If Philly gets Bichette, then they are probably the next best team assuming Wheeler comes back healthy. But even then, the gap seems noticeable.
The Phillies and Brewers won more games than they did. Yes, the injuries on the Dodgers played a part, but the stats between the teams were pretty even.
Those two teams managed one win in eight games head to head.
The Dodgers were hot, they weren't. During the regular season, the Brewers went 6-0 against the Dodgers.
Next year it could be the other way around.
The key is to get into the playoffs in the first place.
All six games took place within the same three-week period and various Dodgers players were out for some or all of those six games due to injury, including Snell, Hernandez, Edman, and Muncy.
Woodruff, for example.
Hell, why am I telling you this, of all people?
Is that a result of spending or roster composition?
Or are their big dogs only big when there's nothing to play for?
The Dodgers are too good. What are the odds they’ll make the playoffs this year? 98%? That’s bad for the game.
To be clear, I’m not mad at the Dodgers.
Not a hard cap like the NFL, but rather one that makes it punitive to the over-spenders. The only wealthy teams that might be against that are the Dodgers and Mets.
In exchange you might see something like a quicker path to free agency for the players.
A cap would also come with a floor.
That's the hold up.
I spoke to someone in the game (former player, current coach) and he believes that they're going to have to get a cap as well (but the union is going to go kicking and screaming into it). However, in negotiation you usually have to give something to get something, and for as long as I remember the owners have always just wanted to get a cap without having to give up anything (they even resist financial transparency).
They need a strong commissioner who has the best interests of the game (and not just the owners' pocketbooks) in mind.
spend a minimum amount on player salaries.
Guaranty that the players get a percentage of the gross revenue.
revenue" and I think that you and I are on the same page.
Not surprisingly, MLB has resisted all of these options.
1. Better pension and health care benefits.
2. Reduction in the number of games.
3. Reduction in travel time.
4. Fair split in profits.
in the world - easily.
I don’t think players have too much trouble with the games or the travel.
The split in profits will be a huge issue.
(though it might, I have just never seen/heard of them asking for that). I definitely would support it, however.
I think that 2) is unlikely, just because losing the ticket sales would cost both sides too much. Perhaps if they found a way to increase it (not sure how), that would work.
I'm with you on 3), I just don't know how they would do that. More of a focus on divisional play?
4) is absolutely the minimum starting point. The owners have never wanted to open the books. They've asked for a cap and expect the players to take their word for it in terms of the revenues; that's bullshit.
Or are you thinking of more detail than this?
In essence, I would imagine the MLBPA is just not going to take their word for it.
be on board for a cap if there is a floor as well. The question is whether a floor and cap strikes enough balance for the players.
If not, would that be enough?
The real question is would the owners agree to a floor. In the NFL and NBA, the cap is ~50% of per-team league-projected revenue, and the floor is ~90% of the cap. The MLB is right about $12 billion in revenue, or $400 million/team. That equates to a $200 million cap and a $180 million floor, if we're going off other leagues.
10 teams spent above $200 million on their 40-man roster this year. The average amount those teams are over the theoretical cap is $58.4 million; however, that is skewed by the Dodgers and Yankees being way over. If you take those two teams out, that drops the average amount over down to $43.5 million.
On the flip side, the other 20 teams spent below $180 million on their 40-man roster this year. Seven of those teams are within $30 million of hitting the floor, but the other 13 teams average $80 million under. Miami, Cleveland, and Tampa Bay would need to increase spending by $100 million to get to that number.
Bringing the high spending teams down to the cap would reduce salary to players by $583.9 million, but bringing the low spenders up to the floor would increase salary out to players by $1.128 billion. The star players would come out worse, but it would significantly increase salary for the bulk of players.
That's a very basic approach to a cap and floor. Unlike other professional sports, MLB has a robust minor league system (for now) where a lot of additional spending is used. Could some of that be used to offset the floor? Maybe. We could also have a larger gap between cap and floor and how it's calculated.
Setting aside the cap/floor discussion, there are still things like shared TV revenue (the Dodgers have a unicorn deal), international draft, years of service before free agency, etc.
Manfred starting discussions with both sides earlier is a positive at least. He does have a labor and employment law background as well, which might be another positive.
There are too many owners in MLB claiming poverty to even begin talking about the floor at 180.
That's why I don't think a cap is as easy as said as done. The players would never go for a cap without a floor (nor should they). And the majority of owners don't want a floor, even though teams get about $200 million in revenue sharing from the league right off the bat.
Would a $250 million cap/$130 million floor be agreeable? I don't know. Probably depends on what expenses count toward the cap/floor.
I could easily see the owners trying something tricky like including all minor league players.
Beyond that, you're going to have to figure out a way to grandfather in all players currently under contract. That'll be a bitch and half to figure out. Then you have to figure out a way to eliminate the 30+ year deals that are the reality for some of these high end players.