2026 MLB Thread

[Pakuni]

The idiot NFL and NBA players along with their flunky attorneys fell for it.

Well, yeah, they did.
NFLPA has always been weak. I mean, it's 2026 and they still don't have fully guaranteed contracts ... 40 years after MLB contracts became guaranteed. NFL players didn't get free agency until 1993, more than 20 years after the Curt Flood case. And even now, thanks to franchise and transition tags, they still don't have full free agency.

The 1982 strike ended with players returning without having any of their demands met.
The 1987 strike ended after about 250 players crossed the picket line to play alongside scabs.

As for the NBA players, how'd they feel about the league clawing back $500 million in their salaries last year?

Why the NFLPA doesn't hire Scoopers to negotiate is a mystery. Oh, wait, I know, they're dumb jocks.

They probably couldn't do worse, tbh.

A question for you ... what evidence can you point to that shows MLB would have substantially more competitive balance with a hard cap?

[MU82]

Not reading into anything. I'm just amused by how wacky baseball can be.

This past Monday, the Mariners were 2.5 games out of first place. They now have a 2.5-game lead.

Amazing what a 6-game winning streak can do for a team in a lousy division!

[WhiteTrash]

Well, yeah, they did.
NFLPA has always been weak. I mean, it's 2026 and they still don't have fully guaranteed contracts ... 40 years after MLB contracts became guaranteed. NFL players didn't get free agency until 1993, more than 20 years after the Curt Flood case. And even now, thanks to franchise and transition tags, they still don't have full free agency.

The 1982 strike ended with players returning without having any of their demands met.
The 1987 strike ended after about 250 players crossed the picket line to play alongside scabs.

As for the NBA players, how'd they feel about the league clawing back $500 million in their salaries last year?


They probably couldn't do worse, tbh.

A question for you ... what evidence can you point to that shows MLB would have substantially more competitive balance with a hard cap?

In a previous post I said I don't care if there is a cap if it doesn't create competitive balance. I said if the players will never accept any cap then the owners should keep their money and move on without a cap.

I can see the logic behind a cap creating more balance, but I don't know it to be true.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

This past Monday, the Mariners were 2.5 games out of first place. They now have a 2.5-game lead.

Amazing what a 6-game winning streak can do for a team in a lousy division!

Again,  i think you think i was making a comment on something I wasn't. I was simply amused by the standings at the time. It really went no deeper than that.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

A question for you ... what evidence can you point to that shows MLB would have substantially more competitive balance with a hard cap?

...common sense?

What evidence can you point to that shows that it wouldn't?

[Pakuni]

...common sense?

What evidence can you point to that shows that it wouldn't?

Actual results?
Over the past 20 seasons:

21 different teams have appeared in the World Series.
15 different teams have appeared in the NBA Finals.
19 different teams have appeared in the Super Bowl.
23 different teams have appeared in the Stanley Cup Final.

Common sense notwithstanding, the lack of a cap hasn't made it less likely for MLB teams to reach their league's final series than teams in capped leagues. In fact, the first league with a cap, the NBA, has proven to be the least competitively balanced.

But what about different champions, you ask?

MLB - 13
NBA - 11 or 12, depending on this year
NFL - 13
NHL - 13 or 14, depending on this year

Again, no real difference.

[WhiteTrash]

Actual results?
Over the past 20 seasons:

21 different teams have appeared in the World Series.
15 different teams have appeared in the NBA Finals.
19 different teams have appeared in the Super Bowl.
23 different teams have appeared in the Stanley Cup Final.

Common sense notwithstanding, the lack of a cap hasn't made it less likely for MLB teams to reach their league's final series than teams in capped leagues. In fact, the first league with a cap, the NBA, has proven to be the least competitively balanced.

But what about different champions, you ask?

MLB - 13
NBA - 11 or 12, depending on this year
NFL - 13
NHL - 13 or 14, depending on this year

Again, no real difference.

Awfully compelling data against the cap = competitive balance argument.

Awfully compelling data against paying top dollars for talent.

The players better hope the owners don't get more disciplined in spending.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Actual results?
Over the past 20 seasons:

21 different teams have appeared in the World Series.
15 different teams have appeared in the NBA Finals.
19 different teams have appeared in the Super Bowl.
23 different teams have appeared in the Stanley Cup Final.

Common sense notwithstanding, the lack of a cap hasn't made it less likely for MLB teams to reach their league's final series than teams in capped league. In fact, the first league with a cap, the NBA, has proven to be the least competitively balanced.

But what about different champions, you ask?

MLB - 13
NBA - 11 or 12, depending on this year
NFL - 13
NHL - 13 or 14, depending on this year

Again, no real difference.

What does that have to do with anything?

Is having a larger payroll an advantage or a disadvantage? It's unquestionably an advantage.
A salary cap/floor mitigates that advantage, making things more competively balanced.

I don't care about how many teams make a world series. I care that every team is on relatively equal footing so that the teams make it to the world series make it there because they have quality coaching, development, scouting, front offices, and play on the field. Not because they have access to more money.

Also, I think a better way to examine the impact of a salary cap is not by comparing completely separate sports, but rather looking at how a single sport changed after the introduction of a salary cap. Take the NBA:

1960-1985 (25 years before the introduction of a salary cap): 12 different franchises made the title game, with 9 different champions (all by large market teams except 2 appearances by MIL and one by POR)

1986-2011 (Original salary cap era): 18 different franchises made the title game, with 8 different champions (Included several small market teams such as SA, POR, Utah, NJ, CLE, ORL)

2012-2023 (Incremental Luxury Tax era): 11 different franchises (in 12 years) made the title game, with 8 different champions

2024-2026 (Second apron era): 6 different franchise made the title game (100%) with 3 different champions

Again, I care about competitive balance, not parity of championship appearances. But it appears the introduction of salary cap (and subsequent tweaks of the salary cap) increased both in the NBA.

[MU82]

The Royals, Nationals and Cardinals have won World Series more recently than the Yankees have and much more recently than the Mets or Blue Jays have.

Again ... fun convo ... but there won't be a salary cap.

[Pakuni]

What does that have to do with anything?

Is having a larger payroll an advantage or a disadvantage? It's unquestionably an advantage.
A salary cap/floor mitigates that advantage, making things more competively balanced.

I don't care about how many teams make a world series. I care that every team is on relatively equal footing so that the teams make it to the world series make it there because they have quality coaching, development, scouting, front offices, and play on the field. Not because they have access to more money.

Also, I think a better way to examine the impact of a salary cap is not by comparing completely separate sports, but rather looking at how a single sport changed after the introduction of a salary cap. Take the NBA:

1960-1985 (25 years before the introduction of a salary cap): 12 different franchises made the title game, with 9 different champions (all by large market teams except 2 appearances by MIL and one by POR)

1986-2011 (Original salary cap era): 18 different franchises made the title game, with 8 different champions (Included several small market teams such as SA, POR, Utah, NJ, CLE, ORL)

2012-2023 (Incremental Luxury Tax era): 11 different franchises (in 12 years) made the title game, with 8 different champions

2024-2026 (Second apron era): 6 different franchise made the title game (100%) with 3 different champions

Again, I care about competitive balance, not parity of championship appearances. But it appears the introduction of salary cap (and subsequent tweaks of the salary cap) increased both in the NBA.

What does making championship appearances have to do with anything? Some would say that's kind of the point of playing the game and the ultimate measure of success.
If not championships/championship appearances, how do you define competitive balance? Or are you simply using "competitive balance" as a synonym for "equal payroll?

With all due respect, your NBA examination here is kind of meaningless when you fail to account for expansion. Of course fewer teams made championship appearances when there were a dozen (or more) fewer teams in the league, as was the case for most of the pre-cap era. I mean, between 1942 and 1967, only six teams ever appeared in a Stanley Cup Final. Talk about a competitive imbalance!


You say:
"I don't care about how many teams make a world series. I care that every team is on relatively equal footing so that the teams make it to the world series make it there because they have quality coaching, development, scouting, front offices, and play on the field. Not because they have access to more money."

Do you not understand that wealthier teams have more access to quality coaching, development, scouting and front offices than poorer teams? And those advantages would only increase in a capped world? High revenue teams would simply shift more resources to those aspects of their operations, leading to better outcomes, whereas low-revenue clubs would be forced to shift resources away from those areas in order to meet the salary floor.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

What does making championship appearances have to do with anything? Some would say that's kind of the point of playing the game and the ultimate measure of success.
If not championships/championship appearances, how do you define competitive balance? Or are you simply using "competitive balance" as a synonym for "equal payroll?

With all due respect, your NBA examination here is kind of meaningless when you fail to account for expansion. Of course fewer teams made championship appearances when there were a dozen (or more) fewer teams in the league, as was the case for most of the pre-cap era. I mean, between 1942 and 1967, only six teams ever appeared in a Stanley Cup Final. Talk about a competitive imbalance!


You say:
"I don't care about how many teams make a world series. I care that every team is on relatively equal footing so that the teams make it to the world series make it there because they have quality coaching, development, scouting, front offices, and play on the field. Not because they have access to more money."

Do you not understand that wealthier teams have more access to quality coaching, development, scouting and front offices than poorer teams? And those advantages would only increase in a capped world? High revenue teams would simply shift more resources to those aspects of their operations, leading to better outcomes, whereas low-revenue clubs would be forced to shift resources away from those areas in order to meet the salary floor.

In coin flipping, there is perfect competitive balance. Despite that, if you flip a coin 20 times, you may get 10 heads and 10 tails, but there's a good chance you could get a different result. It doesn't mean the game doesn't have competitive balance, it means that even with perfect balance the results can be different. Competitive balance is controlling the controllables to try to put every team on as equal footing as possible (because true equality is impossible in sports). It's not a synonym for equal payroll, but payroll is the most impactful controllable that's currently uncontrolled by the MLB.

Your point about expansion is very fair, but that's why I included the later eras. The incremental luxury tax clearly increased parity of results in the NBA. It's a small sample size but the second apron seems to have had a similar impact. I'm a basketball/baseball fan and know a lot less about football and hockey. I'm curious if they have similar results.

Your last paragraph is one of the best arguments I've heard against a salary cap. Personally, I believe (could very well be wrong) that you hit the point of diminishing returns a lot quicker when spending on coaching, development, etc than you do when spending on payroll.

[Pakuni]

In coin flipping, there is perfect competitive balance. Despite that, if you flip a coin 20 times, you may get 10 heads and 10 tails, but there's a good chance you could get a different result. It doesn't mean the game doesn't have competitive balance, it means that even with perfect balance the results can be different. Competitive balance is controlling the controllables to try to put every team on as equal footing as possible (because true equality is impossible in sports). It's not a synonym for equal payroll, but payroll is the most impactful controllable that's currently uncontrolled by the MLB.

I don't disagree that having a higher payroll can increase a team's chances of success, and I'm not really opposed to a salary cap. I just don't see it as the great equalizer it's being billed as. Nor do I believe it's the lone route to a fairer playing field.
As we've seen in capped leagues, dominant franchises continue to exist, as do perennial losers.
And as we've seen in MLB, high payrolls aren't a guarantee of success (looking at you, Mets) and low payrolls aren't a barrier to it.

A former GM/longtime front-office guy did a Twitter thread on this recently that sums up my thoughts pretty well. Cliff's notes version ... payroll is an important, but not a determinative, factor in winning.

https://x.com/ZackScottSports/status/2060097463084560586?s=20

[Uncle Rico]

Can always count on White Trash to defend the poor owners

[The Sultan]

Owners want a hard cap because it:

1. Artificially depresses wages.
2. Greatly reduces their financial exposure (Down year for revenues? Just take some of the players' money from escrow).
3. Provides cost certainty, which enhances franchise values.
4. Provides the illusion of competitive balance.




67. Actually creates competitive balance.

I think it's pretty silly to claim that a salary cap wouldn't actually create competitive balance. I don't think it's the panacea that others do, but a cap and floor model would definitely make it more competitive than what we have seen. There is a pretty strong correlation between payroll and winning.

[MU82]

Yeah, I'm not against a cap. It could even do most of what its big proponents say it could do in regards to improving "competitive balance."

However, in addition to agreeing with those who say a salary cap probably wouldn't be a panacea, I'm among the realistic many who simply don't think these CBA negotiations are gonna produce a salary cap.

But that's OK. This is a fan board, and we like to debate the return of Marquette football, too.