MLB 2025 Season

F Me In The Brain

I can totally understand why you take the position you do....but I'll still lump the Mets in with the other big spending teams.  
They are there.

I get why it is happening, just hold the opinion that it is not good for the league. 

Also, poor Mets fans should try being a fan of a team who doesn't spend money.  At least you have a chance to win consistently if you are run by a good organization.   Teams who don't spend need to be amazingly well run (Ray's, As) to be competitive with any level of consistency. 

Cliffy6745

F Me In The Brain said:

I can totally understand why you take the position you do....but I'll still lump the Mets in with the other big spending teams.  
They are there.

I get why it is happening, just hold the opinion that it is not good for the league. 

Also, poor Mets fans should try being a fan of a team who doesn't spend money.  At least you have a chance to win consistently if you are run by a good organization.   Teams who don't spend need to be amazingly well run (Ray's, As) to be competitive with any level of consistency. 

You know what's bad for the sport? Billionaire owners taking in tons of luxury tax money, TV contracts and not caring about winning. Every one of these franchises are worth billions, care about winning.  Truly don't understand how this is a Steve Cohen problem and not a problem with every shitty owner in the league

Paying players is good for baseball. 

F Me In The Brain

Cliffy6745 said:

F Me In The Brain said:

I can totally understand why you take the position you do....but I'll still lump the Mets in with the other big spending teams.  
They are there.

I get why it is happening, just hold the opinion that it is not good for the league. 

Also, poor Mets fans should try being a fan of a team who doesn't spend money.  At least you have a chance to win consistently if you are run by a good organization.   Teams who don't spend need to be amazingly well run (Ray's, As) to be competitive with any level of consistency. 

You know what's bad for the sport? Billionaire owners taking in tons of luxury tax money, TV contracts and not caring about winning. Every one of these franchises are worth billions, care about winning.  Truly don't understand how this is a Steve Cohen problem and not a problem with every shitty owner in the league

Paying players is good for baseball. 

I also understand this take from a Yanks fan.
I don't disagree with the overall logic.  (Don't hate the players (In this case, owners), hate the game.)

The only counter is that the league is not forcing the owners to pay or sell to someone who will.  
This is the problem.  

Lerxst1992

Cliffy6745 said:

F Me In The Brain said:

I can totally understand why you take the position you do....but I'll still lump the Mets in with the other big spending teams.  
They are there.

I get why it is happening, just hold the opinion that it is not good for the league. 

Also, poor Mets fans should try being a fan of a team who doesn't spend money.  At least you have a chance to win consistently if you are run by a good organization.   Teams who don't spend need to be amazingly well run (Ray's, As) to be competitive with any level of consistency. 

You know what's bad for the sport? Billionaire owners taking in tons of luxury tax money, TV contracts and not caring about winning. Every one of these franchises are worth billions, care about winning.  Truly don't understand how this is a Steve Cohen problem and not a problem with every shitty owner in the league

Paying players is good for baseball. 

It is, but I prefer the NFL balanced system. we as fans don’t get to write the rules. 

For most of my life, I’ve been a New Yorker rooting for small market teams (Mets and islanders). Not sure how fans in other cities can relate to that.  Over the last few years both teams were purchased by wealthier owners and the vibe of both teams have completely changed . It’s bizarre after so many years always looking at the yanks and rangers spending big money and their fans rubbing it in our faces, as always that they’re near the top of the standings. But here we are with new owners. I’d rather sports not be a capitalist competition but Donald Fehr never asked for my opinion

At least the MLB trying to redistribute excessive salaries to the other teams. Had Correa gone to SF, that wouldn’t happen.

MayDay10

F Me In The Brain said:

Cliffy6745 said:

F Me In The Brain said:

I can totally understand why you take the position you do....but I'll still lump the Mets in with the other big spending teams.  
They are there.

I get why it is happening, just hold the opinion that it is not good for the league. 

Also, poor Mets fans should try being a fan of a team who doesn't spend money.  At least you have a chance to win consistently if you are run by a good organization.   Teams who don't spend need to be amazingly well run (Ray's, As) to be competitive with any level of consistency. 

You know what's bad for the sport? Billionaire owners taking in tons of luxury tax money, TV contracts and not caring about winning. Every one of these franchises are worth billions, care about winning.  Truly don't understand how this is a Steve Cohen problem and not a problem with every shitty owner in the league

Paying players is good for baseball. 

I also understand this take from a Yanks fan.
I don't disagree with the overall logic.  (Don't hate the players (In this case, owners), hate the game.)

The only counter is that the league is not forcing the owners to pay or sell to someone who will.  
This is the problem.  

The other pro sports generally do a good job of opening the books a bit, sharing revenue, and creating a cap and a floor as a % linked to revenues.  This rewards good organizations including good drafting, development, and asset management.   It keeps the arms race under control, and also allows all teams a reasonable chance to keep their home grown star players.  6 or 7 teams soaking up all the star players guaranteeing $100s of millions of dollars in one swoop is not great for the long-term viability of the sport/league.  Couple that with the destruction of minor leagues and small-town baseball that means anything... baseball will be joining boxing and horse racing on the popularity scale in 50 years.

If you want to go full wild west, spend what you want... then scrap the whole thing and make the entire north american baseball universe a promotion/relegation system.

Cliffy6745

F Me In The Brain said:

Cliffy6745 said:

F Me In The Brain said:

I can totally understand why you take the position you do....but I'll still lump the Mets in with the other big spending teams.  
They are there.

I get why it is happening, just hold the opinion that it is not good for the league. 

Also, poor Mets fans should try being a fan of a team who doesn't spend money.  At least you have a chance to win consistently if you are run by a good organization.   Teams who don't spend need to be amazingly well run (Ray's, As) to be competitive with any level of consistency. 

You know what's bad for the sport? Billionaire owners taking in tons of luxury tax money, TV contracts and not caring about winning. Every one of these franchises are worth billions, care about winning.  Truly don't understand how this is a Steve Cohen problem and not a problem with every shitty owner in the league

Paying players is good for baseball. 

I also understand this take from a Yanks fan.
I don't disagree with the overall logic.  (Don't hate the players (In this case, owners), hate the game.)

The only counter is that the league is not forcing the owners to pay or sell to someone who will.  
This is the problem.  

Right, don't disagree with this either. At minimum, every luxury tax dollar should have to go to payroll with some base required.

Cliffy6745

MayDay10 said:

F Me In The Brain said:

Cliffy6745 said:

F Me In The Brain said:

I can totally understand why you take the position you do....but I'll still lump the Mets in with the other big spending teams.  
They are there.

I get why it is happening, just hold the opinion that it is not good for the league. 

Also, poor Mets fans should try being a fan of a team who doesn't spend money.  At least you have a chance to win consistently if you are run by a good organization.   Teams who don't spend need to be amazingly well run (Ray's, As) to be competitive with any level of consistency. 

You know what's bad for the sport? Billionaire owners taking in tons of luxury tax money, TV contracts and not caring about winning. Every one of these franchises are worth billions, care about winning.  Truly don't understand how this is a Steve Cohen problem and not a problem with every shitty owner in the league

Paying players is good for baseball. 

I also understand this take from a Yanks fan.
I don't disagree with the overall logic.  (Don't hate the players (In this case, owners), hate the game.)

The only counter is that the league is not forcing the owners to pay or sell to someone who will.  
This is the problem.  

The other pro sports generally do a good job of opening the books a bit, sharing revenue, and creating a cap and a floor as a % linked to revenues.  This rewards good organizations including good drafting, development, and asset management.   It keeps the arms race under control, and also allows all teams a reasonable chance to keep their home grown star players.  6 or 7 teams soaking up all the star players guaranteeing $100s of millions of dollars in one swoop is not great for the long-term viability of the sport/league.  Couple that with the destruction of minor leagues and small-town baseball that means anything... baseball will be joining boxing and horse racing on the popularity scale in 50 years.

If you want to go full wild west, spend what you want... then scrap the whole thing and make the entire north american baseball universe a promotion/relegation system.

I don't entirely disagree with this either, though I would much prefer the luxury tax to a hard cap.  Let teams go crazy, but it's going to hurt.  Cohen is going to have a luxury tax bill that's probably bigger than 20+ team's actual payrolls.  If a team is willing to take a hit like that, I don't have a problem with it.  I do like the idea of some sort of floor tied to revenue where it may not be the same for everyone.

And I'd also argue that big market teams being good is good for the overall popularity of the sport, though there is obviously a big regional impact to that too, but the Yankees (and Dodgers, Phillies, etc.) being good is good for baseball.

pjhawks

Cliffy6745 said:

F Me In The Brain said:

I can totally understand why you take the position you do....but I'll still lump the Mets in with the other big spending teams.  
They are there.

I get why it is happening, just hold the opinion that it is not good for the league. 

Also, poor Mets fans should try being a fan of a team who doesn't spend money.  At least you have a chance to win consistently if you are run by a good organization.   Teams who don't spend need to be amazingly well run (Ray's, As) to be competitive with any level of consistency. 

You know what's bad for the sport? Billionaire owners taking in tons of luxury tax money, TV contracts and not caring about winning. Every one of these franchises are worth billions, care about winning.  Truly don't understand how this is a Steve Cohen problem and not a problem with every shitty owner in the league

Paying players is good for baseball. 

This all sounds good in theory but the fact is plenty of small market teams don't get close to the revenues of the Yankees and other big market teams.  The Yankees local TV money dwarfs most other teams.  You just can't expect the Baltimore Orioles, Pittsburgh Pirates and Cincinnati Reds to be able to spend for contracts like the Yankees, Mets, Phillies (currently) and Dodgers do because they can't.   Let's be honest the luxury tax doesn't hurt those teams even a little bit.   That being said the Mets now have more money over the tax than some teams spend at all.  That to me is a problem as well. There should be a minimum cap.  You should have to spend to a certain low level.  

Again why would anyone be a fan of the Pirates, Reds or Orioles other than you grew up with those teams?  In today's climate they have barely above a zero percent chance to win a championship let alone a division.  I feel bad for those fan bases.  

Lerxst1992

F Me In The Brain said:

I can totally understand why you take the position you do....but I'll still lump the Mets in with the other big spending teams.  
They are there.

I get why it is happening, just hold the opinion that it is not good for the league. 

Also, poor Mets fans should try being a fan of a team who doesn't spend money.  At least you have a chance to win consistently if you are run by a good organization.   Teams who don't spend need to be amazingly well run (Ray's, As) to be competitive with any level of consistency. 

Sorry to reiterate, but I know what it’s like having teams not spend money. It’s key to not forget Cohen was subject to the same cross town pressure as all Met fans, he knew their ownership was a fraud, yet could do nothing about getting the Mets respectable. Not only that, Zelig PROTECTED prior ownership for years after we all learned these people were never worth what they thought they were.

the system, championed by Fehr, created the phenomenon we just witnessed, Cohen watching the Mets get outspent by half the league for decades, let alone to the greatest of them *NYY* all at chatted up to us at the diner table and everywhere else. But Cohen did not overspend this year. In fact, he was outspent for deGrom, and out offered for Correa. And none of his signings were above FMV. Most experts rate the Senga deal as far under value.

and, a lot of met fans on the island are islanders fans, also for decades at the bottom of the salary stat. But those four cups helped.

Lerxst1992

pjhawks said:

Cliffy6745 said:

F Me In The Brain said:

I can totally understand why you take the position you do....but I'll still lump the Mets in with the other big spending teams.  
They are there.

I get why it is happening, just hold the opinion that it is not good for the league. 

Also, poor Mets fans should try being a fan of a team who doesn't spend money.  At least you have a chance to win consistently if you are run by a good organization.   Teams who don't spend need to be amazingly well run (Ray's, As) to be competitive with any level of consistency. 

You know what's bad for the sport? Billionaire owners taking in tons of luxury tax money, TV contracts and not caring about winning. Every one of these franchises are worth billions, care about winning.  Truly don't understand how this is a Steve Cohen problem and not a problem with every shitty owner in the league

Paying players is good for baseball. 

This all sounds good in theory but the fact is plenty of small market teams don't get close to the revenues of the Yankees and other big market teams.  The Yankees local TV money dwarfs most other teams.  You just can't expect the Baltimore Orioles, Pittsburgh Pirates and Cincinnati Reds to be able to spend for contracts like the Yankees, Mets, Phillies (currently) and Dodgers do because they can't.   Let's be honest the luxury tax doesn't hurt those teams even a little bit.   That being said the Mets now have more money over the tax than some teams spend at all.  That to me is a problem as well. There should be a minimum cap.  You should have to spend to a certain low level.  

Again why would anyone be a fan of the Pirates, Reds or Orioles other than you grew up with those teams?  In today's climate they have barely above a zero percent chance to win a championship let alone a division.  I feel bad for those fan bases.  

The challenge is those three teams draw 17k a game, there just isn’t the revenue to support MLB. And can’t afford the chicken or egg which came first theory , the bottom line is 17k ain’t enough

Maybe it’s time to cut these teams home games by a quarter or third, and in the cold months, share the franchises with some Caribbean and/or SoAmerican cities. Builds excitement, international intrigue, and a way to try to sell some late winter travel ticket deals.

F Me In The Brain

Lerxst1992 said:

pjhawks said:

Cliffy6745 said:

F Me In The Brain said:

I can totally understand why you take the position you do....but I'll still lump the Mets in with the other big spending teams.  
They are there.

I get why it is happening, just hold the opinion that it is not good for the league. 

Also, poor Mets fans should try being a fan of a team who doesn't spend money.  At least you have a chance to win consistently if you are run by a good organization.   Teams who don't spend need to be amazingly well run (Ray's, As) to be competitive with any level of consistency. 

You know what's bad for the sport? Billionaire owners taking in tons of luxury tax money, TV contracts and not caring about winning. Every one of these franchises are worth billions, care about winning.  Truly don't understand how this is a Steve Cohen problem and not a problem with every shitty owner in the league

Paying players is good for baseball. 

This all sounds good in theory but the fact is plenty of small market teams don't get close to the revenues of the Yankees and other big market teams.  The Yankees local TV money dwarfs most other teams.  You just can't expect the Baltimore Orioles, Pittsburgh Pirates and Cincinnati Reds to be able to spend for contracts like the Yankees, Mets, Phillies (currently) and Dodgers do because they can't.   Let's be honest the luxury tax doesn't hurt those teams even a little bit.   That being said the Mets now have more money over the tax than some teams spend at all.  That to me is a problem as well. There should be a minimum cap.  You should have to spend to a certain low level.  

Again why would anyone be a fan of the Pirates, Reds or Orioles other than you grew up with those teams?  In today's climate they have barely above a zero percent chance to win a championship let alone a division.  I feel bad for those fan bases.  

The challenge is those three teams draw 17k a game, there just isn’t the revenue to support MLB. And can’t afford the chicken or egg which came first theory , the bottom line is 17k ain’t enough

Maybe it’s time to cut these teams home games by a quarter or third, and in the cold months, share the franchises with some Caribbean and/or SoAmerican cities. Builds excitement, international intrigue, and a way to try to sell some late winter travel ticket deals.

No way.  Those three cities support teams who are competitive.  Mlb needs to force baseline spending or team sale to owners who will meet the minimum.  

Tough to disagree more than I do with your plan and Mets focused rationale.   (One of the reasons I'm biased against the Mets is their fans....a number of whom I'm good friends with.  😉)

I'm glad you are excited for your current team and the big overspend.  It will be interesting for baseball to watch and see how these moves impact the sport and the season.
I'll be rooting for the Phils, Marlins, Nats, and Braves in the powerful NL East.  (In that order)*

*the rooting order was the same last year, and the years before ...has nothing to do with the overspend.


Reds had a huge signing this week -- 😆-  Wil Myers!
(Shakes head....)

MayDay10

Mlb owners/Manfred will have to decide if they want these smaller markets as a legitimate part of the league, or completely lap them and spend them into oblivion.

The NYC media market is what 8 million?  Then add in long Island and the northern westchester/Rockland areas, plus Northern NJ and Southern CT.  Does Cincinnati's total break a million?  Not to mention the coorporate dollars available in each market. 
They could sell that ballpark out every game and it wouldnt make a huge difference.

Outsourcing their games isn't the answer either.  I'd imagine their fan base and community would be insulted.  I'm sure lots of public dollars went into great American ballpark, and there are likely businesses around the venue that depend on game days.  They still wouldn't be able to make up ground with these huge media markets.

Baseball is largely a nostalgia sport.  Places like Pittsburgh and Cincinnati are important in the overall tapestry of mlb.  Red Stockings, honus Wagner, big red machine, clemente, mazeroski, Forbes and Crosley field.  If these teams just finish last every year without any hope to retain their stars and compete, the nostalgia and pride people have for their teams fade, apathy sets in.  Carry that too long and franchises end up in serious peril.

I do realize some of that is on the ownership of those teams, but it's a more difficult case to make with cohen's spending lately.  

Hard cap, floor, and revenue sharing.  

Poncier

pjhawks said:

Cliffy6745 said:

F Me In The Brain said:

I can totally understand why you take the position you do....but I'll still lump the Mets in with the other big spending teams.  
They are there.

I get why it is happening, just hold the opinion that it is not good for the league. 

Also, poor Mets fans should try being a fan of a team who doesn't spend money.  At least you have a chance to win consistently if you are run by a good organization.   Teams who don't spend need to be amazingly well run (Ray's, As) to be competitive with any level of consistency. 

You know what's bad for the sport? Billionaire owners taking in tons of luxury tax money, TV contracts and not caring about winning. Every one of these franchises are worth billions, care about winning.  Truly don't understand how this is a Steve Cohen problem and not a problem with every shitty owner in the league

Paying players is good for baseball. 

This all sounds good in theory but the fact is plenty of small market teams don't get close to the revenues of the Yankees and other big market teams.  The Yankees local TV money dwarfs most other teams.  You just can't expect the Baltimore Orioles, Pittsburgh Pirates and Cincinnati Reds to be able to spend for contracts like the Yankees, Mets, Phillies (currently) and Dodgers do because they can't.   Let's be honest the luxury tax doesn't hurt those teams even a little bit.   That being said the Mets now have more money over the tax than some teams spend at all.  That to me is a problem as well. There should be a minimum cap.  You should have to spend to a certain low level.  

Again why would anyone be a fan of the Pirates, Reds or Orioles other than you grew up with those teams?  In today's climate they have barely above a zero percent chance to win a championship let alone a division.  I feel bad for those fan bases.  

Add in the A's and you have 4 franchises that the advent of free agency (1976) has decimated.

Look at the World Series matchups from the 70's:

1970: BALTIMORE ORIOLES OVER CINCINNATI REDS IN 5 GAMES
1971: PITTSBURGH PIRATES OVER BALTIMORE ORIOLES IN 7 GAMES
1972: OAKLAND ATHLETICS OVER CINCINNATI REDS IN 7 GAMES
1973: OAKLAND ATHLETICS OVER NEW YORK METS IN 7 GAMES
1974: OAKLAND ATHLETICS OVER LOS ANGELES DODGERS IN 5 GAMES
1975: CINCINNATI REDS OVER BOSTON RED SOX IN 7 GAMES
1976: CINCINNATI REDS OVER NEW YORK YANKEES IN 4 GAMES
1977: NEW YORK YANKEES OVER LOS ANGELES DODGERS IN 6 GAMES
1978: NEW YORK YANKEES OVER LOS ANGELES DODGERS IN 6 GAMES
1979: PITTSBURGH PIRATES OVER BALTIMORE ORIOLES IN 7 GAMES

Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Ciny & Oakland are premier franchises at this point in history.

Wobbie

I think there’s no denying that huge FA signings might increase your CHANCES of winning it all but as I look at the 12 years since the original evil empire won a WS I see a lot of teams that came together at the right time either with young talent and/or key non-splashy acquisitions. My Giants had no superstars in 2010-2014, other than Buster Posey, who they had just drafted. They relied on great homegrown pitching and a total team “vibe.” In the past 12 years, I would say the only big spenders to win it all were the Cubs, BoSox and D*dgers (for the fraudulent 2020 mini WS). In a lot of cases, these big buck FA’s might have already peaked and may never replicate their early seasons again. I really like Judge, but I don’t expect him to ever have another 2022 year.

Off topic - I can’t understand why Votto never requested a trade. Maybe he likes making money with no pressure or expectations. It always seemed to me like Palmiero resisted going anywhere that “mattered.” It was more like, “let me compile numbers that don’t really matter at all.” Maybe Ohtani will feel the same, but…..I DON’T THINK SO!

MayDay10

Spending keeps your team highly competitive at least.  How many alds and alcs have the Yankees and dodgers been in?  Sometimes the bottom falls out and you get a challenger disaster season, but generally the highest payroll teams remain in the conversation and the entire season is engaging for their fans.

Lose 90-105 games for a decade, and things get pretty boring

Cliffy6745

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/35292038/how-decade-plus-mlb-megadeals-suddenly-became-thing

Wobbie

I still think tanking might be better than spending. See: cubs and astros.

Lerxst1992

F Me In The Brain said:

Lerxst1992 said:

pjhawks said:

Cliffy6745 said:

F Me In The Brain said:

I can totally understand why you take the position you do....but I'll still lump the Mets in with the other big spending teams.  
They are there.

I get why it is happening, just hold the opinion that it is not good for the league. 

Also, poor Mets fans should try being a fan of a team who doesn't spend money.  At least you have a chance to win consistently if you are run by a good organization.   Teams who don't spend need to be amazingly well run (Ray's, As) to be competitive with any level of consistency. 

You know what's bad for the sport? Billionaire owners taking in tons of luxury tax money, TV contracts and not caring about winning. Every one of these franchises are worth billions, care about winning.  Truly don't understand how this is a Steve Cohen problem and not a problem with every shitty owner in the league

Paying players is good for baseball. 

This all sounds good in theory but the fact is plenty of small market teams don't get close to the revenues of the Yankees and other big market teams.  The Yankees local TV money dwarfs most other teams.  You just can't expect the Baltimore Orioles, Pittsburgh Pirates and Cincinnati Reds to be able to spend for contracts like the Yankees, Mets, Phillies (currently) and Dodgers do because they can't.   Let's be honest the luxury tax doesn't hurt those teams even a little bit.   That being said the Mets now have more money over the tax than some teams spend at all.  That to me is a problem as well. There should be a minimum cap.  You should have to spend to a certain low level.  

Again why would anyone be a fan of the Pirates, Reds or Orioles other than you grew up with those teams?  In today's climate they have barely above a zero percent chance to win a championship let alone a division.  I feel bad for those fan bases.  

The challenge is those three teams draw 17k a game, there just isn’t the revenue to support MLB. And can’t afford the chicken or egg which came first theory , the bottom line is 17k ain’t enough

Maybe it’s time to cut these teams home games by a quarter or third, and in the cold months, share the franchises with some Caribbean and/or SoAmerican cities. Builds excitement, international intrigue, and a way to try to sell some late winter travel ticket deals.

No way.  Those three cities support teams who are competitive.  Mlb needs to force baseline spending or team sale to owners who will meet the minimum.  

Tough to disagree more than I do with your plan and Mets focused rationale.   (One of the reasons I'm biased against the Mets is their fans....a number of whom I'm good friends with.  😉)

I'm glad you are excited for your current team and the big overspend.  It will be interesting for baseball to watch and see how these moves impact the sport and the season.
I'll be rooting for the Phils, Marlins, Nats, and Braves in the powerful NL East.  (In that order)*

*the rooting order was the same last year, and the years before ...has nothing to do with the overspend.


Reds had a huge signing this week -- 😆-  Wil Myers!
(Shakes head....)

So your NL East rooting order starts with the Phils, projected to be a big payroll top five spend, then goes to marlins and nats whose fans got to experience championships quickly  without suffering through the long term low salaried poor teams met fans endured for 35+ years, and ends with the Braves, who feature embarrassing  anti Native American chants at their games.

Yeah, let’s go after the poor metsies and their long suffering fan base

F Me In The Brain

Lerxst1992 said:

F Me In The Brain said:

Lerxst1992 said:

pjhawks said:

Cliffy6745 said:

F Me In The Brain said:

I can totally understand why you take the position you do....but I'll still lump the Mets in with the other big spending teams.  
They are there.

I get why it is happening, just hold the opinion that it is not good for the league. 

Also, poor Mets fans should try being a fan of a team who doesn't spend money.  At least you have a chance to win consistently if you are run by a good organization.   Teams who don't spend need to be amazingly well run (Ray's, As) to be competitive with any level of consistency. 

You know what's bad for the sport? Billionaire owners taking in tons of luxury tax money, TV contracts and not caring about winning. Every one of these franchises are worth billions, care about winning.  Truly don't understand how this is a Steve Cohen problem and not a problem with every shitty owner in the league

Paying players is good for baseball. 

This all sounds good in theory but the fact is plenty of small market teams don't get close to the revenues of the Yankees and other big market teams.  The Yankees local TV money dwarfs most other teams.  You just can't expect the Baltimore Orioles, Pittsburgh Pirates and Cincinnati Reds to be able to spend for contracts like the Yankees, Mets, Phillies (currently) and Dodgers do because they can't.   Let's be honest the luxury tax doesn't hurt those teams even a little bit.   That being said the Mets now have more money over the tax than some teams spend at all.  That to me is a problem as well. There should be a minimum cap.  You should have to spend to a certain low level.  

Again why would anyone be a fan of the Pirates, Reds or Orioles other than you grew up with those teams?  In today's climate they have barely above a zero percent chance to win a championship let alone a division.  I feel bad for those fan bases.  

The challenge is those three teams draw 17k a game, there just isn’t the revenue to support MLB. And can’t afford the chicken or egg which came first theory , the bottom line is 17k ain’t enough

Maybe it’s time to cut these teams home games by a quarter or third, and in the cold months, share the franchises with some Caribbean and/or SoAmerican cities. Builds excitement, international intrigue, and a way to try to sell some late winter travel ticket deals.

No way.  Those three cities support teams who are competitive.  Mlb needs to force baseline spending or team sale to owners who will meet the minimum.  

Tough to disagree more than I do with your plan and Mets focused rationale.   (One of the reasons I'm biased against the Mets is their fans....a number of whom I'm good friends with.  😉)

I'm glad you are excited for your current team and the big overspend.  It will be interesting for baseball to watch and see how these moves impact the sport and the season.
I'll be rooting for the Phils, Marlins, Nats, and Braves in the powerful NL East.  (In that order)*

*the rooting order was the same last year, and the years before ...has nothing to do with the overspend.


Reds had a huge signing this week -- 😆-  Wil Myers!
(Shakes head....)

So your NL East rooting order starts with the Phils, projected to be a big payroll top five spend, then goes to marlins and nats whose fans got to experience championships quickly  without suffering through the long term low salaried poor teams met fans endured for 35+ years, and ends with the Braves, who feature embarrassing  anti Native American chants at their games.

Yeah, let’s go after the poor metsies and their long suffering fan base

Yep!

eeriepadave

Kimbrell and the Phillies agree to a one year deal