MLB's salary cap proposal gives the league's worst owners exactly what they want

MLB and its owners have made no secret about their desire to institute a salary cap for over a year now. On Thursday, they finally put it in writing — and showed us just how they'd like that cap to operate.

According to Evan Drellich of The Athletic, said cap would be set at just over $245 million. The salary floor, meanwhile, would come in at just over $171 million. On the surface, at least, that last number in particular feels significant; ask a fan of the Miami Marlins or Pittsburgh Pirates just how badly they'd like their team to spend at least that much money on salary in a given season.

Don't get it twisted, though: While Rob Manfred and Co. may insist this is all for the good of the game, an attempt to restore balance to a broken system, it's really little more than a hostage situation in which a handful of cheap (yet mega-rich) owners stamp their feet until they get what they want.

Everything to know about MLB's new salary cap proposal

A $245.3 million salary cap would be a significant trim. Fully 10 teams — a third of the league — are running payrolls north of that amount this season, including five above $315 million.

• Dodgers ($418 million)
• Mets ($383 million)
• Yankees ($335 million)
• Blue Jays ($322 million)
• Phillies ($315 million)
• Red Sox ($263 million)
• Padres ($259 million)
• Braves ($249 million)
• Tigers ($246 million)
• Cubs ($245.5 million)

While the bottom end of that range wouldn't need to do too much cutting in order to duck under a $245.3 million hard cap, teams like the Dodgers, Mets, Yankees and Blue Jays would find themselves in a real bind, especially considering the outlays they've made in free agency in recent years under the old economic system.

Of course, there is a flip side to that coin. A dozen teams are currently below the $171.2 million salary floor, including six below $120 million.

• Reds ($150 million)
• Rockies ($144 million)
• Athletics ($142 million)
• Pirates ($140 million)
• Brewers ($138 million)
• Twins ($128 million)
• Nationals ($119 million)
• Cardinals ($115 million)
• White Sox ($113 million)
• Rays ($111 million)
• Guardians ($98 million)
• Marlins ($81 million)

In order to make that math work, MLB is proposing a dramatic restructuring of its current business model. Under this proposal, all of the league's revenue — every dollar earned by all 30 teams — would be centralized and then divided evenly; no longer would the Yankees or Dodgers get to benefit disproportionately from a massive local TV deal or a financial unicorn like Shohei Ohtani. And 50 percent of all revenue would be split with the players, a number similar to the NBA's arrangement. Aas revenue goes up, so too would the salary cap, and so too would players' overall portion of the pie.

On its face, that might sound sensible enough. Even as a Yankees fan myself, I'm certainly not here to convince the average fan to have sympathy for New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and the league's other major markets. But in reality, the only real winners here are the league's cheapest owners, who refused to play ball and would now be set to reap the rewards.

MLB's small-market owners held the league hostage — and will get exactly what they want out of it

It certainly doesn't seem like the union is interested in what the league is selling.

"For generations, our members have fought against cap systems because they harm players at all levels, erode or eliminate contractual guarantees, lead to more work stoppages, not less, and get worse for players over time," MLBPA interim director Bruce Meyer said in a statement. "Billionaire owners are not seeking to cap their profits or asset values, only player salaries. This isn't out of generosity or a desire to protect the game's well-being. It's a play to control costs, increase profits and maximize franchise values — all at the expense of players past, present and future."

Wherever you fall in this debate, what's inarguably true is that the league's smallest markets have the most to gain under a cap system. Or, more accurately, the owners in the league's smallest markets — because really, that's what we're talking about here. You can look at that salary floor and rejoice, but the reality is that said money is simply coming out of the rest of the league's pockets. The likes of the Marlins, Guardians and Rays have their lives made easier without sacrificing a thing, all while their franchise valuations skyrocket (as is always the case under capped systems; Wall Street loves nothing more than cost control).

And really, what have they done to deserve that? Spend below their means for years on end? The fact of the matter is that, payroll disparity aside, MLB does not have a competitive-balance problem; just look at the current playoff picture, which features everyone from Tampa to Cleveland to Sacramento to Milwaukee to Minnesota. Now their competition has been artificially curtailed, and players are made to sacrifice, all without any real incentive to change their behavior. If you want to fix what's broken in baseball — to the extent that anything is broken at all — you can start there.

Add us as a preferred source on Google

Follow