Why Pursue Parity?

[jjgott]

I was thinking of writing this in the lockout thread but didn't want to derail it from talk about the mechanisms of the lockout negotiations.

 

There's been a lot of talk on here about how the playing field should be leveled via a salary cap so that teams like the Brewers can compete with the Yankees' and Dodgers' of the world. However, I haven't seen a compelling reason as to why? Why shouldn't teams that exist in big markets have a bigger advantage over the smaller ones? Why should a team like the Brewers have an "equal" shot at the championship? If we really wanted equity in baseball so the smaller markets could compete with the big boys, shouldn't the salary cap for the Brewers be like $200 million and only $150 million for the Yankees? Because if it's $200 million for everyone, the Brewers are probably still not going to reach that figure year in and year out while the Yankees and Dodgers will go right up to the cap.

 

The "free market" MLB really does not see the dynasty winners like the capped leagues of the NFL or NBA (outside of the late 90s Yankees). Most of the MLB has made the playoffs at least twice in the last 30 years and most have won their division at least once. Without a salary cap the Brewers have been to the playoffs 4 straight years and carried higher nominal payrolls in 2014 and 2015 than they did in 2021, even though inflation means we should be able to afford much higher nominal payrolls.

 

As we've also seen, the institution of the CBT hasn't really done anything re: ticket or concessions prices and a hard cap won't do anything either (pretty sure beer costs the same if not more at Fiserv or Lambeau).

 

So again, what is the moral/competitive reason for why MLB should actively try to manufacture parity?

[Brock Beauchamp]

Perhaps pure equity isn't necessary but more parity is definitely necessary. The Yankees and Dodgers need someone to play, after all. And if smaller market teams are left to eventually wither and die, the sport shrinks. And baseball is already mostly a regional sport that younger people don't care about, which is why it's losing marketshare to football and basketball every year.

 

The health of the sport is why more parity is important. I'm not sure we should strive for equity, as that's not necessarily the best option either, but more parity is definitely needed.

 

And that's why I support a hard salary floor along with a more aggressive CBT, but not a hard salary cap.

[Baldkin]

The premise of your post (that spending more doesn't mean more wins) is completely untrue. We have decades of data to demonstrate that payroll (and franchise valuations) are tied closely to wins over a long period of time.

 

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/in-2019-team-payroll-and-wins-are-closely-linked/

 

For example: There hasn't been a World Series champion from the bottom half of MLB payroll since the Wild Card was introduced.

 

https://www.baseballamerica.com/stories/world-series-champion-opening-day-payroll-ranks-in-the-wild-card-era/

 

Equity and parity doesn't come from a salary cap unless MLB institutes revenue sharing. MLB is the only major sport where the majority of money stems from local TV deals (instead of national deals), and that local TV deal money isn't shared league wide.

 

What would the Red Sox TV deal be worth if they didn't have anyone to play? Shouldn't the Rays get a bit of that $$?

 

The owners will never push for revenue sharing, even the owners of small market teams, because that would require them to open up their books - which would lead to the players making more money.

[wntrtxn21]

The reason baseball needs monetary parity is that the sport depends on competition to survive. I am a firm believer in a hard cap (probably won't happen in my lifetime) and a minimum floor. To make the game as fair as possible for each team, revenue has to be balanced, whereby each team is financially capable of reaching the cap and each team must reach the minimum floor. No two teams will ever be equal because of coaching, player development, front office, playing conditions, etc... In baseball, unlike basketball and football, draft picks don't come in and make an immediate impact. It takes years to develop talent. Small market teams see a never ending turnstile with players because as their talent gets better, they get more pricey. They can't afford to keep the bulk their better, more expensive players. Remove that obstacle and the game gets better, more interesting, and small market teams will see the playoffs far more frequently which brings more fans to the game.

[TURBO]

I was thinking of writing this in the lockout thread but didn't want to derail it from talk about the mechanisms of the lockout negotiations.

 

There's been a lot of talk on here about how the playing field should be leveled via a salary cap so that teams like the Brewers can compete with the Yankees' and Dodgers' of the world. However, I haven't seen a compelling reason as to why? Why shouldn't teams that exist in big markets have a bigger advantage over the smaller ones? Why should a team like the Brewers have an "equal" shot at the championship? If we really wanted equity in baseball so the smaller markets could compete with the big boys, shouldn't the salary cap for the Brewers be like $200 million and only $150 million for the Yankees? Because if it's $200 million for everyone, the Brewers are probably still not going to reach that figure year in and year out while the Yankees and Dodgers will go right up to the cap.

 

The "free market" MLB really does not see the dynasty winners like the capped leagues of the NFL or NBA (outside of the late 90s Yankees). Most of the MLB has made the playoffs at least twice in the last 30 years and most have won their division at least once. Without a salary cap the Brewers have been to the playoffs 4 straight years and carried higher nominal payrolls in 2014 and 2015 than they did in 2021, even though inflation means we should be able to afford much higher nominal payrolls.

 

As we've also seen, the institution of the CBT hasn't really done anything re: ticket or concessions prices and a hard cap won't do anything either (pretty sure beer costs the same if not more at Fiserv or Lambeau).

 

So again, what is the moral/competitive reason for why MLB should actively try to manufacture parity?

 

C'mon man...

 

I almost feel like you posted this just to get everyone all worked up.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I've never felt like looking at a list of champions is a great way to determine partity. The truth is that very rich teams aren't terrible for a really long time. The Mets are a mess, but I've seen them play in the World Series twice and once not too long ago.

 

The Dodgers have one lame title recently but they are good every single year. Boston and NYY fall into darkness but it is never really prolonged.

 

So a super high payroll can still yield poor results, but generally you will stay really bad for a much shorter period of time. In the NFL, it is completely possible to go from worst to first in a single off-season. QBs are king, but there are always new teams coming and going.

[jjgott]

 

C'mon man...

 

I almost feel like you posted this just to get everyone all worked up.

 

I really wasn’t trying to be trolly! I guess for me I don’t necessarily buy the argument that it’s a necessity for the game for small market teams to be put on as close to equal footing with the large market teams. I can be ok with the fact that Milwaukee has a smaller media market than Los Angeles and so it might not have as much money to work with as the Dodgers.

 

wntrtxn21 said baseball depends on competition to survive but it has survived for the past 100 years without a hard cap. Granted, a good chunk of that time included the Reserve clause, but people have showed up to games and cheered on their small market teams even though the deck was stacked against them. I really don’t think the lack of turnover of the top teams is what’s making baseball fandom decline.

 

I also reject the premise that the small market teams are just going to wither and die. They are legally protected from dying by the Supreme Court. So long as Mark A. ponies up enough dough to pay 26 guys, he is guaranteed 81 home games and 81 away games and all the national media and licensing revenues.

 

It was brought up that a World Series champion hasn’t come from the bottom half of MLB payroll since the Wild Card was introduced. All that says to me is that if an owner wants to win a championship, they better spend on talent to be in the top half of MLB payroll. Instead, there are 15 owners who prioritize maximizing profit (totally their right btw!) than win a championship. It’s why I don’t understand why fans aren’t more demanding of the owners to spend money to win championships. Instead, we all sort of shrug and just accept we can’t spend more than our “budget” (*cough* salary cap *cough*).

 

The Bucks were never going to win a championship until the owners finally agreed to pay the luxury tax. Weird how the owners were ok with it once their desire to win a championship outweighed their desire to adhere to the salary cap.

[SomewhereInTime]

I've never felt like looking at a list of champions is a great way to determine partity. The truth is that very rich teams aren't terrible for a really long time. The Mets are a mess, but I've seen them play in the World Series twice and once not too long ago.

 

The Dodgers have one lame title recently but they are good every single year. Boston and NYY fall into darkness but it is never really prolonged.

 

So a super high payroll can still yield poor results, but generally you will stay really bad for a much shorter period of time. In the NFL, it is completely possible to go from worst to first in a single off-season. QBs are king, but there are always new teams coming and going.

 

I agree that no one goes worst to first in baseball. But what NFL team has gone worst to first?

[markedman5]

Because in the NBA or NFL if you don’t win it isn’t because you can’t afford to keep your own players……in fact they have certain rules built in that makes it easier to do so……franchise tag….restricted free agency for draft picks….and in the NBA a max salary structure.

 

As a fan of a team that will never have the resources of New York or LA…..I would love if everybody had to operate under the same salary structure.

 

Sadly that isn’t the case and likely won’t be for the foreseeable future.

[wntrtxn21]

I've never felt like looking at a list of champions is a great way to determine partity. The truth is that very rich teams aren't terrible for a really long time. The Mets are a mess, but I've seen them play in the World Series twice and once not too long ago.

 

The Dodgers have one lame title recently but they are good every single year. Boston and NYY fall into darkness but it is never really prolonged.

 

So a super high payroll can still yield poor results, but generally you will stay really bad for a much shorter period of time. In the NFL, it is completely possible to go from worst to first in a single off-season. QBs are king, but there are always new teams coming and going.

 

I agree that no one goes worst to first in baseball. But what NFL team has gone worst to first?

 

There have been NFL teams that went from worst in their division to first, but I don't think any team has ever gone worst to winning the S.B.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I've never felt like looking at a list of champions is a great way to determine partity. The truth is that very rich teams aren't terrible for a really long time. The Mets are a mess, but I've seen them play in the World Series twice and once not too long ago.

 

The Dodgers have one lame title recently but they are good every single year. Boston and NYY fall into darkness but it is never really prolonged.

 

So a super high payroll can still yield poor results, but generally you will stay really bad for a much shorter period of time. In the NFL, it is completely possible to go from worst to first in a single off-season. QBs are king, but there are always new teams coming and going.

 

I agree that no one goes worst to first in baseball. But what NFL team has gone worst to first?

 

Tampa went from no playoffs to SB champs in one year, yes there was huge player movement, but that volume of player movement is not really possible in baseball for all teams equally. Cincinnati went from 2-14 to AFC Champs in 2 seasons, this is just literally the last two seasons. The Eagles and Rams both missed the playoffs before winning the SB. So not worst to first literally, but you see massive jumps year to year, constantly. Baseball has a lot of things working against this, the salary issues are obvious, but also that your drafted talent doesn't see the field for years. That and one player like a QB can't turn the franchise overnight.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

 

There have been NFL teams that went from worst in their division to first, but I don't think any team has ever gone worst to winning the S.B.

 

Kurt Warner Rams are the closest I can find. League worst in 1998 was 3-13, they were 4-12 and won SB in 1999.

[folly412]

Because if it's $200 million for everyone, the Brewers are probably still not going to reach that figure year in and year out while the Yankees and Dodgers will go right up to the cap.

 

In addition to caps, both the NFL and NBA have floors of around 90% of the cap. The floor would probably have the owners in a tizzy even more than a cap would bother the players.

[SoCalBrewfan]

I am truly baffled by this question. To me there's a simple answer that is morals/values based: I want a fair competition, to the extent that this is possible, so that the winner is determined by baseball things and not which team happens to have a rich owner or big TV contract. Fair, to me, means every team has more or less the same boundary conditions and then it's up to them to plan and execute. Would I feel the same were I a Dodgers or Yankees fan? I would like to think so. Sure, the fans I know seem to overlook this, but wouldn't you rather win because you were smarter and better, and not just because your daddy had a lot of money?

 

Who wants to see Alabama vs. Beloit College in football? Who wants to see Mike Tyson fight Pee Wee Herman? I mean, maybe it's momentarily fun for the Tyson fans, and then gives rise to the occasional underdog moment. Personally though I would much rather see the team that builds smarter and has a better plan win, rather than the team that routinely signs the best free agents and has $20M players as utility guys just because they have way more money than anyone else.

 

The NFL does a pretty good job, I think; there are small-market teams that are consistently good, like Green Bay or Pittsburgh, because they draft and develop and have good coaching. (Getting a good QB obviously helps a lot, but that's not exactly a secret, nor is it limited to the richest teams.) There are mechanisms like the draft order and schedule that provide some advantages to teams who finished poorly, so there's some hope to the franchises who are in a losing cycle. With the right management and some high picks, you can rebuild and compete again. Detroit or Jacksonville fans aren't thinking their team is hopeless because they don't have the payroll....it's hopeless because they made bad choices and at least there's a fix for that. (This can be true in baseball but to a much much lesser extent...what hope do Pirates fans have?) Meanwhile, the big market teams can't just throw money at problems, so you see, say, the New York teams flailing because they have to play on a somewhat level playing field and apparently aren't up to the task at the moment.

[monty57]

The NFL shares TV revenue. If MLB shared TV revenue, most of the big market/small market talks would be over. The Brewers draw a lot of fans and have a lot of parking revenue... their TV deal vs a large market's TV deal is the reason they can't "spend with the big boys."

 

As to "free market," MLB is the "company" and the competition is every other form of entertainment on which consumers can spend their money. The people in charge seem to think it's a good idea to give the advantage to big cities, as there are more fans to spend money when their team is good. It sucks as a fan of a small market team, but MLB doesn't seem to think it's a big deal, or it would've been fixed a long time ago.

 

The way it's set up is completely against any rules of sportsmanship we'd teach kids. It's akin to the Olympics saying that since countries like U.S. and China have a larger audience they get to run 75 meters while the smaller countries have to run 100 meters. Just because Usain Bolt may still win doesn't make it unfair.

 

But, it's all about the money. The union obviously doesn't care, as they're trying to get rid of the "competitive balance" programs that are in place, and the owners could have fixed the problem decades ago by signing one TV deal for the league rather than having each team sign their own deal, but the big market owners would never go along with that.

[jjgott]

It's akin to the Olympics saying that since countries like U.S. and China have a larger audience they get to run 75 meters while the smaller countries have to run 100 meters. Just because Usain Bolt may still win doesn't make it unfair.

 

Last I checked all the MLB teams play by the same rules and the diamonds are all the same size.

 

But going with analogy, the bigger countries DO pay for better training and otherwise financially support their athletes better than the small ones in the non-Olympic years. Does that make it unfair?

 

And I really don’t see Brewers/Dodgers as akin to Alabama/Beloit College. It’s more like Alabama/Wisconsin. Should Alabama be capped at the number of 5 Star recruits they can have on their team so Wisconsin has a better chance of beating them in the CFP?

[TURBO]

So your argument, basically, is that parity is bad, and that fans of the less fortunate teams just have to suck it up and take it. There should be no attempts at leveling the playing field, let the haves thrive, and the have nots burn.

 

Can't get on board with that line of thinking.

 

If I knew for 100% certain, that my team would not make the playoffs due to what you are suggesting for the next 20 years, I can pretty much tell you that I would switch my allegiance to a different team. I love the sport too much to drop it all together, so rather than put myself through the daily stresses of a baseball season, knowing my team can't compete with the "haves," it would be a better move to follow the Yankees or Dodgers. If too many fans did that, the have nots would fold. Without zero fan support, going to games and buying merch, teams will have no chance to survive.

 

I could never do that, I'm loyal to a fault, but you know most MLB fans would.

 

So much more can be said on this topic, but it is just a silly premise to begin with...

[jjgott]

I would say a few things:

 

The have nots are not burning. Most are “have nots” of their own choosing like Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Oakland, and Baltimore.

 

I think having a league of juggernauts and plucky underdogs is more interesting than a league full of teams going 84-78 and 78-84.

 

And even if parity is a worthwhile goal, the league’s method of ensuring it, a salary cap, doesn’t actually help.

 

From Jeff Passan’s article today on ESPN: “Since the CBT's arrival in 2003, 13 MLB franchises have won the World Series and 19 have played in it. That is the exact same number of teams as in the salary-capped NFL, far better than the nine champions and 14 competitors in the salary-capped NBA and right there with the 11 Stanley Cup winners and 21 finalists in the salary-capped NHL. In the championship seasons prior to the CBT era, 14 organizations won the World Series and 20 made it. The CBT was about competitive balance like "Citizen Kane" was about a sled.”

[jjgott]

I would say a few things:

 

The have nots are not burning. Most are “have nots” of their own choosing like Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Oakland, and Baltimore. I wouldn’t categorize the Brewers as burning as they’ve shown to be extremely competitive over the last 10 years almost making the World Series twice.

 

I think having a league of juggernauts and plucky underdogs is more interesting than a league full of teams going 84-78 and 78-84.

 

And even if parity is a worthwhile goal, the league’s method of ensuring it, a salary cap, doesn’t actually help.

 

From Jeff Passan’s article today on ESPN: “Since the CBT's arrival in 2003, 13 MLB franchises have won the World Series and 19 have played in it. That is the exact same number of teams as in the salary-capped NFL, far better than the nine champions and 14 competitors in the salary-capped NBA and right there with the 11 Stanley Cup winners and 21 finalists in the salary-capped NHL. In the championship seasons prior to the CBT era, 14 organizations won the World Series and 20 made it. The CBT was about competitive balance like "Citizen Kane" was about a sled.”

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I wish I could switch teams. Just psychologically I don't know how anyone does it. I can barely watch a game my teams aren't playing in. I genuinely wish I could myself to care even a little about a different one.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

I would say a few things:

 

The have nots are not burning. Most are “have nots” of their own choosing like Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Oakland, and Baltimore.

 

I think having a league of juggernauts and plucky underdogs is more interesting than a league full of teams going 84-78 and 78-84.

 

And even if parity is a worthwhile goal, the league’s method of ensuring it, a salary cap, doesn’t actually help.

 

From Jeff Passan’s article today on ESPN: “Since the CBT's arrival in 2003, 13 MLB franchises have won the World Series and 19 have played in it. That is the exact same number of teams as in the salary-capped NFL, far better than the nine champions and 14 competitors in the salary-capped NBA and right there with the 11 Stanley Cup winners and 21 finalists in the salary-capped NHL. In the championship seasons prior to the CBT era, 14 organizations won the World Series and 20 made it. The CBT was about competitive balance like "Citizen Kane" was about a sled.”

 

I don't think basing your argument on championships won necessarily tells the whole story either, though. Sure, Hoosiers is a great flick, but I don't necessarily want the Brewers to be considered MLB's version of Hickory High every time they make the playoffs.

 

I know that the Dodgers only have one championship of late, and the Yankees are currently in a dry spell in that area, but absolutely no one can deny that those two teams have a distinct competitive advantage over the Brewers simply because they can go out and purchase any player they want on the open market, and pay pennies on the dollar in a trade to take on other teams' high-salary contracts. If they sign a player to a huge deal and he doesn't live up to it, it isn't a big deal. But when the Brewers do it, fans are worried that Christian Yelich is going to be an albatross that hinders the team from competing for the next decade.

 

The NFL and NBA are more popular than MLB largely because you can be a fan of most any team and have hope. The cream that rises to the top are typically the teams that are run the best. It sucks that the ability to spend more comes into play in MLB, IMO. Sure, maybe the Dodgers would still be good if there was a cap and a floor. In fact, they are well run, so they probably would. But that doesn't change the idea that they are currently operating under a competitive advantage right now.

[TURBO]

I wish I could switch teams. Just psychologically I don't know how anyone does it. I can barely watch a game my teams aren't playing in. I genuinely wish I could myself to care even a little about a different one.

 

Yup, I can't do it either.

 

Like I said, I'm loyal to a fault, and simply can't switch my allegiances no matter what happens.

[nate82]

The NFL has too much parity if that is a thing but I find the NFL extremely boring right now. The NBA looks like it has parity but it doesn't really have parity. In the NBA you have about 4-teams that have a realistic chance at a championship and then 6-10 teams that have absolutely no chance at winning. The NBA is a superstar driven league where one player can completely dominate the game. There are also super teams where players gather together to increase their chances at winning a championship.

 

In the NBA you need that superstar and at least one or two almost superstars on the team. The NBA you also need less players and can put 70% of your teams payroll in 3-players. MLB and even the NFL that is not going to work as you need more players to fill out the team and having 3 or 4 players taking up 70% of the teams payroll and you are probably not going to be a playoff team unless you have a really good farm system churning out all star players playing on pre arbitration contracts.

 

The NFL is also completely different than MLB and if you have an above average QB you are going to be a playoff team. If you have an elite QB you are basically almost guaranteed a playoff spot and probably a NFC/AFC championship game. While there are other areas that need to be at least average or above average you don't necessarily have to pay a high amount.

 

I am not sure how a cap would work in MLB and if a cap would even get to more parity. Even if you put the cap at $150m the A's and Rays wouldn't even spend that much to get to the $150m mark would they even get close to $100m? So do you put the minimum at $100m? Then what? Does that really create parity in the league?

 

I think with a cap there will still be parity issues with the large market teams. Even when the Pirates were good they only pushed their payroll up to $99m. Lets say the cap that season was $125m would there have been more parity? I don't believe there would be as player salaries would shrink in this scenario and you are probably getting closer to the NBA where players go and form super teams. Pittsburgh wouldn't be a place where players would go around making a super team that is probably a destination where stars want out and will go to a large market team.

 

I just don't see how a salary cap is going to bring parity to MLB. Teams like the Dodgers are still going to be good even with a salary cap. If there isn't a salary floor with serious consequences for going below the floor like losing draft picks or revenue sharing then I just don't see the point of adding a salary cap. What stops the A's and Pirates from only spending $50m a year in payroll and thus just being whoever's whipping boy? Maybe they get a good first round pick and that player then comes onto a team that tops out at just below the salary cap or just above the salary floor. Will that team be competitive or just better than the 90+ loss team previously?

 

The problem with MLB right now in terms of parity is not a few teams spending too much it is the bottom 10 teams not spending more.

 

These 10 teams are the problem in MLB for parity:

 

Tampa Bay Rays ($75,421,213)

Kansas City Royals ($72,925,000)

Oakland Athletics ($71,773,334)

Minnesota Twins ($71,742,857)

Seattle Mariners ($71,350,000)

Arizona Diamondbacks ($66,610,000)

Miami Marlins ($55,700,000)

Pittsburgh Pirates ($34,450,000)

Baltimore Orioles ($29,416,666)

Cleveland Guardians ($29,050,000)

 

Bottom 10 teams in payroll NBA:

Houston Rockets ($127,342,732)

Detroit Pistons ($125,295,170)

San Antonio Spurs ($120,320,886)

Dallas Mavericks ($120,219,547)

Orlando Magic ($119,945,554)

New York Knicks ($118,202,331)

Charlotte Hornets ($115,954,781)

New Orleans Pelicans ($114,929,039)

Memphis Grizzlies ($112,867,709)

Oklahoma City Thunder ($78,179,900)

 

Bottom 10 teams in payroll NFL (ACTIVE):

Detroit Lions ($76,519,893)

New York Jets ($88,174,985)

Carolina Panthers ($96,749,377)

Philadelphia Eagles ($101,610,988)

Denver Broncos ($107,269,390)

New Orleans Saints ($107,680,541)

Washington Football Team ($108,019,140)

Baltimore Ravens ($113,199,729)

Houston Texans ($115,736,939)

Minnesota Vikings ($117,978,121)

 

There is a $50m gap between MLB's lowest payroll teams compared to the NFL and NBA. That is the parity issue right there. It is not the top 5 teams in payroll it is the bottom 10 that are causing the biggest issue with parity. If you take the bottom three teams in MLB payroll wise you get about $95m which that total puts higher than only these three teams the Lions, Jets and the Thunder. This is a huge problem that needs to be fixed far more than what the top 5 payroll teams in MLB spend. The bottom 4 teams in MLB payroll would equal to about the 8th or 9th team in NFL payroll. This is a huge problem and a salary cap would not fix this.