A Dream or a Nightmare?

By so many accounts, this is a dream World Series.  The two best teams in baseball, both representing small markets.  Two of the most exciting young stars in baseball (who both share my initials), Jackson Chourio and Junior Caminero.  Two teams that are just fun to watch play.  A guaranteed first-time champion for the first time since 1980. 

For MLB and its owners, however, a Brewers-Rays World Series was the last thing they wanted.  For all that talk about the big, bad Dodgers, they sure didn't mind the ratings that they generated for the last two World Series.  That's been replaced by consternation and wondering if anyone will watch.  In fact, they're running thru doomsday scenarios that this could replace Texas-Arizona from 2023 as the lowest-rated World Series in history.

Mostly, though, the owners don't like this World Series because it exposed their argument for why they "need" a salary cap and why they "need" a lockout in order to get one for what it is.  A fraud.  They've spent months screaming "competitive balance" as their reason to anyone who'll listen.  The sad thing is so many people are buying it, despite it being patently untrue.  Well, that argument is a lot harder to make when you have the 19th-highest payroll playing the 28th-highest payroll in the World Series.

Good luck convincing people that teams like the Brewers and Rays can't compete for a championship.  Because the fact that they're both competitive every year apparently wasn't already enough proof of that.  Or the fact that they're far from the only small market teams who are regular playoff contenders.  Or the fact that spending doesn't guarantee you anything.  Just ask the Yankees (0 World Series titles, 1 appearance in the last 10 years).  Or the Red Sox (1 title).  Or the Mets (0 titles, 0 appearances, 1 NLCS).

Major League Baseball doesn't have a competitive balance problem.  That's just a convenient excuse the owners are using because they feel it's the one that'll get people on their side.  It's just like a political campaign in that way.  Never mind the fact that it isn't true.  But, why should they let a little thing like the truth get in the way when it contradicts their narrative?

The "poor" owners want you to believe they're losing so much money on their teams that a salary tax is the only thing that will prevent that.  That isn't even close to true.  The Orioles' owner has even admitted it.  He mentioned how he makes more money from owning the team than he did in private equity.  And, let's not forget, the small-market Padres just sold for $3.9 billion.  That's billion.  With a B. 

People who are on the owners' side of the upcoming lockout don't even realize they're contradicting their entire argument when they say why they think the owners will ultimately get their salary cap.  The reason they're so convinced the players will cave is because the owners have enough money to hold out longer.  Wait, I'm confused.  I thought the owners were losing money and that's why they "needed" a lockout?  So, which is it?  Do they need a lockout because they're losing money or do they have enough that they can endure one longer than the "greedy" players can?

Meanwhile, it didn't take this World Series matchup to expose the "competitive balance" argument as a myth.  Uh oh, here come those pesky facts again.  In the five seasons since MLB adopted the current playoff format of six teams per league, 24 different teams have made the postseason at least once.  Whoever wins the World Series will be the fourth different champion during that span.  Nine different teams have made the World Series.  That sounds like pretty good balance to me.

I love it when people try to compare MLB's "lack of competitive balance" to other sports, particularly the three other North American men's major leagues, all of which have salary caps.  Baseball has fewer teams make the playoffs, yet has had nearly as many of its franchises (24) reach the postseason in the last five years than the NFL (28), which has seven, or the NHL (28), which has eight.  It's the NFL that's given us Kansas City or New England in nine of the last 10 Super Bowls, and the NBA had eight consecutive Finals featuring LeBron (four in a row of which were Cleveland vs. Golden State).  How exactly is that competitive balance?

Why do people think there's so much more competitive balance in the capped sports?  It really is amusing to hear that argument.  The same teams make the playoffs every year in the NFL, NBA and NHL.  The Sabres snapped a 14-year playoff drought last season.  The Jets haven't made it since 2011.  You know who has the longest playoff drought in MLB?  The Angels, who last made it in 2014.  The big-market Angels.

It's obviously because of the Dodgers' and Mets' spending that fans bring up the salary cap issue, but how exactly is it the Dodgers and Mets fault that other teams choose not to spend?  This isn't a large market vs. small market economics question.  The Dodgers and Mets pay their luxury tax penalties, which then go into the revenue sharing pool that is distributed evenly to all 30 teams.  They're paying teams like the Marlins and Guardians to simply exist.  The fact that the owners of those teams choose to pocket the money rather than investing it in their club is the real problem.

And I also love it how some of those same people think the Dodgers' ability to sign any free agent they want is what makes them good.  It helps.  I won't deny that.  But it isn't the only reason.  They also have a shrewd front office that's excellent at scouting, drafting and developing players.  That's how you stay consistently good.  Just ask the Rays and Brewers about that.  (And does anyone doubt that the Dodgers will still figure out a way to consistently be one of the best teams even if a cap is put in place?  Whatever the system is, they'll find a way to adjust and be successful.)

If anything, Tampa Bay and Milwaukee have shown small market teams exactly what they should do.  The Rays and Brewers are great at evaluating young talent, and they've both locked up their young stars to long-term deals before they even hit free agency.  They've figured it out.  Other small market teams should take notice.  Because there's no reason they can't also do the same thing.  Anthony Rizzo is actually worried about that exact possibility.  He's worried about this World Series because he thinks it'll lead to more owners deciding they can win with a cheaper, younger roster, which will result in less spending, which will hurt the players as a whole.

Will this World Series matchup change either side's position heading into the CBA negotiations?  No.  The owners are still hellbent on trying to push forward a salary cap.  The idea of a cap is still a nonstarter for the players.  But the owners really might need to start rethinking theirs (or at least their messaging).  Because, as this postseason has proven, there's nothing wrong with Baseball the way it is right now.