Baseball doesn't need a salary cap. They need a salary floor. It will force small market teams to actually buy into their Stars. They'll never do it though
@@michaelkilbride6420 You absolutely need both. I'm a hockey fan and we have the Coyotes chronically under spending and it hurt the league. Thank god their owner is gone.
Salary floor please. Make the greedy owners spend or force them to sell to owners who are willing to invest in the team. So glad the Dodgers have owners who are in it to win it instead of what it was for the first two decades of my life.
The problem is that the teams which receive revenue sharing do not reinvest this money into their on-field product. Instead of a salary cap, there should be a salary floor where the teams who will not spend are forced to do so.
How you didn't put the NHL in here whom have both a minimum and a maximum cap as comparison is bizarre. Also, I friggin love Ohtani, but no athlete is worth 700 million... It's just absurd.
I was with you until the very end. I don’t think you can just point to a few small market teams over performing and point to that as evidence that payroll differences aren’t a big deal. It’s much more about year over sustainability. It’s so much easier for a big market team to perform well over a longer period of time and be in the mix for a playoff birth year over year even if they don’t always win the World Series. As a Royals fan, this last playoff team VASTLY over performed their salary value/expectations. When this happens, a team like the Royals generally won’t spend enough once the time comes around once they ask for more money. That’s why this was their first playoff birth since 2015 and honestly they were probably just an above average team at best. Not to mention that it’s sort of easier for mediocre teams to make the playoffs in today’s game: 1. There’s 7 playoff spots now. 2. There is SO much consolidation of elite talent towards the top (two teams had Ohtani, Freeman, Mookie, Judge, Soto, and Gerrit Cole amongst others) that I think it generally makes teams 10-30 pretty mediocre. I just think you have to look at winning/payroll correlations over a longer period of time versus just 1 season.
I dont understand the fascination with salary/spend. It typically doesnt equate to team performance. Fans will complain that the team isnt spending when they lose. Then when they do spend those fans are the first to complain when that player performs poorly. Execution/coaching/development are much more interesting and consequential topics.
Payroll 100% has a big impact on winning. Especially over the long term. If you’re just looking at 1 year then sure you’ll have the random small market team here or there. Over a larger sample size of multiple years it’s much more obvious how much it matters.
False over the past 10 years low payroll teams(Guardians Rays Brewers) are all in top 10 overall record. If discussing WS births/winners. Also mixed bag. AZ TB CLE KC all went to WS since 2014. ATL & HOU also won at around 150. 1/2 of NYM.
@ There’s an article a Brewers fan website that states: “Since 1995, 48% of the champions and 38% of the contestants in the World Series have had top 5 payrolls. 93% of the champions and 83% of the contestants have been in the top half of payroll. Only two low-payroll teams have won it all -- the 2002 Anaheim Angels and the 2003 Florida Marlins. It has been two decades since that has happened.” Also those KC teams from 2014 and 2015 were basically last place in World Series odds amongst playoff teams. KC was also 13th in payroll that year (I’m a royals fan, they sucked for 10 years after that). Arizona is also tricky bc one of their best players (Corbin Carroll) was on a rookie deal so he’s obviously not being paid as much as he’s worth. Arizona was also dead last in World Series odds last year amongst playoff teams so they probably overachieved. I’ll admit the Rays and Guardians are better examples as to how to escape the confines of having no money to spend, but I’d say they’re more of an exception to the rule because of their trust in analytics. I do think higher payroll teams will just catch up with them eventually on this front too though as they’ll spend more money in player development/analytics like the Dodgers are already doing. You also can’t leave out the remainder of those teams in the top 10 in win % that are always in the top half/top 10 in terms of payroll (dodgers, Yankees, astros, cubs, braves, and Red Sox). The Mets are also #11. Even if your argument is that it is different teams getting into the mix year after year, a lot of the times that those teams are able to sustain success is because they can afford to keep their guys around once they’ve hit on them. Although the astros didn’t always spend a lot when they had no talent, now that they DO have the talent worth spending on, they have been in the top 5 in spending multiple times recently. There’s no chance my Royals could ever do the same thing if they hit on multiple elite prospects. Being able to sustain success is a lot different than getting lucky here or there.
@@connorking3523 I'll agree with you here. However, you must also acknowledge that teams will typically spend more when they have a young core of talented players. They go into "win now" mode. This will skew payroll for WS winner numbers(like KC). Payroll has to be considered across years, same as overall W/L & WS births/wins. That is how owners view it. Overspending sets franchises back and prevents them from being consistently good b/c they carry dead weight(LAA DET NYM). Like right now, 27 year old Juan Soto is worth 50 mil per but will 40 year old Soto be? I much prefer looking at the org as whole. For instance, If KC doesn't resign Witt & KC starts losing again.. the issue wouldnt be that Witt is gone. The issue would be that KC had no one ready to step up. This is much more interesting as it gets more in-depth topics such as draft/farm system/coaching/development.
People gotta stop comparing 12 year contracts to 6 year or less contracts. Of course the 10+ year contracts will look looney tunes size in comparison. Also comparing total value of a contract to how much a team spends in 1 year is equally disingenuous.
salary cap makes sure players get paid less and owners keep more money, salary floor means players will get paid more and owners will keep less, that’s why a salary floor will never take place cause no owner will agree to it besides the ones that already are paying above their threshold
Umm bro, just like if cities agree to allow developers to build business/fulfillment centers in communities, thus forcing people out of their homes kinda like the city of LA did for the sale of land to the dodgers (Amazon is also doing this in communities around the us BTW) the MLB can force owners to sell if they can’t play ball and spend enough money to clear a $50m salary floor
We need a salary floor not a salary cap. Big market teams dont have the same edge that they used to. Considering the way the draft is set up where the worst teams get the best picks and the teams that spend alot usually only get 1 pick in the first 100 picks. Considering revenue sharing that puts $125 million into each owners pockets before they even count their own revenue. 4 billion of the Dodgers 8 billion TV deal goes into revenue sharing. Considering the playoffs have been expanded to add nearly half the league. Considering luxury tax penalties are so severe they basically act as a salary cap… There are no excuses anymore. It’s time to stop calling out the teams that are spending money and start calling out the teams that are not spending money. Because every team has money nowadays even the A’s. Those cheap teams depend on channels/people like this to help them pull off their scam.
I dont believe a salary floor is an overly good thing. Theres already technically a salary floor in the league minimum. My views are that the salary floor will over inflate the value and wages of the not so good players in the same way that no salary cap over inflates the market value of players like Ohtani, Judge, Anthony Rendon and such like.
I’m sorry but no sports players should be paid $700 million dollars that type of money should go to our first responders and teachers. This whole world is crazy these days.
Baseball has lots of parity. I don't see the need for a salary cap or or anything...if anything some of these owners need to spend a bit more money on decent players instead of trying to nickle and dime, aka case in point the Rowdy Tellez situation.
Also why should teams with the largest revenues be forced to spend the same amount as teams with the smallest revenues? Shouldn’t teams be rewarded for doing things properly in the past and building a fanbase that brings in massive amounts of revenue? I would suggest doing what they do in European football. Where the salary cap is a percentage of the teams revenue. Maybe have it where no team can spend more than 65% of their revenue on players and no less than 50%. That would be fair and that would reward teams for doing things the right way. Or set it up so that the best teams get the top picks. There has to be some sort of reward for the teams that do things the right way otherwise there’s no point. It just ends up being Commieball like the NFL and NBA
Dude sorry I’m not saying I agree or disagree with your opinion and conclusions here but you are trying to say higher salaries does not equal winning. First you grab 5 playoff teams in the bottom ten however that is somewhat artificial as of the bottom 5 teams with lowest payrolls only one made the playoffs(tigers) and bottom three payrolls. Then what This is extremely flabbergasting is you then show the top 14 teams of highest payrolls( y 14? Idk) and explain only 6 made the playoffs. This extremely misleading as they were the top teams with the top 6 salaries! One could use that data and say spending = winning the top 6 teams made the playoffs
the issue in the video against the salary cap is making a claim that any player is worth 50+ mil a year for playing a game. yeah the owners make more, their shit needs to go down way more as well. everything needs to be capped. players are the face of it because when you see someone have a complete shit game, and make more money in those three hours than your family makes all year working thousands of hours, its just stupid
You mention small market teams having success, but thats often because they tank for years to build prospects. Whereas top paying teams can be competitive year in and out. How is it acceptable, as a sport and business, to put a horrible product on the field for years with the hope it pans out. I would hate to be a fan of that type of team. Thats the crux of the issue. While yes bottom pay roll teams consistently make playoff, thats because most (not all) are “taking turns” with a rotating set of teams shamelessly/purposefully tanking each year. The exception, like the Rays, i feel even worse about! Imagine how successful they could actually be if they are willing to spend more, without a self- imposed, and completely greed-driven, handicap. The fact that purposeful tanking - for multiple years! (I can understand if one year bad fortune occurred) - occurs regularly is uncompetitive and a travesty and is getting to the point where it might put the integrity of the game into question, if the gap is left unchecked
Thank you to SNHU for sponsoring this video! Go to snhu.edu/wilytics and learn how you can get started with a Sports Management degree at SNHU.
Baseball doesn't need a salary cap. They need a salary floor. It will force small market teams to actually buy into their Stars. They'll never do it though
Why not both? Salary cap means a salary floor as well
@@michaelkilbride6420
You absolutely need both. I'm a hockey fan and we have the Coyotes chronically under spending and it hurt the league. Thank god their owner is gone.
@ I remember that the coyotes having to trade for “dead” contracts just to stay above the floor
Truth! They make enough money but refuse to spend. He needs to focus on that.
Salary floors is what the MLB needs. Baseball is that kinda sport where teams get to actually keep their players yet billionaire owners don’t want to.
People wana blame billionaire owners for wanting to win while not blaming their teams owners for letting FAs leave
Salary floor please. Make the greedy owners spend or force them to sell to owners who are willing to invest in the team. So glad the Dodgers have owners who are in it to win it instead of what it was for the first two decades of my life.
That period from 1990 to 2013 was terrible to be a dodgers fan… even when we did make the playoffs it’s because the nl west was weak
The problem is that the teams which receive revenue sharing do not reinvest this money into their on-field product. Instead of a salary cap, there should be a salary floor where the teams who will not spend are forced to do so.
How you didn't put the NHL in here whom have both a minimum and a maximum cap as comparison is bizarre. Also, I friggin love Ohtani, but no athlete is worth 700 million... It's just absurd.
wake up babe new wilytics video
Great to see you bringing in sponsors. Well deserved! 🙌
I was with you until the very end. I don’t think you can just point to a few small market teams over performing and point to that as evidence that payroll differences aren’t a big deal. It’s much more about year over sustainability.
It’s so much easier for a big market team to perform well over a longer period of time and be in the mix for a playoff birth year over year even if they don’t always win the World Series. As a Royals fan, this last playoff team VASTLY over performed their salary value/expectations. When this happens, a team like the Royals generally won’t spend enough once the time comes around once they ask for more money. That’s why this was their first playoff birth since 2015 and honestly they were probably just an above average team at best.
Not to mention that it’s sort of easier for mediocre teams to make the playoffs in today’s game:
1. There’s 7 playoff spots now.
2. There is SO much consolidation of elite talent towards the top (two teams had Ohtani, Freeman, Mookie, Judge, Soto, and Gerrit Cole amongst others) that I think it generally makes teams 10-30 pretty mediocre. I just think you have to look at winning/payroll correlations over a longer period of time versus just 1 season.
Small market owners don’t want to spend and big market owners love the advantage they have-no way they will vote for changing the status quo
Salary floor period
I dont understand the fascination with salary/spend. It typically doesnt equate to team performance. Fans will complain that the team isnt spending when they lose. Then when they do spend those fans are the first to complain when that player performs poorly. Execution/coaching/development are much more interesting and consequential topics.
Payroll 100% has a big impact on winning. Especially over the long term. If you’re just looking at 1 year then sure you’ll have the random small market team here or there. Over a larger sample size of multiple years it’s much more obvious how much it matters.
False over the past 10 years low payroll teams(Guardians Rays Brewers) are all in top 10 overall record. If discussing WS births/winners. Also mixed bag. AZ TB CLE KC all went to WS since 2014. ATL & HOU also won at around 150. 1/2 of NYM.
@ There’s an article a Brewers fan website that states:
“Since 1995, 48% of the champions and 38% of the contestants in the World Series have had top 5 payrolls. 93% of the champions and 83% of the contestants have been in the top half of payroll. Only two low-payroll teams have won it all -- the 2002 Anaheim Angels and the 2003 Florida Marlins. It has been two decades since that has happened.”
Also those KC teams from 2014 and 2015 were basically last place in World Series odds amongst playoff teams. KC was also 13th in payroll that year (I’m a royals fan, they sucked for 10 years after that).
Arizona is also tricky bc one of their best players (Corbin Carroll) was on a rookie deal so he’s obviously not being paid as much as he’s worth. Arizona was also dead last in World Series odds last year amongst playoff teams so they probably overachieved.
I’ll admit the Rays and Guardians are better examples as to how to escape the confines of having no money to spend, but I’d say they’re more of an exception to the rule because of their trust in analytics. I do think higher payroll teams will just catch up with them eventually on this front too though as they’ll spend more money in player development/analytics like the Dodgers are already doing.
You also can’t leave out the remainder of those teams in the top 10 in win % that are always in the top half/top 10 in terms of payroll (dodgers, Yankees, astros, cubs, braves, and Red Sox). The Mets are also #11.
Even if your argument is that it is different teams getting into the mix year after year, a lot of the times that those teams are able to sustain success is because they can afford to keep their guys around once they’ve hit on them. Although the astros didn’t always spend a lot when they had no talent, now that they DO have the talent worth spending on, they have been in the top 5 in spending multiple times recently. There’s no chance my Royals could ever do the same thing if they hit on multiple elite prospects. Being able to sustain success is a lot different than getting lucky here or there.
@@connorking3523 I'll agree with you here. However, you must also acknowledge that teams will typically spend more when they have a young core of talented players. They go into "win now" mode. This will skew payroll for WS winner numbers(like KC).
Payroll has to be considered across years, same as overall W/L & WS births/wins. That is how owners view it.
Overspending sets franchises back and prevents them from being consistently good b/c they carry dead weight(LAA DET NYM). Like right now, 27 year old Juan Soto is worth 50 mil per but will 40 year old Soto be?
I much prefer looking at the org as whole. For instance, If KC doesn't resign Witt & KC starts losing again.. the issue wouldnt be that Witt is gone. The issue would be that KC had no one ready to step up. This is much more interesting as it gets more in-depth topics such as draft/farm system/coaching/development.
This video could begin with “selfish owners make enough money to field rosters of stars but prefer to keep payroll low to pocket more money.”
People gotta stop comparing 12 year contracts to 6 year or less contracts.
Of course the 10+ year contracts will look looney tunes size in comparison.
Also comparing total value of a contract to how much a team spends in 1 year is equally disingenuous.
salary cap makes sure players get paid less and owners keep more money, salary floor means players will get paid more and owners will keep less, that’s why a salary floor will never take place cause no owner will agree to it besides the ones that already are paying above their threshold
Umm bro, just like if cities agree to allow developers to build business/fulfillment centers in communities, thus forcing people out of their homes kinda like the city of LA did for the sale of land to the dodgers (Amazon is also doing this in communities around the us BTW) the MLB can force owners to sell if they can’t play ball and spend enough money to clear a $50m salary floor
We need a salary floor not a salary cap. Big market teams dont have the same edge that they used to. Considering the way the draft is set up where the worst teams get the best picks and the teams that spend alot usually only get 1 pick in the first 100 picks. Considering revenue sharing that puts $125 million into each owners pockets before they even count their own revenue. 4 billion of the Dodgers 8 billion TV deal goes into revenue sharing. Considering the playoffs have been expanded to add nearly half the league. Considering luxury tax penalties are so severe they basically act as a salary cap… There are no excuses anymore. It’s time to stop calling out the teams that are spending money and start calling out the teams that are not spending money. Because every team has money nowadays even the A’s. Those cheap teams depend on channels/people like this to help them pull off their scam.
I dont believe a salary floor is an overly good thing. Theres already technically a salary floor in the league minimum. My views are that the salary floor will over inflate the value and wages of the not so good players in the same way that no salary cap over inflates the market value of players like Ohtani, Judge, Anthony Rendon and such like.
Fuck a salary cap. How about a salary floor? Make my pirates spend that money
I’m sorry but no sports players should be paid $700 million dollars that type of money should go to our first responders and teachers. This whole world is crazy these days.
Baseball has lots of parity. I don't see the need for a salary cap or or anything...if anything some of these owners need to spend a bit more money on decent players instead of trying to nickle and dime, aka case in point the Rowdy Tellez situation.
Also why should teams with the largest revenues be forced to spend the same amount as teams with the smallest revenues? Shouldn’t teams be rewarded for doing things properly in the past and building a fanbase that brings in massive amounts of revenue? I would suggest doing what they do in European football. Where the salary cap is a percentage of the teams revenue. Maybe have it where no team can spend more than 65% of their revenue on players and no less than 50%. That would be fair and that would reward teams for doing things the right way. Or set it up so that the best teams get the top picks. There has to be some sort of reward for the teams that do things the right way otherwise there’s no point. It just ends up being Commieball like the NFL and NBA
They already have a soft salary cap, it's called luxury tax
Dude sorry I’m not saying I agree or disagree with your opinion and conclusions here but you are trying to say higher salaries does not equal winning. First you grab 5 playoff teams in the bottom ten however that is somewhat artificial as of the bottom 5 teams with lowest payrolls only one made the playoffs(tigers) and bottom three payrolls. Then what This is extremely flabbergasting is you then show the top 14 teams of highest payrolls( y 14? Idk) and explain only 6 made the playoffs. This extremely misleading as they were the top teams with the top 6 salaries! One could use that data and say spending = winning the top 6 teams made the playoffs
My opinion on the salary cap has arrived
Is Willy engaged?! Asking for my sister
salary floor and if you dont like it, sell your team. easy.
i find it hard to believe that an unregulated free market leads to competitive imbalance
You work for the dodgers org? 😂
this is a universal truth of capitalism. competition breeds a winner, this winner will always have more agency for market manipulation.
@@jfb112697that's a universal truth of Marxism... Caps kill honest competition tho.
@@valeriekeefe8898 not sure you know what “universal” or “truth” means. it’s been established fact for centuries that this phenomenon is unavoidable
@@valeriekeefe8898 I bet you can't define Marxism.
if there is an ad in your video automatic dislike
Idiot
lol dodgers and yankees only win by buying players? Go watch more baseball, have a look how well they develop players
the issue in the video against the salary cap is making a claim that any player is worth 50+ mil a year for playing a game. yeah the owners make more, their shit needs to go down way more as well. everything needs to be capped. players are the face of it because when you see someone have a complete shit game, and make more money in those three hours than your family makes all year working thousands of hours, its just stupid
You mention small market teams having success, but thats often because they tank for years to build prospects. Whereas top paying teams can be competitive year in and out. How is it acceptable, as a sport and business, to put a horrible product on the field for years with the hope it pans out. I would hate to be a fan of that type of team.
Thats the crux of the issue. While yes bottom pay roll teams consistently make playoff, thats because most (not all) are “taking turns” with a rotating set of teams shamelessly/purposefully tanking each year. The exception, like the Rays, i feel even worse about! Imagine how successful they could actually be if they are willing to spend more, without a self- imposed, and completely greed-driven, handicap.
The fact that purposeful tanking - for multiple years! (I can understand if one year bad fortune occurred) - occurs regularly is uncompetitive and a travesty and is getting to the point where it might put the integrity of the game into question, if the gap is left unchecked