2026 MLB Thread

[GB Warrior]

It's almost as if what happened in the past isn't a guarantee of what's gonna happen in the future.

I guarantee you PCA will jump for another 450' HR. Checkmate libs.

[MuggsyB]

Cleveland with a nice G1 win. 

[forgetful]

Cleveland with a nice G1 win. 

Tampa's bullpen gave up 5 runs. Good for Cleveland to take advantage.

[MU82]

TNT was so determined to show replays of every wonderful pitch that Rasmussen had thrown in the game that they just about missed Bailey's HR live.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

It doesn't matter. 3 of the final 4 are well-run small-market organizations, leaving the likes of the Yankees, Mets, Red Sox, Cubs, Phillies, Giants and Blue Jays in the dust. And all three have been very competitive for years, so it's not a one-off.

And there have always been dynasties in MLB. The Yankees of 1996-2000 were the most recent, though the 2010s Giants might argue they were at least a kinda-dynasty (3 titles from 2010-14). And in the previous century, the Yankees dominated baseball years before anybody had ever heard of the term "salary cap."

Other sports leagues have had dynasties despite the presence of salary caps, most recently the Kansas City Chiefs, Golden State Warriors and Chicago Blackhawks.

But, as for last night alone ... huh.

None of this is what the salary cap debate is about.  It's all noise. The result of this postseason will not be proof of anything for either side of the debate (though that won't stop them from trying to use it).

The current system gives a significant advantage to certain teams and disadvanatge to others. That's a fact. It doesnt mean that the teams with that advantage are incapable of failure and it doesn't mean that teams without it can't succeed. No one reasonable believes that.

The only questions that matter are whether it would be better for the sport to even out some of those advantages? And if yes, how? The Dodgers winning or not winning this year does nothing to answer those questions.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I don't like Google.  Why can't people answer a simple question? 

Since you asked, and I say this not to criticize but to just answer your question honestly, Because it's enabling laziness. You have the ability to get the information yourself with minimal effort.  Instead you are asking people to get it for you.

Clearly this is Scoop and not nearly that serious, but it's one of the more common mistakes I see with young professionals (and some old ones). Never waste someone elses time when you can easily get information yourself. One of the quickest ways to shoot yourself in the foot

[TallTitan34]

I can only assume the Brewers are cheating since I was told there's no way they can compete with the Dodgers.

[Jay Bee]

Clearly this is Scoop and not nearly that serious

Blasphemy!

[MuggsyB]

Since you asked, and I say this not to criticize but to just answer your question honestly, Because it's enabling laziness. You have the ability to get the information yourself with minimal effort.  Instead you are asking people to get it for you.

Clearly this is Scoop and not nearly that serious, but it's one of the more common mistakes I see with young professionals (and some old ones). Never waste someone elses time when you can easily get information yourself. One of the quickest ways to shoot yourself in the foot

Interesting.  Answering my question would have taken about 1/10th of the time than you crafting this drivel.  Maybe reevaluate things and stop overanalyzing my motives or work ethic?  I know exactly what I'm doing, and why. 

[StillAWarrior]

Interesting.  Answering my question would have taken about 1/10th of the time than you crafting this drivel.  Maybe reevaluate things and stop overanalyzing my motives or work ethic?  I know exactly what I'm doing, and why. 

Yes...irrespective of your motive and/or work ethic, you're asking someone else do do something for you that you "don't like" doing yourself. I can only guess that TAMU "doesn't like" answering questions for people when they can easily answer for themselves with minimal effort.

[Uncle Rico]

Interesting.  Answering my question would have taken about 1/10th of the time than you crafting this drivel.  Maybe reevaluate things and stop overanalyzing my motives or work ethic?  I know exactly what I'm doing, and why. 

Lol

[The Sultan]

Interesting.  Answering my question would have taken about 1/10th of the time than you crafting this drivel.  Maybe reevaluate things and stop overanalyzing my motives or work ethic?  I know exactly what I'm doing, and why. 

Maybe get off your lazy a$$ and do it yourself.

[Shaka Shart]

Interesting.  Answering my question would have taken about 1/10th of the time than you crafting this drivel.  Maybe reevaluate things and stop overanalyzing my motives or work ethic?  I know exactly what I'm doing, and why. 

No need to be so short with TAMU

[We R Final Four]

Jump around guy (Rick) jumping around after the Brewer's win last night.

[MU82]

None of this is what the salary cap debate is about.  It's all noise. The result of this postseason will not be proof of anything for either side of the debate (though that won't stop them from trying to use it).

The current system gives a significant advantage to certain teams and disadvanatge to others. That's a fact. It doesnt mean that the teams with that advantage are incapable of failure and it doesn't mean that teams without it can't succeed. No one reasonable believes that.

The only questions that matter are whether it would be better for the sport to even out some of those advantages? And if yes, how? The Dodgers winning or not winning this year does nothing to answer those questions.

The players will not relent on a salary cap IMHO, so the owners better come up with a better system to share revenue if their odes to competitive balance are more than mere "noise."  I'm not sure how many of them actually care about competitive balance; maybe most do, but if so they need to prove it by reining in their fellow owners instead of expecting the players to do it for them.

Meanwhile, small-market teams continue to show that intelligent organizational management can help overcome many of the advantages that free-spending teams have. This postseason already has illustrated that quite nicely, no matter what happens from here on out.

My comments about what's happening this postseason go beyond the salary-cap debate. They go to the assumption that just because a team looks "better," that team will always win. Back in March, it was like, "Why even play the season; of course the Dodgers will win." It's as if folks have never seen supposedly great teams fail to win and have never seen underdogs prevail. Many were CERTAIN that the Knicks had zero chance against the mighty Spurs. One Scooper lost his mind last NFL season because the Seahawks were predicted to only win 7.5 games, so of course they had no chance. And then the Dodgers this season - over and over again, "Nobody else even has a chance." It's silliness. So I'll continue to get a kick out of superteams like the Rams losing.

Oh, and BTW, a belated "good job" on your takedown of the AL West earlier this season. Your point was valid back then, and it looked better and better as the season progressed.

[dgies9156]

The players will not relent on a salary cap IMHO, so the owners better come up with a better system to share revenue if their odes to competitive balance are more than mere "noise."  I'm not sure how many of them actually care about competitive balance; maybe most do, but if so they need to prove it by reining in their fellow owners instead of expecting the players to do it for them.

Meanwhile, small-market teams continue to show that intelligent organizational management can help overcome many of the advantages that free-spending teams have. This postseason already has illustrated that quite nicely, no matter what happens from here on out.

My comments about what's happening this postseason go beyond the salary-cap debate. They go to the assumption that just because a team looks "better," that team will always win. Back in March, it was like, "Why even play the season; of course the Dodgers will win." It's as if folks have never seen supposedly great teams fail to win and have never seen underdogs prevail. Many were CERTAIN that the Knicks had zero chance against the mighty Spurs. One Scooper lost his mind last NFL season because the Seahawks were predicted to only win 7.5 games, so of course they had no chance. And then the Dodgers this season - over and over again, "Nobody else even has a chance." It's silliness. So I'll continue to get a kick out of superteams like the Rams losing.

Oh, and BTW, a belated "good job" on your takedown of the AL West earlier this season. Your point was valid back then, and it looked better and better as the season progressed.

Brother MU is right on the money. Unless the two sides want to burn down the sport to the point that it is near death, neither the baseball players nor the owners will get a salary cap.

Everybody screams about the unfairness of the Dodgers. But what's interesting is that the Dodgers bottomless wallet may be a short-term phenomenon given that their principal owner is under federal investigation for possible co-mingling of funds. We'll see what happens.

The only way competitive equality in baseball happens is for the sport to consolidate TV and radio revenue. Even then, they'll always be some crappy teams — the Tennessee Titans being living proof in football. But asking the players to pay for ownership stupidity is a foolish move I can't imagine would be accepted by more than a handful of players.

[The Sultan]

The players will not relent on a salary cap IMHO, so the owners better come up with a better system to share revenue if their odes to competitive balance are more than mere "noise."  I'm not sure how many of them actually care about competitive balance; maybe most do, but if so they need to prove it by reining in their fellow owners instead of expecting the players to do it for them.

While I think this would be nice, my guess is that the players will eventually agree to something that acts even more like a cap even though it isn't one - like a more punitive luxury tax system with a lack of salary deferrals. Maybe they will get something like a salary floor, increase in minimum salary and/or an extra arb year in return.

The players don't have nearly the leverage as they used to during their golden days. The owners are much wealthier and can wait out the PA for awhile. Especially since they likely will have the court of public opinion on their side.

[Pakuni]

None of this is what the salary cap debate is about.  It's all noise. The result of this postseason will not be proof of anything for either side of the debate (though that won't stop them from trying to use it).

The current system gives a significant advantage to certain teams and disadvanatge to others. That's a fact. It doesnt mean that the teams with that advantage are incapable of failure and it doesn't mean that teams without it can't succeed. No one reasonable believes that.

The only questions that matter are whether it would be better for the sport to even out some of those advantages? And if yes, how? The Dodgers winning or not winning this year does nothing to answer those questions.

The salary cap debate has become so heated the last few years exactly because of the Dodgers' recent success, so I wouldn't say it's all noise. It's literally what's driving the discourse. The owners made little effort to impose a cap during the previous four CBA negotiations, dating back to 2006, because there was little demand for it from the fans. The Dodgers' success has changed that.
It's not a coincidence that the last time there was a legitimate threat of a work stoppage (April 2002) was on the heels of the late 90s/early 2000s Yankees dynasty. Big-market, big-spending teams going on sustained runs drives the discussion unlike anything else.

The current "system" doesn't give teams advantages or disadvantages, unless you mean that the current system helps smaller-market teams via revenue sharing and comp picks. The Dodgers being a successful organization in a large market isn't the result of "the system." That's just market forces at work. And those market forces and many of the advantages they provide will continue to exist regardless of the next CBA. MLB could try to create system to lessen those advantages - and without a cap, by the way - but that's not going to make playing for the Twins or Reds more attractive to a superstar player than the Dodgers or Red Sox. Just like a salary cap hasn't made Calgary a destination for NHL stars, or lessened the allure of the Lakers for NBA players.

[Jay Bee]

Lockout nearly a #DoneDeal

[TallTitan34]

Lockout nearly a #DoneDeal

But I haven't seen any Crystal Ball predictions yet.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Interesting.  Answering my question would have taken about 1/10th of the time than you crafting this drivel.  Maybe reevaluate things and stop overanalyzing my motives or work ethic?  I know exactly what I'm doing, and why. 

I didn't analyze your motives. I honestly couldn't care less.  And I'm not necessarily questioning your work ethic either. When I've had similar conversations with coworkers IRL it's usually not a matter of work ethic but a lack of awareness of how their actions are being percieved and the burden they are placing on others. A mentor of mine had the same conversation with me when I was first starting out and it really stuck with me.  Knowing how to ask for help is as or even more important than knowing when to ask for help.

[SoCalEagle]

The Dodgers win back to back titles and we are now worried about a dynasty in LA? Where is this silliness coming from. The Dodgers are just one good team among a number of good teams currently in MLB. Nothing more, nothing less. If they start winning titles like the Yankees of the 1950s then you're on to something. We've got a long way to go before we get there: 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1956, 1958.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Pak & 82, I would argue that the Dodgers success is being used as a tool by the owners to drive the conversation for their selfish motivations. To me that is noise. It's an emotional appeal to try get people to support their side.

As for the rest, as I said,  the second meaningful question is "If yes, how?" I can't speak for everyone on this side of the debate but I think most are open to solutions besides a salary cap. And reasonable people know that any solution isn't going to completly level the paying field.  As Pak said, LA is always going to be more attractive than Cincy. But the right solutions could make it closer to even,  which I think would be a good thing.

[MU82]

While I think this would be nice, my guess is that the players will eventually agree to something that acts even more like a cap even though it isn't one - like a more punitive luxury tax system with a lack of salary deferrals. Maybe they will get something like a salary floor, increase in minimum salary and/or an extra arb year in return.

The players don't have nearly the leverage as they used to during their golden days. The owners are much wealthier and can wait out the PA for awhile. Especially since they likely will have the court of public opinion on their side.

Unfortunately, I have a feeling we're gonna get to find out how willing the owners are to wait out the players. Perhaps a solution like you discuss in your first paragraph will prevent a stoppage (or at least prevent a long one), but I'm not overly hopeful. It will be interesting to watch.

[Pakuni]

The Dodgers win back to back titles and we are now worried about a dynasty in LA? Where is this silliness coming from. The Dodgers are just one good team among a number of good teams currently in MLB. Nothing more, nothing less. If they start winning titles like the Yankees of the 1950s then you're on to something. We've got a long way to go before we get there: 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1956, 1958.

They've already won the 2026 World Series.