually have received generational money in contracts - the current system sucks for younger players trying to stick and middling vets working through arbitration who never wind up reaching that 1st big free agent contract)

[SeaBass]

7 hours ago, Fear The Chorizo said:

In all honesty, if every other team spent as much as the Dodgers currently do, do you know what would happen?

 

The Dodgers would just spend a ton more, because they print money and can because the current MLB rules wouldnt prevent it.

The argument about the financial disparity in baseball being because of small market teams not spending themselves into oblivion is misleading, inaccurate, and ignorant.  Bring on the strike if that is the position taken by the players making quotes (who obviously are among the minority of players who actually have received generational money in contracts - the current system sucks for younger players trying to stick and middling vets working through arbitration who never wind up reaching that 1st big free agent contract)

A) It's not going to be a strike, it's going to be a lockout.

B) It's an owner issue, not a player issue. The players aren't making the game worse simply by existing. The players didn't create market disparity. They just work here.

[Fear The Chorizo]

1 hour ago, SeaBass said:

A) It's not going to be a strike, it's going to be a lockout.

B) It's an owner issue, not a player issue. The players aren't making the game worse simply by existing. The players didn't create market disparity. They just work here.

I get that, but players also need to have some awareness of why this is such a problem.  I envision a lockout followed by a strike after a legitimate salary cap is imposed btw, too.

 

Any sort of agreement that doesnt set a limit payroll can reach along with a salary floor, plus broadcast revenue sharing across the league, wont be good enough for the longterm health of baseball.

[Turning2]

11 hours ago, Fear The Chorizo said:

The argument about the financial disparity in baseball being because of small market teams not spending themselves into oblivion is misleading, inaccurate, and ignorant.  Bring on the strike if that is the position taken by the players making quotes (who obviously are among the minority of players who actually have received generational money in contracts - the current system sucks for younger players trying to stick and middling vets working through arbitration who never wind up reaching that 1st big free agent contract)

Generational money....  That term has been invented to rationalize the exorbitant salaries of even the lowest paid professional ballplayers. It's been normalized and now many just accept it. Who in the real world thinks they need to make so much money as to allow their kids, grandkids etc to not have to work? It's just a pride thing, a salary competition between millionaires and billionaires that we pay for

[SeaBass]

1 hour ago, Turning2 said:

Generational money....  That term has been invented to rationalize the exorbitant salaries of even the lowest paid professional ballplayers. It's been normalized and now many just accept it. Who in the real world thinks they need to make so much money as to allow their kids, grandkids etc to not have to work? It's just a pride thing, a salary competition between millionaires and billionaires that we pay for

The players are the attraction in an entertainment industry. They should be making very close to half of all profits. Period.

[SeaBass]

3 hours ago, Fear The Chorizo said:

I get that, but players also need to have some awareness of why this is such a problem.  I envision a lockout followed by a strike after a legitimate salary cap is imposed btw, too.

 

Any sort of agreement that doesnt set a limit payroll can reach along with a salary floor, plus broadcast revenue sharing across the league, wont be good enough for the longterm health of baseball.

Jeff Passan wrote an interesting article last week. I think he tries very hard to bring the perspectives of both the owners as a collective and the players into the overall issue. It left me feeling like there wasn't any way that a cap system would be proposed and agreed to in any realistic sense.

This is an excerpt:
"Let's use a potentially realistic example that would maintain the $5.5 billion or so teams paid for players in 2025. With a $280 million hard cap and $150 million hard floor, the money teams spend would be within $50,000 of last season. What players lose on the top end -- $236 million from the Dodgers, $150 million from the Mets, $85 million from the Yankees and $69 million from the Philadelphia Phillies -- would be made up on the bottom. To reach $150 million, the Marlins would need to spend an additional $82 million, the A's and Rays $71 million, and so on -- 11 teams and $540 million total.

The problems are manifold. The union would sneer at the ceiling on teams that have proved themselves willing to spend twice that amount. The lower-revenue organizations would cringe at the tens of millions extra more than a third of the league would be forced to pay. And in no universe does a $130 million gap between top and bottom constitute competitive balance. Levering both in the opposite directions -- a $320 million cap and $130 million floor -- would placate teams' self-serving desires but would be lipstick on the parity pig. Moving everyone toward a middle, though more equitable, would exacerbate the disillusionment from restricting teams that want to spend and forcing teams that don't."

It just doesn't feel like a cap can exist that is actually effective and makes everyone happy, owners included. The players particularly would be justified in simply not being interested whatsoever.

[Fear The Chorizo]

11 minutes ago, SeaBass said:

Jeff Passan wrote an interesting article last week. I think he tries very hard to bring the perspectives of both the owners as a collective and the players into the overall issue. It left me feeling like there wasn't any way that a cap system would be proposed and agreed to in any realistic sense.

This is an excerpt:
"Let's use a potentially realistic example that would maintain the $5.5 billion or so teams paid for players in 2025. With a $280 million hard cap and $150 million hard floor, the money teams spend would be within $50,000 of last season. What players lose on the top end -- $236 million from the Dodgers, $150 million from the Mets, $85 million from the Yankees and $69 million from the Philadelphia Phillies -- would be made up on the bottom. To reach $150 million, the Marlins would need to spend an additional $82 million, the A's and Rays $71 million, and so on -- 11 teams and $540 million total.

The problems are manifold. The union would sneer at the ceiling on teams that have proved themselves willing to spend twice that amount. The lower-revenue organizations would cringe at the tens of millions extra more than a third of the league would be forced to pay. And in no universe does a $130 million gap between top and bottom constitute competitive balance. Levering both in the opposite directions -- a $320 million cap and $130 million floor -- would placate teams' self-serving desires but would be lipstick on the parity pig. Moving everyone toward a middle, though more equitable, would exacerbate the disillusionment from restricting teams that want to spend and forcing teams that don't."

It just doesn't feel like a cap can exist that is actually effective and makes everyone happy, owners included. The players particularly would be justified in simply not being interested whatsoever.

A cap with a floor, plus full revenue sharing that includes broadcast revenues, can absolutely exist and make everyone happy....because in that scenario the floor would be much closer to the cap than what Passan lays out in your post above.

My point is the MLB financial system needs to be entirely redone - not just keeping revenue generation/sharing buckets the same as what they are now when one team gets ~$350M a year in its own TV market money and others get maybe $25M.  Would players be happy with a cap/floor under the current revenue system?  Heck no, and I wouldn't blame them.  Would they be happy if pre arb/arbitration years/team control were reduced, full revenue sharing was implemented, and all 30 MLB clubs could readily spend upwards of $320M a year on their payroll?  There sure as heck should be.

Additionally, the deferred money nonsense needs to go away - teams could still defer money in contracts if they/players wish, but the actual AAV of that contract would need to count towards a team's salary cap during the years they are actually playing (not deferred).

[Fear The Chorizo]

44 minutes ago, SeaBass said:

The players are the attraction in an entertainment industry. They should be making very close to half of all profits. Period.

Players are already making way, way more than half of all profits on a year to year basis.  Half of all revenues?  Probably not - but MLB organizations have far more expenses that eat into revenues and reduce profits already...not to mention the guaranteed contracts they can't get away from like NFL and even NBA teams can with cuts/trades/etc.

[SeaBass]

Just now, Fear The Chorizo said:

A cap with a floor, plus full revenue sharing that includes broadcast revenues, can absolutely exist and make everyone happy....because in that scenario the floor would be much closer to the cap than what Passan lays out in your post above.

My point is the MLB financial system needs to be entirely redone - not just keeping revenue generation/sharing buckets the same as what they are now when one team gets ~$350M a year in its own TV market money and others get maybe $25M.  Would players be happy with a cap/floor under the current revenue system?  Heck no, and I wouldn't blame them.  Would they be happy if pre arb/arbitration years/team control were reduced, full revenue sharing was implemented, and all 30 MLB clubs could readily spend upwards of $320M a year on their payroll?  There sure as heck should be.

Additionally, the deferred money nonsense needs to go away - teams could still defer money in contracts if they/players wish, but the actual AAV of that contract would need to count towards a team's salary cap during the years they are actually playing (not deferred).

The owners are going to be happy (with revenue sharing)? I can think of several that wouldn't be. Why would the Dodgers chop off their right arm just so their competition has a better chance to beat them?

Again, I use the words "realistic". Owners agreeing to lower profits doesn't fit my vision of reality.

[Fear The Chorizo]

Just now, SeaBass said:

The owners are going to be happy (with revenue sharing)? I can think of several that wouldn't be. Why would the Dodgers chop off their right arm just so their competition has a better chance to beat them?

Again, I use the words "realistic". Owners agreeing to lower profits doesn't fit my vision of reality.

The Dodgers ownership group doesn't need to be happy....several don't need to be happy...there doesn't need to be a 30-0 team consensus to move forward.  I strongly feel that MLB has reached a point where getting unanimous agreement by MLB ownership groups for its financial structure would be a defeat for the longterm health of baseball.

[SeaBass]

Just now, Fear The Chorizo said:

The Dodgers ownership group doesn't need to be happy....several don't need to be happy...there doesn't need to be a 30-0 team consensus to move forward.  I strongly feel that MLB has reached a point where getting unanimous agreement by MLB ownership groups for its financial structure would be a defeat for the longterm health of baseball.

They don't need to be happy but is it realistically going to happen? If you think so I fear you have pie in the sky dreams.

[SeaBass]

I just think the owners are much more interested in making the players bend to their will than making sacrifices of their own. I don't see the players agreeing to a bad deal. Could any of that happen? Sure. I don't know the future. Maybe everyone comes together and actually figures out what works best for everyone and baseball becomes a utopia of awesome. I sure hope that happens. I just don't think it will.

[Turning2]

51 minutes ago, SeaBass said:

The players are the attraction in an entertainment industry. They should be making very close to half of all profits. Period.

They are also not taking on close to half the investment risk. 

[SeaBass]

7 minutes ago, Turning2 said:

They are also not taking on close to half the investment risk. 

If the risk were so very high we'd be seeing sales of professional teams more often than we do. And for lower valuations.

[Sixtolezcano]

2 hours ago, SeaBass said:

The players are the attraction in an entertainment industry. They should be making very close to half of all profits. Period.

The only problem with this comment it is we (the fans) that foot the bill for all of these profits. If the players and owners weren’t so greedy we would be paying significantly less for tickets, television, etc. that is mlb related. I don’t disagree with players getting 50%, however I really don’t care paying $50-100 per ticket, >$150.00 for a jersey or >$200 for EXTRA INNINGS.

[Sixtolezcano]

1 hour ago, SeaBass said:

I just think the owners are much more interested in making the players bend to their will than making sacrifices of their own. I don't see the players agreeing to a bad deal. Could any of that happen? Sure. I don't know the future. Maybe everyone comes together and actually figures out what works best for everyone and baseball becomes a utopia of awesome. I sure hope that happens. I just don't think it will.

Then they will price themselves out of business. Good for both of them. They deserve it by being so greedy.

[Frisbee Slider]

1 hour ago, Sixtolezcano said:

If the profits weren’t so high we would be paying significant less for tickets, television, etc. for everything mlb related

The idea that a business can raise prices by one percent and demand does not decrease by one percent means demand is inelastic, at least to a point. This makes sense because there really aren’t substitutes or alternatives to MLB if you really enjoy baseball.

Businesses should maximize profit.

I suppose you could watch another sport or form of entertainment. At the same time, most of the price increases are likely attributable to inflation and everything being twice as expense than before.

[tmwiese55]

Also, it is the market.  If the ticket prices were cheaper, they'd get resold on open market because people are willing to may more.   The general public is willing to pay for the entertainment experience and the money has to go somewhere.  People are willing to watch on TV or pay subscriptions to watch it, if they charged less for them then its the owners of the networks making the big profit.   This is just capitalism at work

[SeaBass]

23 minutes ago, Sixtolezcano said:

The only problem with this comment it is we (the fans) that foot the bill for all of these profits.

No, we don't, not 100% of it. We don't have to pay anything. People do because they choose to. Advertising and media contracts are a large part of MLB's income. I haven't attended a MLB game in probably close to 10 years. I watch on TV. I'm happy to pay the price for streaming for as long as I continue to think it's a fair price. That's what I pay, that and whatever percent of my attention is given to the commercials during breaks between innings, which isn't much. I notice the annoying things about commercials like repetitive commercials that play too often and that is more likely to cause a negative emotion towards the company that is advertising.