Do we want parity in baseball? If so, how do we get it?

[Trov]

First, what is parity, and what would it look like?  Parity is the general competitive overturn of teams throughout the sport without long term dynasties and long term droughts.  Baseball has normally been a sport without much parity for various reasons.  I will not get into those reasons, but there has long term been a few teams near the top, and a several teams near the bottom, and normally takes several seasons to make the swap, unless it is a big market team. 

For me it would look like similar to NFL where little prediction carries all the way through the season.  Now, it will be hard to get that, just based on the sport, the season length and all that.  However, we still keep seeing the same few teams near the top and outside a few blips here and there, the same teams near the bottom.  For whatever reason, when we think some teams will make pushes, mainly Angels, they fail to do so, and when we think a team may be dropping off due to aging players, injuries or other things they still seem to stay near top, again save for like the Red Sox who seem to every other year bounce from contender to near last in division every few years. 

Do we want parity?  I personally like it.  I like to see the bottom feeding teams to surprise people and to have teams like the Dodgers and Yankees to actually fall back to the pack.  I think it is more entertaining and creates better stories to follow.  I mean when teams are out of contention in August fans stop watching.  I guess if you do not want to watch a full season it is nice to know that your team is out and move onto a different sport, but I personally like meaningful baseball in September.  I like to see the story lines of teams fighting for spots in playoffs. 

How do we get parity?  Well, the MLB plan was to increase the playoff spots, hoping that would create the late season drama, or least they claimed that, but really I think it was to get more money for playoff games.  However, the first year with the increased wild card team has only 1 race in all of baseball with still a week and half left to play.  That 1 race is the NL wild card between Phillies, Padres, and Brewers.  Yes, technically there are still mathematical rases and Braves and Mets are still fighting for division race, but that is basically it.  It would take complete collapse for some teams to miss playoffs and others to make it, maybe that will be a story.  

The MLBPA think you can get parity by having a draft lottery to help eliminate tanking, assuming that now teams will not gut their teams to play to the bottom.  However, two teams gutted their teams this year, A's and Reds.  Also, the MLBPA think if you lift the tax more teams will sign FA, but look at the Rangers and Tigers, or the Angels for last 2 decades, have made big FA signings only to be near the bottom this year. Yes, some teams that made big signings are fighting for playoffs, like Seattle who is expected to make wild card.  However, they were on the verge last year too, so not like they flew from near bottom to near top, they actually won more games last year than they are on pace this year. Rangers tried to jump from bottom to top, but so far only jumped ahead of the tanking A's.  Will the anti-tanking draft lead to changes down road, maybe, but I have argued it will not due to the nature of the draft. 

Is there another way to get parity?  Maybe.  I could through out some extreme ways, like a redraft of players each year like a fantasy draft, but that would never happen.  So something that could happen, but still think players will never go for it, despite their argument they want parity as well.  Put in a salary cap, floor, and max contract lengths, and restrictions on moving players similar to NBA rules.  I believe this will lead to parity, because it would prevent the big market teams from being able to sign all the top FA, which is not the best way to build a team but helps make up for mistakes in other areas, even prior FA signings.  It would prevent teams like the Yankees for trading for guys like Stanton for almost nothing just to get the salary dump.  It will allow smaller market teams to compete in FA because they can take on more short term money over 2 to 3 years, but need to be risk adverse from the 7 to 10 year deals.  If the max length was say 4 years with a super max like NBA at 5 years, you would see much more smaller market teams making bids for 4 year deals I would think.  Also, if the max value was based off a percent of the cap, then there is little a big market team could do.  

Now, I doubt this will ever happen, and it would not work just like the NBA, but something similar I think would help.  I believe until that happens we will just see the same way of small markets building through draft, international signings, and trying to win trades, selling guys off before their value peaks like the Rays do, or similar to what Royals did several years ago, build the team and hold off with an all in push knowing you will get a chance but will have years of rebuild ahead.  With the big markets continue to filling missed draft or international signing holes with trades pricy vets and big FA signings, never facing much backlash for a bad signing, unlike a mid or small market team.  

Do we want a change, I do, but does the league?  I think the league does somewhat, because they want ratings still high in September.  Do the players?  I think they want all the teams spending more money on players, but not for sure parity, just more spending.  Do you as a fan want more parity or are you happy with how the game is now? If you want parity, do you think it is possible and how? 

[ashbury]

If you mean Satire, there already is a weekly helping courtesy of RandBalls Stu.

[Trov]

7 minutes ago, ashbury said:

If you mean Satire, there already is a weekly helping courtesy of RandBalls Stu.

Sorry fixed my error. 

[ashbury]

2 minutes ago, Trov said:

Sorry fixed my error. 

Hope you took my little joke in the spirit it was intended, just a little chuckle.

Anyway parity doesn't seem like the goal I want, but it also feels like too much of an unlevel playing field versus the top markets. I'm not sure of the solution except better revenue sharing. The big markets don't have a league worth winning if it takes too much luck for a smaller market to win.

[DJL44]

I don't think MLB wants parity. They make a lot more money if the Yankees and Dodgers make the playoffs annually.

[TwinsDr2021]

Are you claiming there is parity in the other three sports? (NBA, NFL and NHL)

The warriors have been to 5 of the last 8 NBA finals, The lightening have been to 4 of the last 8 cups, and the NFL has basically been the Rams, Chiefs and Tom Brady for how many years. (The NFL and NBA are star driven leagues and the salary caps only hold the bad teams back by not being able to outbid for players. ) Big cities and great management win in salary cap leagues and bad management and undesirable locations fall by the way side.

To me this sounds like a Twins fan complaining about a cheap and not so well run team for 30 years.

 

[Doctor Gast]

Sure I'd love parity. Parity is trying get some of the big bucks that the big markets make & help divide it up  among the smaller markets. I think they try with tax on a salary cap (kind of) but they are talking about getting rid of that and don't they do some revenue sharing?

But still the lion's share still goes to the big market giants to spend on FAs & coaching staffs. Tax on the salary cap, doesn't apply to the coaches, I believe. MacPhail left MN because it was too frustating to keep a perinnial winner.

I'm not against tanking because it's the only way for small market to obtain a shot at some good players at least in the draft but it's too bad that they have to. Still you have to have $ to pay for good scouts to evaluate between the draftees & still it's sometimes a crap shoot. Still yet you have to have good coaches to develop them.

The only way to have more parity is to apply revenue sharing in a greater way, which won't happen.

[Monkeypaws]

Ask Tampa Bay.

[chpettit19]

I want it so that every front office is starting from roughly the same place in terms of the ability to acquire, and retain, top talent if they run things well. Parity in results isn't my end game, just parity in opportunity. The Jets, Jags, Lions types of teams are bad because they've been poorly run for years. The Wolves are bad because they've been a complete and utter disaster when it comes to FO decisions. None of those teams are bad because they didn't have the resources to be consistently good.

Now there are certainly teams that find ways to be relatively successful for long stretches with low payrolls (some say early 2000's Twins were successful, the Rays, A's, and Guardians/Guardians are teams that have done it, but with few championships to show). And there's certainly times where the big spenders struggle (Tigers recently, Dodgers were bad for a long time, Yankees haven't won a championship in so long their fans think they're Cubs fans in the world of struggles, Red Sox have been very hit or miss of late, and the Mets are the Mets until they aren't). But the Dodgers are now the class of the league and there's no sign that they won't be for the rest of Friedman's tenure there. They combined the creative genius of the Rays FO with some of the deepest pockets in the league. My concern is that another team like the Mets, Yankees, or Red Sox bring in an exec like Friedman and then you have 2 teams playing in a different league. If you load up all 4 of those teams with the 4 best execs in baseball and their payroll capabilities the league is toast.

I want to see more revenue sharing with a floor and cap in place based on league revenues (not the hard numbers the owners were reportedly trying to put in place in CBA negotiations). Have a cap and floor that varies based on the previous season's revenue numbers and even the playing field. Let the well run teams pull away from the pack based on things that don't include their owners being willing/able to simply spend 3 times more than the competition.

[4twinsJA]

I want parity, but don't think MLB, the owners, or the players want it. How can a system where some teams spend up to 4 times more than some other teams have parity? Dodgers. Yankees have seemingly no limits to their spending. When a top FA becomes available only the top 5-6 teams even have a chance to sign them. I don't think it will happen, but would at least like to see some movement in the direction of parity. Hard max caps, hard minimum limits, earlier FA, limited length of contracts, max contracts, increased revenue sharing, etc.

[rv78]

56 minutes ago, 4twinsJA said:

When a top FA becomes available only the top 5-6 teams even have a chance to sign them.

If this was the case the Twins would have never been able to sign Correa.

[Brandon]

5 hours ago, ashbury said:

Hope you took my little joke in the spirit it was intended, just a little chuckle.

Anyway parity doesn't seem like the goal I want, but it also feels like too much of an unlevel playing field versus the top markets. I'm not sure of the solution except better revenue sharing. The big markets don't have a league worth winning if it takes too much luck for a smaller market to win.

I don’t want perfect parity.  But the revenue needs to be shared so the smaller market teams can pay their players and compete.  I am also against tanking too.  

[rwilfong86]

Salary cap and salary floor. 

[Vanimal46]

Baseball has the highest number of unique teams winning a championship in the last 15-20 years out of the 4 major sports. So overall I think they’ve been doing a good job as far as the end result is concerned. The NBA hasn’t been on my radar at all over the last 20 years (other than me hopping on the T Wolves bandwagon once the playoffs started) because it’s so dynasty driven throughout their existence. 

MLB isn’t seeking revenue parity which I think is the crux of what @Trovis looking for. They want each individual team to negotiate the largest regional TV contract possible and continue to hide their content behind paywalls. I think they enjoy having the Dodgers, Yankees, Red Sox, Giants, etc. as perennial contenders. 

 

[dxpavelka]

Cute article but the players will NEVER agree to a cap.

[DocBauer]

Chpettit19 pretty much nailed it on the head, but I'm going to add a bit.

Parity is an illusion. It is in every single sport. Period! It doesn't exist and will never exist in the trusist form of definition. But what we're talking about, as chpettit19 basically stated well, is for teams/organizations having a LEVEL PLAYING FIELD in order to compete! Vanimal46 is correct that MLB has had the most alternate champions of any sport over the past 10-15-20 years. The problem is, even with that variance, the CHANCE to win, compete, even have a winning season has a very wide variation. I mean, as a Twins fan, do I want a decade or more of losing and barely contending to have 2 good years and a shot? Does winning ONE championship after 20yrs with little to no chance really pay off? Ultimately, is that FUN? Hoping the stars align just right and you can go all in every 10-20yrs and have a chance?

The Yankees haven't won the WS in a while. The Dogers have continued to be one of the highest payroll and winningest teams for years now, along with the Yankees, but they've won a single WS in the last decade. But they've also won more and contended more than about anyone else.

The NFL is a different animal due to the nature of a game a week, and their marketing. (And marketing is a different conversation). But their financial structure is very different than MLB. So is the NBA. I laugh when people say the NFL is NOT on a "parity" level. Some teams make a ton of more money than other organizations, but that's local market money and merchandising. Each team has a floor and a ceiling that allows EVERY team to compete if the FO and coaching does a good job. Bad drafting and bad coaching? You lose. Good drafting and good coaching? You win.

The NBA is similar to MLB due to guaranteed contracts. So maybe MLB needs a floor and instead of a cap, a continued luxury tax or some sort of exception for re-signing your own players. I don't have an exact answer at this moment, and I'm not being paid to do so. But a draft lottery to prevent teams from tanking is ridiculous! The MLB is a crapshoot from the 1st pick to the last with very, very little exception. In ALL sports, including MLB, "tanking" is often a poorly used phrase to describe a losing team looking at young players, selling off those that either don't fit or might bring back prospects or salary relief to address FA to re-build. 

IMO, MLB are short-sighted, and while I hate to use the word, they are stupid. In general, they refuse to see the logic of growing the game. And growing the game grows interest and potential profits. But I also put the onus on the players and their union as well. Hell, I wanted baseball! I didn't want a stoppage and a short season! But they were in prime position to DEMAND a payroll floor and SOME sort of cap or luxury cap, and equitable profit sharing across the board to make MLB establish an even playing field for all teams. The bite is, a floor actually allows for greater money for all players in the union! And if you're an owner sending $M's to lower market teams, wouldn't you want to see organizations actually SPEND that money vs pocketing it? 

For the health and growth of MLB, I wish the union had dug in their heels more, even if it decreased the viability of the 2022 season. I think an opportunity was missed. Post-covid, I'm wondering if declining attendance and changes in how people spend their hard earned $ will have an affect the owners can't deny going forward. We're obviously a few years away now from the next collective bargaining. But if MLB wants to grow and not stagnate and begin to lose fans and viewers, I sure hope they figure this stuff out because it's a great game that is losing it's foothold.

A floor, SOME kind of cap, maybe with an NBA print of being able to retain your current players more easily, more equitable profit sharing, and better marketing is the answer to a "parity" issue where a well run organization has a chance to win is the answer. You don't run your orgnization well, you lose. 

That's how MLB SHOULD be run going forward.

It may take an act of God or Congress to make it happen. But it shouldn't. It should be half way intelligent parties on both sides figuring it out.

Hmmm...come to think of it, maybe it will take divine intervention. 

[TwinsDr2021]

14 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

want it so that every front office is starting from roughly the same place in terms of the ability to acquire, and retain, top talent if they run things well.

One could argue beside the international FA that is where MLB is at, they all start with the same draft, same minor leagues and the ability to sign/retain whatever FA they want, correct? Sure some teams are unwilling to pay the price of some free agents but many times there are more things than money involved in that decision.

Fans like to complain about the twins being a mid market team but what player have they not been able to retain solely because of salary, I can't think of any. In reality there are very few players that teams can't retain because of Salary. Yes I understand teams trade players prior to FA because they likely aren't signing them (because they can't, because long term contracts are dangerous, maybe the team isn't ready to compete) but in return they get something a value.

If you gave 50 million more a year to Tampa or Oakland do you think they would start spending it on big time players for long term contracts, I would say no.

[Trov]

16 hours ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

Are you claiming there is parity in the other three sports? (NBA, NFL and NHL)

The warriors have been to 5 of the last 8 NBA finals, The lightening have been to 4 of the last 8 cups, and the NFL has basically been the Rams, Chiefs and Tom Brady for how many years. (The NFL and NBA are star driven leagues and the salary caps only hold the bad teams back by not being able to outbid for players. ) Big cities and great management win in salary cap leagues and bad management and undesirable locations fall by the way side.

To me this sounds like a Twins fan complaining about a cheap and not so well run team for 30 years.

 

First, in terms of the other leagues there is not perfect parity, and in part each has its reason.  However, in NFL they are much closer to it, and that is in part to the short careers, high injuries, and the like.  Of course when one team has a dominate QB they will be more likely to win, but teams will move from to top to bottom and bottom to top much faster, provided the management is not terrible, than any other sport.  

In terms of NBA the top players will tend to win out normally, and in a full series the better team will normally win.  However, due to shorter contracts, limits on max contracts per team, unless guys are willing to take a pay cut to play with certain guys or in a certain city, players get moved around more.  Normally it is the poor managed teams that always fail, ala the Timberwolves for years who drafted badly, but you do get some cities that draw the stars to work together.  

I do not follow the NHL or how they go about their business.  Just because 1 team has had a good run lately does not mean they will always be near the top though.  Is TB always a favored championship team and do all the top FA generally go there as well as many of the top international players?  I do not know so honestly asking. 

[ToddlerHarmon]

I think the big question is: what are we trying to fix? MLB is losing in the national imagination, and thus the value of their national broadcasts and merchandise, although it still sells a staggering number of tickets: twice the seats of NBA or NHL arenas, for twice the number of games, and of course 10 times the number of games as the NFL.

IMO, capturing the national imagination seems to hinge on: contending teams appearing regularly in almost every market (the NFL achieves this, the NBA and NHL still struggle), stars that transcend fandom to reach the popular culture (NFL and NBA succeed here), and great stories (MLB still has this appeal, but their stories require attention span, whereas having a captive audience for the big stage makes this an easy thing for the NFL).

I don't think it has much to do with who wins the championships, and it should be noted that recent non-MLB dynasties (Patriots, Warriors, Lightning) don't map to the biggest markets. Rather, you have too many *sizeable* MLB markets with only occasional relevance in contending for even the playoffs (Chicago (x2!!), Miami, Dallas, Philly, DC).

No, I think the competition issue to be solved is that the payroll imbalance creates too small a margin for error at the bottom, and too easy a route to relevance at the top. Revenue sharing and caps are the obvious ways to correct this, and they probably don't need to be as "flat" as other leagues' schemes.

The *conversation* issue is different, and ironically, might be best solved by shrinking the regular season schedule and the roster sizes, giving the best players more per-game playing time while protecting those same stars from breaking down over a long season. Another angle is to improve the longevity of the biggest stars, and keeping them with the same team, which might be addressed by "Bird rules" and, again, a shorter season.

[Trov]

For the commentors that point to championships as the reason baseball may have more parity than other sports, who seem to have more repeats over short periods of time, that is not what I was getting at.  I agree, baseball has a lot of parity in champions, mainly because baseball in a short series is so hard to predict.  The 162 game season is a slog, then it all comes down to best of 3, 5, 7, and 7 games, is very hard to say the best team will always win.  

However, what I was mainly pointing out is the fact we have similarly the same few teams make the playoffs each year.  Yes, you have a pop up team here or there but their runs are normally short to 1 or 2 years in a short period.  Maybe it is just poor run teams, as Tampa continues to compete for playoff spots over and over despite never having major FA signings, or retaining their big names into their 30's.  

The Twins have been one of the teams that have made the playoffs a lot over the last 20 years.  Overall, there is parity in the A.L. Central I would say over the last 20 years.  However, there are a few teams in last 20 years that always seem to be in the playoffs, and several that never even compete.  Outside of the Royals 2 years they generally are in the bottom.  Baltimore has been near the bottom for most of the last 20 years.  There are many other teams that do not make the playoffs, save for a year or two hear and there.  

Yes, you can point to a year where a team did well out of the normal few, but Dodgers, Yankees, Red Sox, Braves, and St. Louis, have made playoffs just about every for last 20 years.  There are other teams that have had some decent runs for like 5 years, Oakland for instance did have 2 good runs over the last 20 years, or Tampa Bay has done well, but they are normally taking over other teams, not the ones I listed.  The parity is between everyone but those top few teams.  

Now, it is not just money spent as Braves and St. Louis are not always near the top in spending, but clearly they spend well and develop well.  Oakland in their stints did it not through spending big bucks of course.  I have long stated having the top spending team does not mean winning ships or even for sure making playoffs, look at Angels, Phillies, Padres, right now in having huge contracts but not winning.  However, it sure helps when your team misses on a draft pick, or something like that. 

[farmerguychris]

I think pro sports in general are much more entertaining when there is parity.  The NFL is a great example as every year teams spend close to a predetermined hard cap and any team can win any given year.  It is not possible to buy championships in the NFL unless you convince players to play for less than their true value.

I sincerely wish the MLB would have a hard cap. (and by necessity, also a hard floor) Until they do, every year there are certain teams we know will compete (Yankees) and certain teams that will only compete once a decade when they see if their prospects and rebuild worked out.

For the long term future of the sport, teams like the Pirates and Rockies need to have fans that have a reason to believe that every opening day could be the first in a year they possibly could win it all.  Very few NFL teams start a year telling their fans they don't have a shot to make the playoffs - yet we have discussions about what MLB teams are even trying.

Long term, will teams that give their fans no reason to support them continue having fans?  Will this eventually lead to only a handful of teams going forward and only in big markets?  I fear it could.

[chpettit19]

2 hours ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

One could argue beside the international FA that is where MLB is at, they all start with the same draft, same minor leagues and the ability to sign/retain whatever FA they want, correct? Sure some teams are unwilling to pay the price of some free agents but many times there are more things than money involved in that decision.

Fans like to complain about the twins being a mid market team but what player have they not been able to retain solely because of salary, I can't think of any. In reality there are very few players that teams can't retain because of Salary. Yes I understand teams trade players prior to FA because they likely aren't signing them (because they can't, because long term contracts are dangerous, maybe the team isn't ready to compete) but in return they get something a value.

If you gave 50 million more a year to Tampa or Oakland do you think they would start spending it on big time players for long term contracts, I would say no.

It's not about being able to sign an single player to 30 mil a year, it's about being able to sign 6 of them to 20+ a year with 4 more at or over 15 a year, and 2 more over 10 a year. That's what the Dodgers have this year. Suggesting any small or mid-market team should be out there willing and able to spend 35.3, 32, 27, 22.5, 21, 20, 17, 17, 16, 15, 13, and 10.3 for a total of 246.1 on 12 players is simply ignoring the reality of things. So, no, I don't buy that one could argue the ability to sign/retain whatever FA they want. Not even a little.

The Pohlads are worth a little less than $4 billion, but to suggest they should be spending hundreds of millions more per season than they make on the Twins is awfully unreasonable to me. I'm no pocket protector, and think they could, and should, spend more than they do, but pretending that every team could, or should, spend the same amount when they have drastically, drastically, drastically different income streams is being unreasonable to me. 

My suggestion wasn't to simply give Tampa or Oakland an extra 50 mil and call it good. My suggestion is to put a cap and floor on the spending possible per team. That's drastically different than helping Tampa or Oakland spend 110 million a year when the Mets, Dodgers, and Yankees are still able to spend 3 times that amount.

[TwinsDr2021]

11 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

It's not about being able to sign an single player to 30 mil a year, it's about being able to sign 6 of them to 20+ a year with 4 more at or over 15 a year, and 2 more over 10 a year. That's what the Dodgers have this year. Suggesting any small or mid-market team should be out there willing and able to spend 35.3, 32, 27, 22.5, 21, 20, 17, 17, 16, 15, 13, and 10.3 for a total of 246.1 on 12 players is simply ignoring the reality of things. So, no, I don't buy that one could argue the ability to sign/retain whatever FA they want. Not even a little.

The Pohlads are worth a little less than $4 billion, but to suggest they should be spending hundreds of millions more per season than they make on the Twins is awfully unreasonable to me. I'm no pocket protector, and think they could, and should, spend more than they do, but pretending that every team could, or should, spend the same amount when they have drastically, drastically, drastically different income streams is being unreasonable to me. 

My suggestion wasn't to simply give Tampa or Oakland an extra 50 mil and call it good. My suggestion is to put a cap and floor on the spending possible per team. That's drastically different than helping Tampa or Oakland spend 110 million a year when the Mets, Dodgers, and Yankees are still able to spend 3 times that amount.

Generally signing players to long term contracts ends up hurting the team at the end, so unless the Dodgers change course in the next couple of years they will end up with overpriced not so good players. Now if they can continue to fill these issues from within this run will end and they will have to start over in some fashion, similiar to the Yanks or Sox, and to a less extent the Braves (they have had their own up and downs the last 20 years.

Who is saying the Twins should spend hundreds of millions more per season? My guess is no one, but they bought the team for 35 million in 1984 and today is worth close to 1.4 billion. If they would have spent 10 million more every years for the last 40 years they still would have gained 1 billion in value, correct?

I am not against putting some sort of caps or floors into MLB, but to expect the results to be much different than what is happening or different than what is going on in other sports IMO is crazy talk. At the end of the day baseball is about building from within and supplementing where needed and they terrible run teams are still going to be terrible.

I believe I have read there is 2 new teams to the NFL playoffs on average per year, the NBA is about completely about the mega stars; teams have tried tanking and rebuilding and it only works if you draft a mega star and in a city they want to stay in or the star force trades to cities of their choice. The NHL is about mega stars and giving the contracts to right players and if you mess up and give a contract to the wrong players (Suter and Paraise for example) if takes years to get out of cap hell, which I believe is they path MLB would end up going down with a hard cap. Salary caps benefit the super stars because they are always going to be paid.

I believe the path the Twins FO took is the correct path building a pipeline of prospects that can replace players looking for long term contracts, the problem with this path is you have to be lucky with injuries and guys fulfilling their potential or it requires more time. (example Balt and Pitt).

Ultimately I will ask the question again, are teams really loses players they want to sign to larger contracts to big spending teams? Or are teams realizing other teams will give them multiple pieces that as a whole will be better for the team in the future than that one or two guys?

 

[Mike Sixel]

15 hours ago, Vanimal46 said:

Baseball has the highest number of unique teams winning a championship in the last 15-20 years out of the 4 major sports. So overall I think they’ve been doing a good job as far as the end result is concerned. The NBA hasn’t been on my radar at all over the last 20 years (other than me hopping on the T Wolves bandwagon once the playoffs started) because it’s so dynasty driven throughout their existence. 

MLB isn’t seeking revenue parity which I think is the crux of what @Trovis looking for. They want each individual team to negotiate the largest regional TV contract possible and continue to hide their content behind paywalls. I think they enjoy having the Dodgers, Yankees, Red Sox, Giants, etc. as perennial contenders. 

 

Parity isn't about the WS champion, it's about general competitiveness, imo.

First, better revenue sharing with a salary floor.

Second, give bad teams more picks in the top 100.... Like basically two first round picks before the best teams even pick. 

Third, allow playoff teams to only protect 30 players each off season.

None of those well happen, but they would all help. 

I'd also suggest earlier free agency for minor league players, like anyone over 26 that isn't signed to a major league deal, or something like that. 

[TwinsDr2021]

1 hour ago, Trov said:

QB they will be more likely to win, but teams will move from to top to bottom and bottom to top much faster, provided the management is not terrible, than any other sport.  

Am I missing a team that has went from the bottom to the top in the NFL fast or vice versa?

[TwinsDr2021]

6 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

Parity isn't about the WS champion, it's about general competitiveness, imo.

First, better revenue sharing with a salary floor.

Second, give bad teams more picks in the top 100.... Like basically two first round picks before the best teams even pick. 

Third, allow playoff teams to only protect 30 players each off season.

None of those well happen, but they would all help. 

I'd also suggest earlier free agency for minor league players, like anyone over 26 that isn't signed to a major league deal, or something like that. 

IMO forced parity is a fairy tale that drives down the competition and results in bad outcomes.

So penalize the good front offices so the bad one can compete? Penalize teams for doing the right thing and developing their own talent by limiting the ones they can keep? Teams that make the playoffs can have their farm system gutted because they can only keep 30 players? Also for a playoff team couldn't they just not protect their over priced veterans? 

I could see a more revenue sharing and teams that don't hit a soft spending floor losing picks thus forcing them to spend a bit more and teams that spend more than a soft cap also losing picks.

[chpettit19]

8 minutes ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

Generally signing players to long term contracts ends up hurting the team at the end, so unless the Dodgers change course in the next couple of years they will end up with overpriced not so good players. Now if they can continue to fill these issues from within this run will end and they will have to start over in some fashion, similiar to the Yanks or Sox, and to a less extent the Braves (they have had their own up and downs the last 20 years.

Who is saying the Twins should spend hundreds of millions more per season? My guess is no one, but they bought the team for 35 million in 1984 and today is worth close to 1.4 billion. If they would have spent 10 million more every years for the last 40 years they still would have gained 1 billion in value, correct?

I am not against putting some sort of caps or floors into MLB, but to expect the results to be much different than what is happening or different than what is going on in other sports IMO is crazy talk. At the end of the day baseball is about building from within and supplementing where needed and they terrible run teams are still going to be terrible.

I believe I have read there is 2 new teams to the NFL playoffs on average per year, the NBA is about completely about the mega stars; teams have tried tanking and rebuilding and it only works if you draft a mega star and in a city they want to stay in or the star force trades to cities of their choice. The NHL is about mega stars and giving the contracts to right players and if you mess up and give a contract to the wrong players (Suter and Paraise for example) if takes years to get out of cap hell, which I believe is they path MLB would end up going down with a hard cap. Salary caps benefit the super stars because they are always going to be paid.

I believe the path the Twins FO took is the correct path building a pipeline of prospects that can replace players looking for long term contracts, the problem with this path is you have to be lucky with injuries and guys fulfilling their potential or it requires more time. (example Balt and Pitt).

Ultimately I will ask the question again, are teams really loses players they want to sign to larger contracts to big spending teams? Or are teams realizing other teams will give them multiple pieces that as a whole will be better for the team in the future than that one or two guys?

 

First off, the 1.4 billion value has nothing to do with cash flow and a team's, or company in general, ability to spend money each year. The 1.4 billion has no weight whatsoever in their payrolls year to year. 

Second, you appear to lack a little understanding of what Friedman is doing in LA. They have 2 long-term contracts on the books. Freeman and Betts. Taylor's deal actually gets cheaper over the next 4 years. They aren't the Angels. They aren't locking themselves into the big 10 year deals left and right like the Yankees and Angels did. They're doing things like the Bauer deal or just continuing to extend Kershaw and Turner on short term deals. They're eating 32 mil of Price right now and it doesn't seem to be slowing them down 1 bit.

Why is putting caps and floors into MLB unlikely to result in the Dodgers not being able to have a payroll over 300 million? I mean if the cap is 300 million they can't have a payroll over that. Thus the situation is pretty clearly different. And, as I stated in my original post, I don't want parity in results, just equal opportunity. I don't care that the Patriots or Warriors have been dynasties in other leagues because they weren't dynasties because they had a distinct advantage. They just built a better team with the same resources as everyone else. That's what I want. I'm good with the Dodgers, Yankees, whoever being a dynasty if their people simply do their jobs better.

Yes, the Twins are trying to do the same thing literally every other team is trying to do, including the Yankees and Dodgers. There's a reason the Yankees didn't trade any of their elite SS prospects. They know they need to build through the system. Same with the Dodgers. Every team is attempting to build a pipeline of prospects that can replace players looking for long term contracts. But some teams can do both. The Dodgers can give themselves a little more time to develop those prospects by continuing to extend their big money guys on high AAV deals for shorter periods of time. They aren't blindly throwing money around. Friedman has married the Rays and the Yankees and has the Dodgers set to rule baseball until he retires.

They are losing players they want to sign to larger contracts to big spending teams. Yes. 100%. The Twins didn't say "hey, we can afford Berrios and everyone else we want, but we'd rather have SWR and Martin for the future in hopes that they turn out to be good." They said "we can't afford Berrios at the number he wants and still be able to afford the players needed around him to contend so we should get the best guys we can to hopefully help in the future." The Twins didn't trade Johan Santana because they preferred that mess of prospects to having him. They traded him cuz they couldn't afford him. They didn't let Hunter walk because they preferred playing younger guys, they let him walk because they couldn't afford him when the Angels paid him twice the guaranteed money they'd offered him.

[Mike Sixel]

2 minutes ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

IMO forced parity is a fairy tale that drives down the competition and results in bad outcomes.

So penalize the good front offices so the bad one can compete? Penalize teams for doing the right thing and developing their own talent by limiting the ones they can keep? Teams that make the playoffs can have their farm system gutted because they can only keep 30 players? Also for a playoff team couldn't they just not protect their over priced veterans? 

I could see a more revenue sharing and teams that don't hit a soft spending floor losing picks thus forcing them to spend a bit more and teams that spend more than a soft cap also losing picks.

The only way to get parity is to move the best players around. I was merely suggesting ways to do that.

The one the I think makes the most sense is the draft changing....giving the worst teams more access to the best prospects.

[chpettit19]

17 minutes ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

Am I missing a team that has went from the bottom to the top in the NFL fast or vice versa?

I mean the Bengals went from 4-11-1 2 years ago to the Super Bowl last year. That seems kind of fast for going from the bottom to the top. ?‍♂️

[TwinsDr2021]

3 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

I mean the Bengals went from 4-11-1 2 years ago to the Super Bowl last year. That seems kind of fast for going from the bottom to the top. ?‍♂️

So 6-9, 7-9,6-10, 2-14, 4-11 to 10-7 and the super bowl is fast? OK Seems more like after a 6 run playoff out of 7 years, they rebuilt the team over a few year got the number 1 pick (QB, who then got hurt) and then he got healthy and the drafted an amazing WR, but sure I guess that could be considered fast.