All The Owners Are So Bad In Multiple Ways - Work Stoppage 2027 Style

[Jason Ross]

I remain steadfast against any salary cap and a salary floor unless there are a lot of things that come with it. For it to happen, the MLB would have to lose their anti-trust status and have transparent books. As well, there would need to be guardrails in place to avoid what happened initially in the NHL where teams like Arizona would constantly trade for injured players because old players were getting heavily front-loaded deals but their AAV would count towards the salary cap keeping them compliant, yet cheap. And here's the rub; this will never happen. The anti-trust protections the MLB has is purely amazing from an ownership standpoint and they'll never give that up.

I'm not a big NBA fan, but part of the issue with caps is what we're seeing in the NBA right now as teams are so fearful of the second apron they're dumping very good players' to stay under it. No one wants the MLB to have to get to a point where teams are trading players left and right to avoid a cap. The Pistons had their first good year in forever and they're shedding payroll. Do we want teams like Baltimore to make the playoffs once a decade and then trade everyone away?

And lastly, while I know there is a sentiment among many that the Dodgers are buying championships; this isn't new. 20+ years ago it was the Yankees. Eventually it stops. And don't act like every league doesn't have hegemons even with a cap. The Patriots, Chiefs and Eagles have run the NFL for a long time. Currently Florida, Tampa Bay, and Colorado are running the NHL. A cap won't solve this; that's sports. 

The true answer is that the league needs to force teams like the Reds to act like they give a damn and I can assure you, that if the league is pushing for a cap that the cap is not going to force teams like the Reds to care...it'll just be to bring down everyone's spending so that when the Reds are cheap fucks, they're not so left behind.

And as fans we should give a horsefeathers about this. A bad deal for the players is not going to help the game. It's not going to make it more watchable. Owners are actively attempting to push baseball out of baseball. Look at how they view the draft, minor league baseball, and how they treat 14 year old IFA kids. Look at how they're splitting up the ability to watch the game on seven streaming services. The blackouts that stop paying customers on MLB.TV from watching games. These people don't like baseball, they like money. I like baseball. I'll give up a few months of watching baseball now to ensure the game is strong. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

32 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

I remain steadfast against any salary cap and a salary floor unless there are a lot of things that come with it. For it to happen, the MLB would have to lose their anti-trust status and have transparent books. As well, there would need to be guardrails in place to avoid what happened initially in the NHL where teams like Arizona would constantly trade for injured players because old players were getting heavily front-loaded deals but their AAV would count towards the salary cap keeping them compliant, yet cheap. And here's the rub; this will never happen. The anti-trust protections the MLB has is purely amazing from an ownership standpoint and they'll never give that up.

I'm not a big NBA fan, but part of the issue with caps is what we're seeing in the NBA right now as teams are so fearful of the second apron they're dumping very good players' to stay under it. No one wants the MLB to have to get to a point where teams are trading players left and right to avoid a cap. The Pistons had their first good year in forever and they're shedding payroll. Do we want teams like Baltimore to make the playoffs once a decade and then trade everyone away?

And lastly, while I know there is a sentiment among many that the Dodgers are buying championships; this isn't new. 20+ years ago it was the Yankees. Eventually it stops. And don't act like every league doesn't have hegemons even with a cap. The Patriots, Chiefs and Eagles have run the NFL for a long time. Currently Florida, Tampa Bay, and Colorado are running the NHL. A cap won't solve this; that's sports. 

The true answer is that the league needs to force teams like the Reds to act like they give a damn and I can assure you, that if the league is pushing for a cap that the cap is not going to force teams like the Reds to care...it'll just be to bring down everyone's spending so that when the Reds are cheap fucks, they're not so left behind.

And as fans we should give a horsefeathers about this. A bad deal for the players is not going to help the game. It's not going to make it more watchable. Owners are actively attempting to push baseball out of baseball. Look at how they view the draft, minor league baseball, and how they treat 14 year old IFA kids. Look at how they're splitting up the ability to watch the game on seven streaming services. The blackouts that stop paying customers on MLB.TV from watching games. These people don't like baseball, they like money. I like baseball. I'll give up a few months of watching baseball now to ensure the game is strong. 

I think a good way to sum up my feelings are:

I want more parity in baseball. Not perfect parity, but a little more parity. But I am not interested in that parity coming at the expense of the players, the people who I actually give a horsefeathers about on the field.

[Jason Ross]

12 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

I think a good way to sum up my feelings are:

I want more parity in baseball. Not perfect parity, but a little more parity. But I am not interested in that parity coming at the expense of the players, the people who I actually give a horsefeathers about on the field.

The only real parity I think we are missing comes from the lowest spending organizations. Cincinnati, whatever the As are called today, etc. But those teams pocket revenue sharing. And then the league takes away their ability to develop players and build through draft by limiting who's involved. 

Truly, I think the lack of parity is mostly the league and the teams' own fault. And then they create a self perpetuating system of pocketing the spending money and hurting the draft to make it worse. 

[macarthur31]

31 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

I remain steadfast against any salary cap and a salary floor unless there are a lot of things that come with it. For it to happen, the MLB would have to lose their anti-trust status and have transparent books. As well, there would need to be guardrails in place to avoid what happened initially in the NHL where teams like Arizona would constantly trade for injured players because old players were getting heavily front-loaded deals but their AAV would count towards the salary cap keeping them compliant, yet cheap. And here's the rub; this will never happen. The anti-trust protections the MLB has is purely amazing from an ownership standpoint and they'll never give that up.

I'm not a big NBA fan, but part of the issue with caps is what we're seeing in the NBA right now as teams are so fearful of the second apron they're dumping very good players' to stay under it. No one wants the MLB to have to get to a point where teams are trading players left and right to avoid a cap. The Pistons had their first good year in forever and they're shedding payroll. Do we want teams like Baltimore to make the playoffs once a decade and then trade everyone away?

And lastly, while I know there is a sentiment among many that the Dodgers are buying championships; this isn't new. 20+ years ago it was the Yankees. Eventually it stops. And don't act like every league doesn't have hegemons even with a cap. The Patriots, Chiefs and Eagles have run the NFL for a long time. Currently Florida, Tampa Bay, and Colorado are running the NHL. A cap won't solve this; that's sports. 

The true answer is that the league needs to force teams like the Reds to act like they give a damn and I can assure you, that if the league is pushing for a cap that the cap is not going to force teams like the Reds to care...it'll just be to bring down everyone's spending so that when the Reds are cheap fucks, they're not so left behind.

And as fans we should give a horsefeathers about this. A bad deal for the players is not going to help the game. It's not going to make it more watchable. Owners are actively attempting to push baseball out of baseball. Look at how they view the draft, minor league baseball, and how they treat 14 year old IFA kids. Look at how they're splitting up the ability to watch the game on seven streaming services. The blackouts that stop paying customers on MLB.TV from watching games. These people don't like baseball, they like money. I like baseball. I'll give up a few months of watching baseball now to ensure the game is strong. 

Last year, Evan Dreilich reported at the Athletic about MLB's Fan Council, which was a monthly video call with 90 fans and league executives, which on the surface seems like logical business practice in terms of staying connected with the customer to learn what's working and not.  However, when it turns out that those 90 aren't necessarily rotating in and out, and are comprised of those with large social media followings (with handles like "Rational Yankees Fan") - it's hard not to intuit that this was MLB setting up it's influencers to push their agenda on social media.  Align that work with a paid media push to "Level the Playing Field", and while fans don't necessarily "vote" on the CBA, they really want to win fan favor.  And, their political messaging focusing on "fairness through reducing payroll disparity" is compelling because of it's simplicity.

Granted, in my Cub text chats, we're likely all aligned that this framing is BS, and that owners have always had the capability to narrow the gap themselves - they just opted not to, I intuit that the general baseball fan population isn't there.  I'm curious to see how MLBPA is trying to counter this.  In 2026, there are many more content creators like the former players at Foul Territory(who are former players) or Trevor May who have a good sized platform and credibility to push back, but it's gonna need more.

 

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

4 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

The only real parity I think we are missing comes from the lowest spending organizations. Cincinnati, whatever the As are called today, etc. But those teams pocket revenue sharing. And then the league takes away their ability to develop players and build through draft by limiting who's involved. 

Truly, I think the lack of parity is mostly the league and the teams' own fault. And then they create a self perpetuating system of pocketing the spending money and hurting the draft to make it worse. 

Absolutely. I care about a floor WAY MORE than I do a cap. But expecting a floor high enough to matter will involve *a lot* more revenue sharing. Besides, it's just the right thing to do. The Dodgers can't make $350m a season from TV alone while their competition, the Padres, makes $30m.

[macarthur31]

17 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

I think a good way to sum up my feelings are:

I want more parity in baseball. Not perfect parity, but a little more parity. But I am not interested in that parity coming at the expense of the players, the people who I actually give a horsefeathers about on the field.

Padres are about to be sold for a record setting $3.9B.  If the current owners keep crying poor, there appears to be others willing and happy to come in and try their hand.  And this is without the implementation of "cost certainty" measures like salary caps or minor league contraction.    

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

7 minutes ago, macarthur31 said:

Padres are about to be sold for a record setting $3.9B.  If the current owners keep crying poor, there appears to be others willing and happy to come in and try their hand.  And this is without the implementation of "cost certainty" measures like salary caps or minor league contraction.    

The Padres nearly went insolvent due to overspending. While owners love to cry poor, there are real limitations on the Padres that the Dodgers do not have. And that should change for the good of the sport. It's fine if the Dodgers have more money, but they can't have literally ten times more money. That's bad for baseball and its fandoms.

[Jason Ross]

15 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

Absolutely. I care about a floor WAY MORE than I do a cap. But expecting a floor high enough to matter will involve *a lot* more revenue sharing. Besides, it's just the right thing to do. The Dodgers can't make $350m a season from TV alone while their competition, the Padres, makes $30m.

I care about both equally, because I don't think you can have a floor that is effective without a cap. And I don't care about a cap unless anti-trust goes away. And they won't implement just a floor, and they won't implement a cap based on open books. 

As you (and many have said) teams can share revenue today. That solves the TV issue. And that all brings me back to the end: owners don't like baseball and they don't care about baseball. And will destroy the sport to save a buck. 

[Stratos]

13 hours ago, Jason Ross said:

And lastly, while I know there is a sentiment among many that the Dodgers are buying championships; this isn't new. 20+ years ago it was the Yankees. Eventually it stops. And don't act like every league doesn't have hegemons even with a cap. The Patriots, Chiefs and Eagles have run the NFL for a long time. Currently Florida, Tampa Bay, and Colorado are running the NHL. A cap won't solve this; that's sports. 

Are you actually defending the ability of the Dodgers to buy rings?  Just because the Yankees did it before doesn't make it any better.  Nobody liked it back then either, besides Yanks fans of course.  It turns the league into a joke.  There's nothing wrong with dynasties.  The best run teams with the best players should be the best teams, not the richest team buying up HOF players every offseason.

13 hours ago, Jason Ross said:

And as fans we should give a horsefeathers about this. A bad deal for the players is not going to help the game. It's not going to make it more watchable. Owners are actively attempting to push baseball out of baseball. Look at how they view the draft, minor league baseball, and how they treat 14 year old IFA kids. Look at how they're splitting up the ability to watch the game on seven streaming services. The blackouts that stop paying customers on MLB.TV from watching games. These people don't like baseball, they like money. I like baseball. I'll give up a few months of watching baseball now to ensure the game is strong. 

The owners are terrible people, the greediest in my lifetime.  You're right that they don't care about the game, I disdain them as much as anyone.  I don't actively want the players to get "a bad deal", but I care a lot more about fans and the state of the game than player salaries.  The players getting a good deal doesn't have anything to do with what's best for the game and for fans, so I don't why so many fans are so feverishly on the side of the players.  If we're talking about minor leaguers being able to make a healthy liveable wage then yes of course I care about that, but if there's something that can be done (who knows what?) that can make the game more equitable and competitive for fans of all teams and it costs the owners money or it means i.e. Alex Bregman gets 150m instead of 180m I couldn't care less.

People framing this as owner vs employee and therefore us working fellas should be on the side of players is ridiculous.  The players aren't in solidarity with us, they're not actively fighting for me to get paid more at my job and aren't intervening in any of our contract negotiations at work, and certainly aren't fighting to keep ticket prices down or keep betting out of the game etc because that would cost them in the pocketbook.  Players want what's in their best interests (mainly money) and have been perfectly willing to harm fans and the game to get it.  In order to maximize their negotiation leverage the players went on strike in the middle of the 1994 season and it cancelled the World Series and there's no reason to think they wouldn't do it again today if it didn't cost them in the pocketbook.  Many players used illegal steroids/PEDs and turned baseball records into a joke to help themselves get paid, they've cheated using sticky stuff and electronic sign stealing to try to get paid more.  I'm certainly not going to let them use me as leverage in their contract negotiations.

Owners and players are perfectly willing to tear down the game if it makes them more money, so fans should be in solidarity with other fans for the good of the game and their consumer-related interests.

[Jason Ross]

6 hours ago, Stratos said:

Are you actually defending the ability of the Dodgers to buy rings?  Just because the Yankees did it before doesn't make it any better.  Nobody liked it back then either, besides Yanks fans of course.  It turns the league into a joke.  There's nothing wrong with dynasties.  The best run teams with the best players should be the best teams, not the richest team buying up HOF players every offseason.

The owners are terrible people, the greediest in my lifetime.  You're right that they don't care about the game, I disdain them as much as anyone.  I don't actively want the players to get "a bad deal", but I care a lot more about fans and the state of the game than player salaries.  The players getting a good deal doesn't have anything to do with what's best for the game and for fans, so I don't why so many fans are so feverishly on the side of the players.  If we're talking about minor leaguers being able to make a healthy liveable wage then yes of course I care about that, but if there's something that can be done (who knows what?) that can make the game more equitable and competitive for fans of all teams and it costs the owners money or it means i.e. Alex Bregman gets 150m instead of 180m I couldn't care less.

People framing this as owner vs employee and therefore us working fellas should be on the side of players is ridiculous.  The players aren't in solidarity with us, they're not actively fighting for me to get paid more at my job and aren't intervening in any of our contract negotiations at work, and certainly aren't fighting to keep ticket prices down or keep betting out of the game etc because that would cost them in the pocketbook.  Players want what's in their best interests (mainly money) and have been perfectly willing to harm fans and the game to get it.  In order to maximize their negotiation leverage the players went on strike in the middle of the 1994 season and it cancelled the World Series and there's no reason to think they wouldn't do it again today if it didn't cost them in the pocketbook.  Many players used illegal steroids/PEDs and turned baseball records into a joke to help themselves get paid, they've cheated using sticky stuff and electronic sign stealing to try to get paid more.  I'm certainly not going to let them use me as leverage in their contract negotiations.

Owners and players are perfectly willing to tear down the game if it makes them more money, so fans should be in solidarity with other fans for the good of the game and their consumer-related interests.

I'm not "defending" owners buying championships. I'm saying that much of the "I want a cap for parity" argument is because the Dodgers are currently the best team.

I'll go back to the NHL for this and for the argument's sake, I'm going to assume you don't follow the NHL like I do as it's the safest point of entry for my argument, so if you do, sorry for the "explain it to me like I'm 5" aspect of this. The Florida Panthers have become the LA Dodgers of the NHL world over the last 5+ years as have the Tampa Bay Lightening. So much so that a Canadian team basically sold a player to the Panthers for what many consider to be a coup. The player has a brother on the Panthers and effectively forced his way there despite having a contract for a few years still in Ottawa. Traditionally warm cities such as Florida and Tampa Bay have been destitute NHL franchises and Canada has been the destination. Weird times, huh?

"Those are some mighty warm cities" you may to yourself. Well yes, yes they are! So why the change? Why is the cold-sport suddenly trendy with the warm cities? Players are flocking to those cities because of favorable Florida taxes and because those teams are already good. Many of the best American born players, specifically, are congregating in these teams and forcing moves. Guess what? The NHL has a hard cap. These teams are also buying championships. Caps don't solve hegemons in sports; sports create hegemons. In the mid-90's it was believed the Yankees would essentially win every WS forever. They haven't. Whatever juice the Dodgers have today will peter out naturally. That's the point. This entire "anti-Dodgers" thing is going to be the 90's anti-Yankees thing. Guess what's next? An anti-INSERT NEW TEAM HERE thing is coming afterwards. 

You keep acting like there's some magical, pie-in-the-sky world where "I just want to watch baseball" and sticking your head into the ground is going to solve anything, but it's the exact sentiment that is going to destroy MLB. MLB players are not not going to "willingly" tear down the game like an owner is. Tom Ricketts could lose the Cubs and still have TD Ameritrade and all that real estate. There are lots of players who are currently generationally wealthy and could be just fine but the vast majority of players who are being paid by MLB (including MiLB players, fringe players, bench players, rookies, etc) are not. Do you think Trent Thornton can tear down the game and be okay? What's his next step? Where does he go? He has made a lot more money than me, but it's well short of generational or enough to just retire. And he's even among the upper crust. The reality is more players are like Trent Thornton than they are Kyle Tucker. There are no owners who are the equivalent of Trent Thornton who need baseball to exist. Bob Nutting acts like he's never heard of a dollar bill with how he spends in Pittsburgh. His net worth is $1.1 billion. He owns 12 different newspapers. Dude can lose the Pirates tomorrow and be generationally wealthy.

Listen, I get it, I'd like to just watch baseball too, but there is no "neutral side" ultimately. We can stick our heads into a ground and say "I just like baseball" and the MLB and MLBPA are still going to do this stuff. Fans are not at the negotiating table; and I realize it'd be nice if either side thought of the fans, but it is what it is. There are two sides; there are the owners, and there are the players. I won't act like the players are the altruistic "good guys" who are looking out for everyone (they aren't and routinely sell sections of their base up the river), but I also know that that the enjoyment of the sport revolves around players, not owners. Between Trent Thornton and Tom Ricketts, I'll side with Trent. Between Kyle Tucker and Tom Ricketts, I'll side with Kyle. 100% of the time. A better deal for the players is a better baseball product. It won't be perfect. It won't consider you and me, but between those two, I know who the sport revolves around.

So in the end, we agree on this; I like watching baseball. I like talking about baseball just like you but I'll certainly choose a side to sit with. The owners do not give two fucks about this sport. They prove it daily. The players give at least one. You can watch it on the field with your two eyes 162 times a year. So in this battle, I'll side with the players entirely, even if I lose baseball for a bit because as long as they keep getting the best deal they can, the sport will revolve around the people who at least care about the sport, even if they don't care about me.

[javy knows my name]

That was a good post, and a total waste of time

[Jason Ross]

Just now, javy knows my name said:

That was a good post, and a total waste of time

I know. But in my heart-of-hearts, beyond the exterior of pessimism and utter despair, I still have a nougaty-center of optimism and hope of idealism and principle. 

Also my cats woke me up at 5:30am because they're horsefeatherss and I'm awake, and what better thing to do than pound out an essay so I don't murder one of them?

[mul21]

8 hours ago, Stratos said:

A bunch of word vomit

Anyone unsure of why the public is on the side of the workers in any dispute has probably lost sight of the bigger picture.

[Outshined_One]

Again, I find it abjectly hilarious that these arguments boil down to some of the commiest commieing that ever commied.

"OH NO!  The team with the most money and a massive revenue stream is WINNING!  The system is broken because the team I don't like made substantial investments into media, coaching, scouting, and infrastructure, and it's paying off for them!!!  They're also consistently putting out a quality product for consumers that regularly beats out their competitors, who refuse or are unable to make similar investments!  And they're not sharing enough of that revenue with other teams!  No fair!!!!!!!"

Seriously, if the Dodgers were a publicly traded company, Jim Cramer would have their annual Form 10-K nailed to the wall in his masturbatorium.

[Stratos]

7 hours ago, javy knows my name said:

That was a good post, and a total waste of time

You're an online bully who follows me around to every thread in order to harass and troll me.  You add  nothing constructive to any convo here i'm involved in except to make this site toxic.

Later when I get some time I'm reporting you to the site owner.

Any post by any user here who wants to lob insults at me will be reported to moderators.  Posts in this thread have already been reported and removed.

[Outshined_One]

31 minutes ago, Stratos said:

You're an online bully who follows me around to every thread in order to harass and troll me.  You add  nothing constructive to any convo here i'm involved in except to make this site toxic.

Later when I get some time I'm reporting you to the site owner.

Any post by any user here who wants to lob insults at me will be reported to moderators.  Posts in this thread have already been reported and removed.

[Stratos]

9 hours ago, Jason Ross said:

I know. But in my heart-of-hearts, beyond the exterior of pessimism and utter despair, I still have a nougaty-center of optimism and hope of idealism and principle. 

Also my cats woke me up at 5:30am because they're horsefeatherss and I'm awake, and what better thing to do than pound out an essay so I don't murder one of them?

You took a lot of time to respond to me.  Do you want me to read your reply and make a response?  That's what grown adults do on a discussion forum.

Or do you want to pile on the insults like some of these other members and continue making things toxic?  That's what people like Donald Trump do when faced with opinions they don't like.

Your choice.

[javy knows my name]

I hope imb is warming up in the pen, I'm gassed

[Jason Ross]

2 hours ago, Stratos said:

You took a lot of time to respond to me.  Do you want me to read your reply and make a response?  That's what grown adults do on a discussion forum.

Or do you want to pile on the insults like some of these other members and continue making things toxic?  That's what people like Donald Trump do when faced with opinions they don't like.

Your choice.

I didn't say anything rudely. I agreed that it was probably a waste of time to type that long essay up. Why? There probably weren't 1,000 words that anyone could have written to dislodge you from your position, so what's the point of writing that much?

I also said that despite that, I have a gooey idealistic center where I still thought there was a chance and typed it up anyways. 

[Stratos]

9 hours ago, Outshined_One said:

Again, I find it abjectly hilarious that these arguments boil down to some of the commiest commieing that ever commied.

"OH NO!  The team with the most money and a massive revenue stream is WINNING!  The system is broken because the team I don't like made substantial investments into media, coaching, scouting, and infrastructure, and it's paying off for them!!!  They're also consistently putting out a quality product for consumers that regularly beats out their competitors, who refuse or are unable to make similar investments!  And they're not sharing enough of that revenue with other teams!  No fair!!!!!!!"

Seriously, if the Dodgers were a publicly traded company, Jim Cramer would have their annual Form 10-K nailed to the wall in his masturbatorium.

And i find it funny that a board full of Mamdani supporters are all of sudden free market capitalists defending the richest company buying everything up.

 

[Stratos]

5 hours ago, Jason Ross said:

I didn't say anything rudely. I agreed that it was probably a waste of time to type that long essay up. Why? There probably weren't 1,000 words that anyone could have written to dislodge you from your position, so what's the point of writing that much?

I also said that despite that, I have a gooey idealistic center where I still thought there was a chance and typed it up anyways. 

It's rude to agree with the guy trolling me and condescendingly say you want to murder your cats while debating with me.  No offense but I don't think you're in any position to criticize someone else for not conceding on points. I don't remember it ever happening in any debate we've ever had.  You won't even concede that you were rude towards me.

I think our last debate was fastballs low in the zone being more effective than high fastballs re: Imanaga.  On your last post on that i gave you thumbs up because you showed the data and you were correct and I was wrong.

[Bertz]

7 hours ago, Stratos said:

And i find it funny that a board full of Mamdani supporters are all of sudden free market capitalists defending the richest company buying everything up.

 

Yeah, Socialists hate when corporations pay workers too much.  You definitely understand how all this stuff works.

[CubinNY]

JFC

[CubinNY]

Would the argument hold water if the Pages dropped the ball last year? 

A cap solves what problem? Spending!

A cap does not solve any other problem. If a person is against spending, ok. But that's not the argument. The Mets are the #1 spender in baseball. What have they won? 

If the argument is that teams can't compete, ok. The owners can share amongst themselves (and do to an extent). But that's not the argument either, B/c it's then, it's show me the data time, for inexplicable reasons. 

You can't start with a conclusion and then find the evidence. I mean, you can, but it would not be a productive pastime. 

[Derwood]

Being the #1 spender guarantees nothing.

That said, only 2 of the last 15 champs were out of the top 10 in spending.

So NOT spending pretty much guarantees NOT winning, while big time spending only gets you a seat at the table