Some stars are worth it. Most stars are not. I’m all for teams keeping their homegrown players on bigger deals especially since fan bases usually want to identify with a team’s star player. I don’t really support teams giving bigger contracts for players who were mediocre, were acquired for a bargain, did really well…and then got paid… but there will always be teams that do that because their fans are desperate for action. I just hope my team doesn’t do that regularly.
While I agree the MLBPA has certainly prioritized earlier FA and veterans getting paid, I wouldn't agree they want this. They simply are willing to sacrifice the younger players to get what they want, since they have to give up something.
Given that they are entrenched in opposition to any sort of actual salary cap (the current club-control structure is the only thing that gives the clubs a level of salary stability), this is indeed exactly how they want it. They've never given a **** about young players in either the minors or majors.
Am I right in thinking that the current system where young guys on the whole are underpayed and attached to the team that drafts them for a period of years, favors clubs that draft well?
It obviously does, and it favors teams that don't wanna commit monster contracts. Teams are fine with the arrangement. It's a player issue, and the players are all in on protecting the 1% instead of a different system that would spread the wealth around a little. It's the peak capitalist mentality, which I loathe but many love. "I wanna protect that pot of gold that I'm never gonna come anywhere near"
The thing is, no team is compelled to pay the 1% in the form of monster contracts. What do you figure would happen if all the teams decided not to anymore?
Players might want to adjust the system, but I don't see it happening. Always somebody hungry to win, and in a sport where everybody has a good chance with even moderate competence. The way WS titles have been spread out since 2000 is staggering, over half the league has a title.
To an extent, Crane already is. He doesnt sign off on monster deals. But everyone would have to do it for the system to change I admit.
But he has shown the ability to pay (or overpay) for individuals on a short term deal… or extend players for market rate deals well before they were going to impact the teams payroll… or spread the money throughout the roster so you can have a balanced attack. His ability to field a top 5 payroll when the team was in contention is the expected actions of a competitive (good) owner. It’s actually not the big market teams that are bad for baseball… it’s the small market teams that want to continue to maximize profits, thus they will never extend a payroll moreso at any point. Honestly, there shouldn’t be a huge disparity between “small market” and “big market” in any pro sport. The NFL and NBA don’t suffer from that problem, and their star players are well taken care of.
It is if you’re willing to accept a system that has a lower class without incentive to try and spend more… I would prefer a system where financially, all teams are pretty even (based on the league’s TV and overall revenues)… and then you still have the teams that are willing to pay even more, but will get severely penalized for it.
I think the league should have a CBT at the bottom as well as the top, effectively having a soft floor as well as a soft ceiling. All teams keep 50% of individual revenue. The remaining 50% and league revenues are divided equally among all 30 teams. This will allow the highest revenue teams to still keep much money. For example the Yankees made $657M and the Astros made $407M in 2022. Yanks would get $328.5M and Astros $203.5M then both teams get 1/30th of all remaining league revenues (minus amount set aside for the league) Set a soft ceiling and floor with a similar CBT system in place now - maybe $250M and $150M. This actually allows lower revenue teams to sign extensions to younger players, so they don't need to trade away stars before FA, and also allows many many more average veterans to get contracts rather than being squeezed out by younger players. There is a tiered penalty for being below the floor, just like the one for being over the ceiling.
That's not entirely true. They've been against the floor when its been tied to a joint proposal with a cap. If anything, they want teams to spend more... especially the ones that claim they can't "afford" offering higher contracts to retain their players, or teams that merely look to optimize profits. The majority of the owners don't want a minimal salary threshold. They want the "luxury" of spending when they need to but also hoarding/profiting in the lean years. Only in baseball are all these owners "crying poor"... when in reality their franchise value continues to appreciate and thus the return on their investment will always be protected.
...and yet there is one. There is a minimum salary and a requirement to have at least 25 players. Versus the NFL and I think the NBA, MLB's owners are not getting as much ROI. If MLB had a soft or hard cap , the owners wouldn't cry poor as often even if they were making the same amount of money. Fans are more forgiving of the owners wanting to make money if rules prevent them from spending more like in the NBA and NFL. I think Crane gets called cheap about as often as Tilman does on this board and the GARM is much busier and Tilman has been cheaper (or is it more cheap?) IMO. NBA does have a soft cap, but spending more is usually about re-signing underforming players instead of keeping a star. Rarely does a team have so many players worth the max that the owner has to trade away or not sign a guy worthy of the max.
You know there are MLB teams that could pay more… but choose not to because they’re going to make up what they don’t have in attendance in revenue sharing (and in some case, be even more profitable in that). Each owner should be compared to their contemporaries within the same sport. The “cheapest” of NBA owners still spend a considerable amount on retaining players, giving out long-term deals, etc….. compared to the “cheapest” of MLB owners.
While I was researching this topic, I read that Oakland was the 5th most profitable MLB team in 2022 according to Forbes. FYI 1) Mariners + $83.8M 2) Giants + $74.9M 3) Red Sox + $71.6M 4) Orioles + $64.7M 5) A's. + $62.2M 11) Astros + $44.3M
