My emotional response as a fan is that I'm entitled to this era of dominance because I lived through the NewsCorp and Frank McCourt ownership eras of the Dodgers where they shipped off beloved players for scrap, didn't win a playoff game for a good 25 years, and were bankrupt to the point they weren't sure they were going to be able to pay player salaries.
My intellectual response to this is the same as the emotional one. (I'm kidding, but very good analysis and piece.)
Ha thank you and yes, every fan's personal journey is going to color their view of this. I grew up rooting for the late 90s/early 00s Red Sox to take down those Phenomenal and then Phenomenally Expensive Yankees teams, so I enjoy the dynamic of a titan even if I'm not rooting for the titan.
FTR I was genuinely disappointed when I saw Tucker signed with LA, just because it amplified the narrative about the Dodgers being a superteam and gave me less ammunition during bar arguments about "every team being able to do this" lol
Keep in mind that Tucker supposedly left money on the table to sign with the Dodgers (I'm also a Dodgers fan--since 1958), so other (not all) teams could have done what the Dodgers did.
FTA: "What we don’t know is how much goes where, and how much of that those owners are putting back into being competitive." And that is the crux of the whole salary cap/floor discussion. Until and unless the owners (and corporate MLB) are willing to open their books--and use the same accounting methods!--ownership's cries for a cap, but not a reasonable (or any) floor ring hollow.
Jake, you characterize MLB as socialist, and I see your point (I'm NOT anti-socialism!); however, to me, MLB is the best example of a true free-market economy we have in this country--at least as far as what teams pay players, and what they charge customers: essentially, there are no rules. (That idiotic anti-trust exemption is, of course, a significant reason why they can do that.)
Abandon the anti-trust exemption, have the teams open their books, and THEN I might be open to a cap. (But that cap definitely needs to include a floor much higher than the MLB minimum, and I'm sure it will entail a complete overhaul of the free agent system.)
Thanks for reading Steve! And yes, the socialism is very limited in its definition -- just for the ownership class. The player market is very much free, and that I think creates the tangled situation people have to reckon with to truly engage with the idea of a salary cap.
intresting take on the dodgers spending! feels like everyone's jumping on the bandwagon now that they're throwin around serious money tho. kinda makes you wonder if success is more about the checkbook or the actual team chemistry at this point. either way its gonna be wild watchin them try to live up to those expectations next season
I think we know the checkbook is a great way to set yourself up for success, and always has been. It also doesn't guarantee it, so you wind up with the clash of interesting strategies and storylines (in my book).
My emotional response as a fan is that I'm entitled to this era of dominance because I lived through the NewsCorp and Frank McCourt ownership eras of the Dodgers where they shipped off beloved players for scrap, didn't win a playoff game for a good 25 years, and were bankrupt to the point they weren't sure they were going to be able to pay player salaries.
My intellectual response to this is the same as the emotional one. (I'm kidding, but very good analysis and piece.)
Ha thank you and yes, every fan's personal journey is going to color their view of this. I grew up rooting for the late 90s/early 00s Red Sox to take down those Phenomenal and then Phenomenally Expensive Yankees teams, so I enjoy the dynamic of a titan even if I'm not rooting for the titan.
FTR I was genuinely disappointed when I saw Tucker signed with LA, just because it amplified the narrative about the Dodgers being a superteam and gave me less ammunition during bar arguments about "every team being able to do this" lol
Keep in mind that Tucker supposedly left money on the table to sign with the Dodgers (I'm also a Dodgers fan--since 1958), so other (not all) teams could have done what the Dodgers did.
FTA: "What we don’t know is how much goes where, and how much of that those owners are putting back into being competitive." And that is the crux of the whole salary cap/floor discussion. Until and unless the owners (and corporate MLB) are willing to open their books--and use the same accounting methods!--ownership's cries for a cap, but not a reasonable (or any) floor ring hollow.
Jake, you characterize MLB as socialist, and I see your point (I'm NOT anti-socialism!); however, to me, MLB is the best example of a true free-market economy we have in this country--at least as far as what teams pay players, and what they charge customers: essentially, there are no rules. (That idiotic anti-trust exemption is, of course, a significant reason why they can do that.)
Abandon the anti-trust exemption, have the teams open their books, and THEN I might be open to a cap. (But that cap definitely needs to include a floor much higher than the MLB minimum, and I'm sure it will entail a complete overhaul of the free agent system.)
Thanks for reading Steve! And yes, the socialism is very limited in its definition -- just for the ownership class. The player market is very much free, and that I think creates the tangled situation people have to reckon with to truly engage with the idea of a salary cap.
intresting take on the dodgers spending! feels like everyone's jumping on the bandwagon now that they're throwin around serious money tho. kinda makes you wonder if success is more about the checkbook or the actual team chemistry at this point. either way its gonna be wild watchin them try to live up to those expectations next season
I think we know the checkbook is a great way to set yourself up for success, and always has been. It also doesn't guarantee it, so you wind up with the clash of interesting strategies and storylines (in my book).