MLB to regulate MiLB data and sharing

[77 Hitmen]

15 minutes ago, almagest said:

The markets are different in the NFL. You can't 1:1 compare them. Look at revenue by team for both leagues and compare where each team is ranked.

But that's the problem.  In the NFL, Green Bay and KC can be powerhouses and nobody talks about them as small market teams.  In MLB, it's gotten to the point where the only powerhouse franchises are in the top 12 or so markets.  Everyone else has to either catch lightning in a bottle or keep tearing down and rebuilding like the Guardians and Rays do.  

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

2 minutes ago, 77 Hitmen said:

But that's the problem.  In the NFL, Green Bay and KC can be powerhouses and nobody talks about them as small market teams.  In MLB, it's gotten to the point where the only powerhouse franchises are in the top 12 or so markets.  Everyone else has to either catch lightning in a bottle or keep tearing down and rebuilding like the Guardians and Rays do.  

Those markets aren't considered as small of a market from a competitive standpoint because the NFL does significant revenue sharing and has a salary cap to prevent market size from dictating the quality of team you can put on the field. 

Also, saying that caps don't matter in other sports when you literally watched the Chiefs have to move all their offensive talent, but for Kelce, to retain Mahomes just shows how pointless this conversation is. 

I've already wasted too much time here though, as you could present some here with the most indisputable evidence possible and they'll still dispute it.

[77 Hitmen]

10 hours ago, almagest said:

I'm trying to factor in popularity, revenue and neighboring captured markets (beyond just physical market size, which is why the Royals are still a small market to me), but sure. We can call them small as an example. That makes it two teams and four total championships since 2006 for small markets in the NFL. Hell, add the Saints too if you want. Three teams, five championships. Doesn't change the point.

If I go back through the MLB list and just rank them by pure market size, then the Rangers move to mid market.

Dallas/Ft. Worth is the 4th largest metro area in the US.  8.3M people vs. 9.4M in Chicago's metro.  How are they mid market by any metric?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_statistical_area

 

[Chicago White Sox]

13 hours ago, almagest said:

They're two of the other major sport examples we have in the US, so feel free to find ones you think are more applicable.

Baseball does not have a significant parity problem compared to the other sports. Of the three sports I referenced:

• The NBA has had 13 different teams win the championship since their soft cap began in 1985 (32.5%). There are seven teams with more than 2 championships during that time (Lakers 9, Bulls 6, Spurs 5, Warriors 4, Celtics 3, Pistons 3, Heat 3), which account for 82.5% of the total championships.
• The NFL has had 15 teams win the Super Bowl since the salary cap began in 1994 (48.4%). There are three teams with more than 2 championships during that time (Patriots 6, Chiefs 3, Broncos 3), which account for 38.7% of the total championships.
• MLB has had 14 different teams win the World Series since the luxury tax began in 1997 (50%). There are four teams with more than 2 championships during that time (Red Sox 4, Yankees 3, Giants 3, Dodgers 3), accounting for 46.4% of the total championships.

MLB has the the largest % of different teams win, and is in the middle of the three for 3+ championships won by a team. If anything it seems like more restrictive salary caps are harmful to parity, or at best don't make a difference.

Now do this by market size.  The NFL has without question the best parity in major sports.  Yes, teams with stud QBs are going to be more successful (which is what the above highlights), but all teams regardless of market size have equal access to getting one.  The NBA’s parity is also better than the MLB, but not as good as the NFL because large market teams (and Miami) do have some advantage in getting stars in free agency due to individual player caps.  That being said, a small nothing market like OKC is able to form a dynasty because of the benefit of a salary cap.  That simply is not possible in the MLB…TB is probably the best example of small market success and they have to battle every year and have never been able to get a World Series.

[Chicago White Sox]

11 hours ago, 77 Hitmen said:

So, by your logic, the Brewers should be sold because they can't get past the big market teams to make it to the World Series.  The Guardians should be sold, too.  In fact, using this litmus test, about half the league (all smaller market teams) should be put up for sale.  The Rays just got sold.  What if the new owners can't get past the big market teams, either?  Force them to put the team up for sale again?  The Pohlads tried to sell the Twins and ran into issues with their $400M in debt.

Two things can be true:  their are some bad owners who just don't want to compete (Reinsdorf, Nutting, Fisher) and there's a systemic competitive balance problem in the league that is only getting worse.   

100% this.  There are a couple of owners abusing the revenue sharing system, but there are many other small market teams that do everything right they can control but are subject to a massive difference in revenue vs. their large market peers.  I find absurd to think those owners should have to fund massive losses year after year in order to compete with the big market clubs.  There is a reason the other leagues all have better parity than MLB and that’s because they use a cap & floor to ensure the major market teams don’t have a massive competitive advantage.

[Lip Man 1]

Sox Machine with a detailed look at this decision:

https://soxmachine.com/2025/12/mlbs-data-regulation-could-be-a-shortcut-to-help-white-sox-finish-what-theyve-started

[southsider2k5]

9 minutes ago, Lip Man 1 said:

Sox Machine with a detailed look at this decision:

https://soxmachine.com/2025/12/mlbs-data-regulation-could-be-a-shortcut-to-help-white-sox-finish-what-theyve-started

Well that is something.

[almagest]

1 hour ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

The size of a market and it's influence doesn't change based on the sport. 

The NFL has significant revenue sharing. The MLB does not. The Dodgers make 3 times as much revenue as the A's. Meanwhile, the Cowboys are only making twice as much in revenue than the last ranked NFL team. The Chiefs were 18th in revenue during a dynasty run so not sure what you're pointing too. Again though, just you arguing argue. Didn't you say you don't even follow the NFL/NBA anymore? 

I don't follow hockey except to bandwagon the Hawks, and I don't follow the NBA that closely because the Bulls are a dumpster fire, but enough to keep track of the league. I do follow the NFL.

I know the NFL has revenue sharing. If you want to argue that MLB needs a similar revenue sharing model (or at least a standardized TV deal), that's definitely worth considering. I just don't think a salary cap is going to accomplish anything.

The A's were in the same market as the Giants and have had multiple dynasties and years of dominance. Their recent incompetence has little to do with their market size.

Edited 20 hours ago by almagest

[almagest]

52 minutes ago, 77 Hitmen said:

Dallas/Ft. Worth is the 4th largest metro area in the US.  8.3M people vs. 9.4M in Chicago's metro.  How are they mid market by any metric?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_statistical_area

 

Yeah, I blew that one. I don't know what I was looking at last night.

[almagest]

1 hour ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Now do this by market size.  The NFL has without question the best parity in major sports.  Yes, teams with stud QBs are going to be more successful (which is what the above highlights), but all teams regardless of market size have equal access to getting one.  The NBA’s parity is also better than the MLB, but not as good as the NFL because large market teams (and Miami) do have some advantage in getting stars in free agency due to individual player caps.  That being said, a small nothing market like OKC is able to form a dynasty because of the benefit of a salary cap.  That simply is not possible in the MLB…TB is probably the best example of small market success and they have to battle every year and have never been able to get a World Series.

NFL teams with great coaches are the only ones who are successful, and coaches are not subject to the salary cap. Stud QBs have never been bought by the highest bidder. They've always been zealously guarded by whoever drafted/originally signed them, to the point where a big part of the NFL's stance against free agency until relatively recently was due to "protecting" QBs from poaching. NFL team spending has always been in a rough parity as well. There's just not a lot to indicate that the salary cap has been the driving force in any change to the competitive landscape there.

OKC is not a dynasty yet, and this is really their first glimpse of sustained success in franchise history, even going back to the Seattle days. If we're talking NBA market size, four of the seven dynasties (Lakers, Bulls, Warriors, Celtics) since the cap started are large markets and account for 66.7% of dynasty championships and 55% of overall championships. I don't see how four teams accounting for 55% of championships in the last 40 years shows a salary cap win.

I've also already outlined why I think a cap and floor won't work in MLB in a previous post, but it really breaks down to A) The cap isn't going to be below the current highest spend, B) The high spenders will still spend the most, and C) Floors are only going to enforce bad decisions from the poorly run teams at the bottom, and you can't force them to pay more than they are able to. A better revenue sharing model and standardized TV rights are much better ideas.

[Chicago White Sox]

1 hour ago, almagest said:

NFL teams with great coaches are the only ones who are successful, and coaches are not subject to the salary cap. Stud QBs have never been bought by the highest bidder. They've always been zealously guarded by whoever drafted/originally signed them, to the point where a big part of the NFL's stance against free agency until relatively recently was due to "protecting" QBs from poaching. NFL team spending has always been in a rough parity as well. There's just not a lot to indicate that the salary cap has been the driving force in any change to the competitive landscape there.

OKC is not a dynasty yet, and this is really their first glimpse of sustained success in franchise history, even going back to the Seattle days. If we're talking NBA market size, four of the seven dynasties (Lakers, Bulls, Warriors, Celtics) since the cap started are large markets and account for 66.7% of dynasty championships and 55% of overall championships. I don't see how four teams accounting for 55% of championships in the last 40 years shows a salary cap win.

I've also already outlined why I think a cap and floor won't work in MLB in a previous post, but it really breaks down to A) The cap isn't going to be below the current highest spend, B) The high spenders will still spend the most, and C) Floors are only going to enforce bad decisions from the poorly run teams at the bottom, and you can't force them to pay more than they are able to. A better revenue sharing model and standardized TV rights are much better ideas.

Yes, a salary cap / floor structure better allows small market teams to retain their talent (like QBs) because the big market teams can’t simply outspend them.  I still don’t understand how you’re attributing all NFL success to head coaches and very little to QBs.  Head coaches are super important no doubt, but a star QB is what really pushes a team to championship level.  And market size has no bearing on a team’s ability to land a franchise QB as evident by KC, Buffalo, GB, Baltimore, etc. 

As for the NBA, it’s a star driven league and those that have the stars are going to be more successful than those who do not.  Because of max salaries, star players can place a greater value on the competitiveness of a team and the attractiveness of the underlying city.  As such, consistently good franchises like the Celtics and Lakers will have an advantage in free agency.  Teams that offer a more alluring lifestyle like LA and Miami also have an advantage.  That being said, the big city Bulls have failed time & time again to land stars.  The big city Knicks & Nets have been atrocious for long stretches of time.  Market size has some advantage in certain cases, but it’s not universal and the salary cap greatly limits its impact.

Candidly, I don’t know how anyone can try to make a legit argument that the MLB has better parity than either league.  The Dodgers have been gifted playoff spots for the foreseeable future because of the revenue edge they have over everyone.  There are other large market clubs like the Yankees that will continue to make the playoffs almost every single year due to their elevated payrolls.  It’s a completely unfair sport where the large market teams have a material competitive advantage over small market clubs and that won’t change until there is a cap & a floor and a better revenue sharing model at minimum.

[Lip Man 1]

43 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Yes, a salary cap / floor structure better allows small market teams to retain their talent (like QBs) because the big market teams can’t simply outspend them.  I still don’t understand how you’re attributing all NFL success to head coaches and very little to QBs.  Head coaches are super important no doubt, but a star QB is what really pushes a team to championship level.  And market size has no bearing on a team’s ability to land a franchise QB as evident by KC, Buffalo, GB, Baltimore, etc. 

As for the NBA, it’s a star driven league and those that have the stars are going to be more successful than those who do not.  Because of max salaries, star players can place a greater value on the competitiveness of a team and the attractiveness of the underlying city.  As such, consistently good franchises like the Celtics and Lakers will have an advantage in free agency.  Teams that offer a more alluring lifestyle like LA and Miami also have an advantage.  That being said, the big city Bulls have failed time & time again to land stars.  The big city Knicks & Nets have been atrocious for long stretches of time.  Market size has some advantage in certain cases, but it’s not universal and the salary cap greatly limits its impact.

Candidly, I don’t know how anyone can try to make a legit argument that the MLB has better parity than either league.  The Dodgers have been gifted playoff spots for the foreseeable future because of the revenue edge they have over everyone.  There are other large market clubs like the Yankees that will continue to make the playoffs almost every single year due to their elevated payrolls.  It’s a completely unfair sport where the large market teams have a material competitive advantage over small market clubs and that won’t change until there is a cap & a floor and a better revenue sharing model at minimum.

Based on history you'll be waiting a very long time to see that happen.

Personally I can't ever see the strongest union in the world, the MLBPA, agreeing to a salary cap.

The owners are going to try to get one again starting next December and the comments from the union and individual players like Bryce Harper have already said that is a non-starter.

If you believe, and apparently you strongly do, there is a competitive imbalance in MLB you're going to have to come up with a different solution.  

 

[Chicago White Sox]

9 minutes ago, Lip Man 1 said:

Based on history you'll be waiting a very long time to see that happen.

Personally I can't ever see the strongest union in the world, the MLBPA, agreeing to a salary cap.

The owners are going to try to get one again starting next December and the comments from the union and individual players like Bryce Harper have already said that is a non-starter.

If you believe, and apparently you strongly do, there is a competitive imbalance in MLB you're going to have to come up with a different solution.  

 

There is no other solution.  At some point small market fans will just lose interest and the sport will gradually die.

[almagest]

47 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Yes, a salary cap / floor structure better allows small market teams to retain their talent (like QBs) because the big market teams can’t simply outspend them.  I still don’t understand how you’re attributing all NFL success to head coaches and very little to QBs.  Head coaches are super important no doubt, but a star QB is what really pushes a team to championship level.  And market size has no bearing on a team’s ability to land a franchise QB as evident by KC, Buffalo, GB, Baltimore, etc. 

As for the NBA, it’s a star driven league and those that have the stars are going to be more successful than those who do not.  Because of max salaries, star players can place a greater value on the competitiveness of a team and the attractiveness of the underlying city.  As such, consistently good franchises like the Celtics and Lakers will have an advantage in free agency.  Teams that offer a more alluring lifestyle like LA and Miami also have an advantage.  That being said, the big city Bulls have failed time & time again to land stars.  The big city Knicks & Nets have been atrocious for long stretches of time.  Market size has some advantage in certain cases, but it’s not universal and the salary cap greatly limits its impact.

Candidly, I don’t know how anyone can try to make a legit argument that the MLB has better parity than either league.  The Dodgers have been gifted playoff spots for the foreseeable future because of the revenue edge they have over everyone.  There are other large market clubs like the Yankees that will continue to make the playoffs almost every single year due to their elevated payrolls.  It’s a completely unfair sport where the large market teams have a material competitive advantage over small market clubs and that won’t change until there is a cap & a floor and a better revenue sharing model at minimum.

Like I said, good QBs have rarely if ever move teams. It just doesn't happen, with or without a cap.

For a long time I would've agreed that a great QB is the most important thing to have and you can figure the rest out. After watching the Bears and Jags this year, seeing what Darnold and Mayfield were able to do with KOC and Cohen after essentially being written off, and noticing that pretty much every Super Bowl team had a good to great coaching staff I changed my opinion. I think a great coach can elevate an average QB, or at least work around him. I don't think a great QB can drag an average coaching staff to contention - in fact, I'm not even sure you can be a great QB with anything less than a good coach unless you're a ridiculous outlier. IMO coaching is the most important piece of the puzzle in the NFL. QB is probably second, though the offensive line play is pretty close (and that is also incredibly dependent on coaching).

It is admittedly hard to say because the NBA was a very different league 40+ years ago, but I'm just not seeing much difference in who was good then vs now when looking at larger market size. The Lakers and Celtics have always been good. The Bulls were solid at inception and have been pretty bad the rest of the time minus the 90s. The Knicks had some solid teams and 1 or 2 championships, but have been a joke the rest of the time. The Nets and Clippers have almost always been a joke. The 76ers have been a joke for a long time. The Raptors have one year. The Warriors were good in the 60s/70s and weren't very good after that until they drafted Steph and built around him. You basically have two paths to success in the current NBA - keep trying to find stars in the draft until you do then build around them, or get your current stars to recruit other good players to take less money and build a super team. I don't see how their soft cap impacts any of this.

My argument is less that the MLB has "better" parity, and more that the salary cap A) doesn't seem to make much of a difference in the other leagues, and B) MLB would barely change with one in place unless it was WAY more restrictive than any of the teams or players would allow for. I covered the reasons why in my last post. Ray Ray brought up revenue sharing + league wide tv rights and I think that's a much better idea to help with parity in the MLB.

[Lip Man 1]

3 minutes ago, almagest said:

Like I said, good QBs have rarely if ever move teams. It just doesn't happen, with or without a cap.

For a long time I would've agreed that a great QB is the most important thing to have and you can figure the rest out. After watching the Bears and Jags this year, seeing what Darnold and Mayfield were able to do with KOC and Cohen after essentially being written off, and noticing that pretty much every Super Bowl team had a good to great coaching staff I changed my opinion. I think a great coach can elevate an average QB, or at least work around him. I don't think a great QB can drag an average coaching staff to contention - in fact, I'm not even sure you can be a great QB with anything less than a good coach unless you're a ridiculous outlier. IMO coaching is the most important piece of the puzzle in the NFL. QB is probably second, though the offensive line play is pretty close (and that is also incredibly dependent on coaching).

It is admittedly hard to say because the NBA was a very different league 40+ years ago, but I'm just not seeing much difference in who was good then vs now when looking at larger market size. The Lakers and Celtics have always been good. The Bulls were solid at inception and have been pretty bad the rest of the time minus the 90s. The Knicks had some solid teams and 1 or 2 championships, but have been a joke the rest of the time. The Nets and Clippers have almost always been a joke. The 76ers have been a joke for a long time. The Raptors have one year. The Warriors were good in the 60s/70s and weren't very good after that until they drafted Steph and built around him. You basically have two paths to success in the current NBA - keep trying to find stars in the draft until you do then build around them, or get your current stars to recruit other good players to take less money and build a super team. I don't see how their soft cap impacts any of this.

My argument is less that the MLB has "better" parity, and more that the salary cap A) doesn't seem to make much of a difference in the other leagues, and B) MLB would barely change with one in place unless it was WAY more restrictive than any of the teams or players would allow for. I covered the reasons why in my last post. Ray Ray brought up revenue sharing + league wide tv rights and I think that's a much better idea to help with parity in the MLB.

I'm not in favor of this at all but I have seen it proposed and discussed.

If some think competition is the ultimate objective and it is being destroyed and you don't agree with my proposal to fix it, i.e. s#$% can all the cheap ass owners, then maybe divide MLB in tiers like European soccer.

Then deadbeat franchises like the Rockies, Pirates, Marlins, White Sox, Athletics and so on can play for their own title while the teams that spend and care about winning can play for theirs.

I don't like this idea myself but it is a possible solution. 

 

[ptatc]

32 minutes ago, Lip Man 1 said:

Based on history you'll be waiting a very long time to see that happen.

Personally I can't ever see the strongest union in the world, the MLBPA, agreeing to a salary cap.

The owners are going to try to get one again starting next December and the comments from the union and individual players like Bryce Harper have already said that is a non-starter.

If you believe, and apparently you strongly do, there is a competitive imbalance in MLB you're going to have to come up with a different solution.  

 

The only way I see they might agree is with a really high floor that will offset the decrease union money from the ceiling. Other than that, no way.

More likely it will a massive overhaul to the revenue sharing system.

 

[caulfield12]

2 hours ago, Lip Man 1 said:

I'm not in favor of this at all but I have seen it proposed and discussed.

If some think competition is the ultimate objective and it is being destroyed and you don't agree with my proposal to fix it, i.e. s#$% can all the cheap ass owners, then maybe divide MLB in tiers like European soccer.

Then deadbeat franchises like the Rockies, Pirates, Marlins, White Sox, Athletics and so on can play for their own title while the teams that spend and care about winning can play for theirs.

I don't like this idea myself but it is a possible solution. 

 

You can't do a relegation approach like EPL because many of the AAA clubs have the exact same private equity ownership group.

It would just end in collusion.

And another aspect is some of the major league clubs also own their own minor league affiliates...although that's more in the case of A teams, some connected to their spring training facilities. So that's also a case of protecting players from injury by maintaining professional standards, too.

 

Fantasy Leagues have their Toilet Bowl at the end of the season...would that embarrass any of the cheap owners at this point?

Seperate playoffs for teams under $150 in payroll?  Maybe against the best Japanese and Korean teams?  But that just dilutes the WBC concept.

NBA and WNBA have in season Commissioner's cup mini competitions like Knicks/Spurs tonight.