Does MLB need to be saved? It looks like Manfred's reforms have made the game more entertaining, increased TV ratings, and, importantly, decreased the average age of MLB fans. Could MLB be better? Yeah probably.
I've been thinking about the question of
what should fans want in the upcoming MLB labor dispute. Obviously fans aren't at the bargaining table and anything that comes out of the process must presumably be something that either owners or players would want. But what should we be cheering for as generally in the interests of baseball?
- No disruption. No lockout, no strike, no risk of missed games. It seems owners are committed to a lockout and Manfred made some statement to the effect that lockouts will be the new normal: this is very bad. Lockouts and strikes should not be Plan A for either side, this is the sign of a dysfunctional labor relations program.
- It should be easy - ideally easier - for franchises of both small and large markets to build entertaining, winning teams. Don't restrict the ability of teams like the Dodgers to sign everyone, but make it easier for less spendy teams to build through the draft.
- 21st century access to games. Come on man, we just want to be able to watch any team we want - including our home team - from any device. We've had the technology for like a decade now.
I was expecting to have more things on there, but I think our interests can be expressed as "competitive games between entertaining teams, and the ability to watch them."
Personally, I am skeptical of both a salary cap and a salary floor. I don't think capping the Dodgers at 200 million is going to make the Nationals or the Pirates that much better. I don't think that forcing the Pirates to spend an extra $20 million is going to make them meaningfully better. I would be willing to grant the players a salary floor in exchange for something else of value.
If you remember the 2021 MLB labor crisis, a major issue was that teams didn't value 30+ year old FAs as much as they used to. At that time, the market for older FAs was collapsing. The players wanted to adjust to this new reality by starting free agency a year early. I think this would be absolutely devastating to small market teams that develop through the draft, it's one of the worst things you could do for parity. I wonder actually if we could do the opposite: give teams an extra year of control in exchange for starting arbitration earlier. Sounds totally unacceptable to players but I bet you could make the math work. Probably you'd have to limit the ability of teams to non-tender. Or do what the NBA does and give the team that drafted a new FA a huge advantage in signing them.
