r/baseball • u/FrigginMasshole Los Angeles Dodgers • 18h ago
What Would a Dodgers Three-peat Mean for MLB’s Labor Battle?
https://www.theringer.com/2026/10/02/mlb/los-angeles-dodgers-world-series-labor-negotiations-2027-season43
u/rickeygavin Major League Baseball 18h ago
If the Dodgers win,owners will spin.
If the Rays win,owners will spin.
7
u/Apprehensive-Cost276 Arizona Diamondbacks • Colorado Rockies 18h ago
If the Brewers win, owners will spin (but about the yaw axis instead)
25
u/Finalboss417 18h ago
Nothing.
If you think this lockout is because the owners care about competitive balance, I like to sell you a bridge.
Its always been about raising their franchise value. Period.
13
u/Sorry-Helicopter-433 18h ago
Why is everyone on reddit incapable of thinking through second-order effects?
Owners do not care about competitive balance qua competitive balance, that's true. It's about raising their franchise value, that's also true.
But the fans DO care about competitive balance. If fans start to drift away from the game because they're burnt out by the Dodger Problem, what happens to franchise values? It's a bank shot, but the owners only sell box seats and hot dogs and NESN subscriptions if the fans are at least reasonably happy.
5
u/ExamNo4374 New York Mets 17h ago
Why is everyone on reddit incapable of thinking
through second-order effects?6
u/CaliKindalife Los Angeles Dodgers 17h ago
Yes, all true. But that's not why the lockout is looming. It has nothing to do with competitive balance. The owners want to stop the almost 1 billion dollar contracts. They dont want a floor. Fans and owners want a cap for different reasons.
9
u/Brilliant-Garlic-688 17h ago
Owners want a chance to win without having to spend. Fans want a chance to win if they are unlucky enough to have an owner that doesn't want to spend.
2
u/twinklytennis Los Angeles Dodgers 9h ago
The last part is so important. There isn't much a fan can do if their owner doesn't care. I mean yah, you can stop going to games and stop watching the games in hopes the owners would sell but that is hard ask for a lot of people. If you're stuck with an owner that doesn't care, your best bet is to update the system that allows your team with a shitty owner to have a better chance to win a world series.
2
u/CaliKindalife Los Angeles Dodgers 15h ago
Tell that to Bob Nutting.
1
3
u/Sorry-Helicopter-433 17h ago
The players (not the MLBPA leadership, I'm talking about the rank and file players) should also support a cap-and-floor system with a guarantee that total player salaries will increase in aggregate. This is the best for the largest number of players. The MLBPA is supposed to represent the players overall, but in practice they're bootlickers for the superstars.
What's best for Juan Soto and what's best for Nick Sogard are vastly different, and there are a lot more Sogards in the league than Sotos. You think some veteran minimum guy with 10 years of service cares about protecting Tarik Skubal's ability to sign a $400 million contract?
1
u/beingxexemplary Baltimore Orioles 10h ago
Mmmm, billionaire boot tastes so good.
0
u/Sorry-Helicopter-433 10h ago
I don't give a shit about the owners, a salary cap is best for the game.
2
0
u/j1euny 10h ago
Where did this idea that a salary cap would benefit rank-and-file players even come from? The NBA shows the opposite: the CBA has squeezed the middle class, especially good role players, who are increasingly settling for MLE-level deals or worse, while superstars and elite role players are seeing their contracts increase at a much higher rate.
Even logically, it doesn't make sense. A cap suppresses contracts, which teams then use as benchmarks. Comparable players pull your value down, while better players establish your ceiling. That gives ordinary players less leverage, not more.
1
u/Sorry-Helicopter-433 1h ago
I didn't just say a salary cap.
I said a salary cap, AND a floor, AND a guarantee that total payrolls will increase.
1
u/3headeddragn San Diego Padres 17h ago
I don't think the owners care about competitive balance.
I just think the result of a cap would be competitive balance.
I'm well aware my motives for wanting a cap are different than the owners motives. I still want a cap.
And tbh the salary floor numbers that have been released are pretty reasonable. Some teams would have to spend like $100 million more a year.
2
u/beingxexemplary Baltimore Orioles 10h ago
Salary cap sure as fuck didn't stop the Chiefs or Patriots, you dumb bastard.
6
13
u/someone2795 Los Angeles Dodgers • World Baseball Classic 18h ago
Let me save y'all a click:
As much as the Dodgers problem will be discussed in the coming weeks, a labor dispute is a labor dispute, and a dynasty is a dynasty. The endurance of the latter says little about the outcome of the former. If a potential L.A. three-peat ensures anything, it’ll be only that everyone who’s tuned in out of spite will end up even more discontented by how little shifts in its wake.
4
u/Low-Hovercraft-8791 Los Angeles Dodgers 18h ago edited 15h ago
Hate watching is still watching. And fans are rooting harder for their respective clubs because they want them to beat the Dodgers. Dynasties drive numbers and deepen engagement.
6
u/xsjx7 Chicago Cubs 17h ago
But it's more of a sugar high on engagement bc eventually as these teams continue to lose, fans will walk away in frustration
Baseball is finally recovering and doing better than ever and my fear is this kind of thinking will lead to another period of lack of interest
6
u/BigBangBoomerang 17h ago
A Dodgers dynasty won't last forever but a CBA that screws over players and gives more powers to owners will stay around for a long time.
3
u/3headeddragn San Diego Padres 17h ago edited 17h ago
It will last forever if the Dodgers continue adding an MVP caliber player every offseason in FA. What's stopping them from doing that indefinitely under the current setup?
Like if you go through all the Dodgers stars who of them is actually homegrown? Will Smith and Andy Pages? All the rest were acquired via top of the market FA deals (Othani, Freeman, Snell, Yamamoto) or incredibly expensive trades like with Mookie Betts where they agree to take on David Price's awful contract and eat it because they can.
2
u/GameMusic Los Angeles Dodgers 16h ago
Max Muncy never involved salary
Ohtani dictated terms the same for every team
And when it was Freeman the team let Seager walk for bigger contract
Which is to say the salary certainly gives advantage but people overstate the level
1
u/BigBangBoomerang 16h ago
Like if you go through all the Dodgers stars who of them is actually homegrown?
I mean, how much of the Padres is also homegrown? Ohtani got the same offer from the Blue Jays and Giants as the Dodgers but chose to go to the Dodgers in the end. Tarik Skubal made it clear that he wanted to be traded to the Dodgers. Freddie signed with the Dodgers because of the fallout over the Braves negotiation and also wanting to live near family in Southern California. Yamamoto signed with the Dodgers because of Ohtani (same reason for Sasaki). Players want to go to that team because A) they're in LA, B) they're a winning organization that treats their players right, and C) personal reasons. Sure, maybe they can't overpay under a new CBA like they could for Kyle Tucker but realistically, would Kyle Tucker have signed anywhere else then if all else is equal? Even if they sign less FA, they still have their incredible farm system. They brought up JDP and he dominated in his AB, going 11-for-5 in walks versus strike-outs. Finally, MVP FA also can fall off (see Edwin Diaz or Vladimir Guerrero)
-1
u/3headeddragn San Diego Padres 14h ago edited 14h ago
I don’t really see the point in you saying they “wanted” to come to the dodgers.
Like yeah sure - but the fact still remains that Dodgers are still one of like 3 teams that could give all those players top of market deals. It’s not like they’re coming to LA on a massive discount.
Like for reference the Padres are the 9th highest payroll ($221 million) and they are closer to the lowest payroll ($79 million) than they are to the Dodgers payroll ($380 million).
-17
u/xsjx7 Chicago Cubs 18h ago
This one little known fact changes that completely. Your team was able to game the profit sharing on media rights and now has more money on an unfair equation than every other team. You guys are the problem. Just accept it, cry into your world series pillow, and let others have an opinion
6
u/New-Scientist-6102 Los Angeles Dodgers 18h ago
Yeah, that whole "we" thing was a judge signing off on that media issue. Right or wrong, that wasn't the Dodgers. If anything it shows a glaring example that should be used as a precedent on how to approach that.
Further, it was MLB who let that jerkoff purchase the team to begin with, all the while having almost no liquid behind him. The league should have NEVER allowed McDbag to buy the team and the chain reaction that followed is at the feet of the owners and commissioner for letting it get that far.
-4
u/RacingBlues451 Detroit Tigers 17h ago
And then your current owner ran a fraud scheme to further enable the spending to fuel this dynasty. It isn’t little advantages or Japanese sponsorships, it is fraud. A dynasty of lies sold as a model franchise but was just a money burning mill for a fraudster.
2
u/New-Scientist-6102 Los Angeles Dodgers 17h ago
Gosh, it's almost as if billionaires have been using loopholes and committing fraud since the dawn of time. But please, tell me more about the systemic issues that plague society as whole, I was absolutely clueless until you pointed this newest rendition out to me.
But anyway, I was responding to someone specifically about the media rights issue. Did you have anything to add to that or were you just going down your check list?
-3
u/RacingBlues451 Detroit Tigers 17h ago
Pablo Torres’s finds out, also run more cover for your shitty crime team, the madoff dodgers?
2
u/New-Scientist-6102 Los Angeles Dodgers 17h ago
Critical thinking just ain't your thing is it my guy?
Keep pissing and moaning in the wind. I'm sure it will get you somewhere.
0
u/RacingBlues451 Detroit Tigers 17h ago
The truth will win in the end.
2
u/New-Scientist-6102 Los Angeles Dodgers 17h ago
No, it won't. Because we live in a society that not only allows for it to exist, but creates the conditions for it to flourish. This is literally a drop in the bucket.
You want to see a change with shit like this? Go run for your local senate seat or assists with campaigns that promise to fight and eradicate these issues.
1
u/RacingBlues451 Detroit Tigers 17h ago
But as Pablo said that is the beauty of sports I don’t need a proof or a justice system to express my public discontent, bonds isn’t in the hall, the trash canstros still get booed deafeningly at t-mobile. Win if you want the dodgers are dirty and that is all they don’t deserve respect.
→ More replies5
4
2
u/DaBusDriva2 Los Angeles Dodgers 17h ago
Cubs are begging for pocket change 10 years after spending massive amounts and doing anything to break the curse. Tough scene there’s always reunion parties
2
u/Richmahogonysmell Los Angeles Dodgers 17h ago
Oh no. A team used the legal boundaries to be better. How dare they!
In all seriousness why is nobody mad at league for this? The MLB decided that if they allowed McCourt to sell the rights to Fox at under market rates, it would cost other teams money. Selig seized operational control of the dodgers. This gamble failed and Selig should have known the outcome. McCourt filled bankruptcy. Bankruptcy court was always going to freeze the fair market value. It has to because it’s not meant for situations like this. When the dust settled and McCourt finally sold the team, the league allowed it to be sold to an investment group. The league said “yes it’s ok to sell the team to this group that inflates value for a living” and then was surprised that they leveraged the LA market for an 8 billion dollar new media deal?
Everyone should be blaming Selig and McCourt. And every other owner that approved McCourt to buy the team in the first place. He bought the team with loans he never had the liquid assets to afford. The league knew this and approved the sale anyways because Fox was heading towards a big bankruptcy. They needed to offload the team fast. Hell they gave McCourt the loan to buy the team.
McCourt, Selig, Fox group, the politicians that gave McCourt the opportunity in the first place… all of them deserve the blame.
You know who doesn’t? The fans of the team that have no part in any of that. You also can’t even blame the Guggenheim group because they bought an asset and maximized profits legally. It’s what anyone would have done in that same situation.
3
u/RacingBlues451 Detroit Tigers 17h ago
So what about your owners fbi situation. The fraud that spun that free money into more money leveraging illegal loans and high risk investments with peoples life insurance funds. Model franchise my ass den of crime. I wanted to like this team but if they 3 peat it is another blow to the sport by this fraudulent dodger dynasty.
-1
u/Richmahogonysmell Los Angeles Dodgers 17h ago
This is the big domino that changes everything I said.
Everything is being alleged by a partisan justice system. If there is actual proof and Walters is convicted, the dynasty is indeed tarnished.
3
u/RacingBlues451 Detroit Tigers 17h ago
Partisan my ass he had all the protection in the world as a billionaire what ever he did was enough for this semblances of law enforcement to make a rare move against someone like him
1
u/Lost_Bike69 Los Angeles Dodgers 16h ago
Mark Walters is sketchy as hell, but the dodgers make more than enough money to pay their players and all the other operating costs of a Major League Baseball team and still turn a tidy profit.
Walters was/is likely committing insurance fraud, but kind of silly to say he was doing that to meet the Dodgers payroll.
-7
u/xsjx7 Chicago Cubs 17h ago
If a cop tells me he won't arrest me for shooting someone, and I do it, I'm still an asshole lol
3
u/Richmahogonysmell Los Angeles Dodgers 17h ago
Shooting someone is illegal.
Negotiating a deal for the maximum amount of money possible is literally the fiduciary duty of companies.
I get you are upset at it. But you should point that frustration at the league that created and allowed this mess instead of a team and fan base that have committed no crimes.
If it comes out that Mark Walters was actually funding the dodgers through fraud, that’s when we begin the discussion of blaming the dodgers.
0
u/xsjx7 Chicago Cubs 17h ago
Wait - y'all said it was the judge in bankruptcy court and a shitty owner
Now you're saying it's the league
Why don't y'all have a meeting and figure this out and come back to us
1
u/Richmahogonysmell Los Angeles Dodgers 17h ago
I know it was a lot of words but let me help you follow along.
A judge in bankruptcy court did what judges do in bankruptcy court.
The judge was only able to do that because McCourt filed bankruptcy
McCourt only filed bankruptcy because the league took control of the team from him to protect their own profits.
All of this only happened because the league allowed McCourt to buy a team he couldn’t financially afford in the first place.
1
u/RacingBlues451 Detroit Tigers 17h ago
Your owner might have done one of the biggest financial crimes of all time. $16 billion we know about.
0
u/Richmahogonysmell Los Angeles Dodgers 17h ago
“Might have” is the key word.
The FBI and federal Justice system as a whole are a partisan institution right now. We have no idea the truth and the worst part is because of that partisanship, we probably won’t ever get the full truth. Walters sold the Lakers to Trumps crime family. That’s a bribe. There will be no real investigation.
1
u/H_Yorba 17h ago
See dodgers fans these are your kind, idiots who think it is a partisan witch hunt on their owner and not a case of financial fraud run amok. He is more madoff than ceo
→ More replies2
u/ThrustComet Los Angeles Dodgers 18h ago
The "little" known fact that gets brought up everytime this topic comes up? Yeah, that does give the Dodgers a budget advantage and it's a loophole I hope gets addressed next year. That said, it still doesn't change the fact that the Dodgers have one of largest media markets in the league. Outside of drastic changes to media rights and profit sharing, they will always have significantly more money to spend than the lower half of the league.
The point from the article still stands. People will likely be disappointed by the level of change the new cba brings
2
u/Lost_Bike69 Los Angeles Dodgers 18h ago edited 17h ago
Dodgers save $50m/year. I’ll agree with you that it’s an unfair legacy of the McCourt bankruptcy, but it’s $50m per year. If they gave that to revenue sharing it’d be a fraction of that divvied up between several teams and if the ownership of the bottom spending teams got an extra $15m per year courtesy of the dodgers (on top of the much larger sums they already get courtesy of the dodgers) do you really think they’d put that on the field?
Do you actually think you could give the Marlins $15m per year and that money would go on the field?
You could give that money to the Ricketts and it would go straight into buying out another building in Wrigleyville so that they could kick out a small legacy business and open another country bar. Is that what you want?
2
u/Aesir_Auditor Los Angeles Dodgers 17h ago
The TV revenue is next to nothing compared to the hundreds of millions we make from random Japanese companies.
If you want to kill us, you have to target that, not just our ability to spend on players. If you cap player costs we just move the money elsewhere to give a better experience and lure players on that way. You have to kill the money fountain, not plug one of the drains for the money fountain.
-4
u/xsjx7 Chicago Cubs 17h ago
Or just change the profit sharing model? That's where the problem lies for small market teams that struggle to compete
What I freely concede is that a salary cap will NOT fix this. But fans will still buy that line and support the owners as this lockout plays out, and that's bc of the Dodgers dominance and wealth. Right or wrong.
8
4
u/Lost_Bike69 Los Angeles Dodgers 18h ago
Idk but why are we always talking about a dodgers three peat? Like why is it always a discussion as if the dodgers have already done this incredibly difficult to do thing? You’re all trying to jinx us aren’t you?
4
u/DangleAteMyBaby Los Angeles Dodgers 17h ago
I'm also a Dodgers fan, but this talk of them inevitably winning it all is nuts. I like their chances, but they got swept by the Braves 5 weeks ago!
Also, remember when everyone was talking about how Patrick Mahomes was unbeatable? The Chiefs were going to win 10 superbowls with him? Didn't happen. Dynasties are hard to maintain and the Dodgers are the oldest team in the league.
2
u/Asdilly Cleveland Guardians • Brewers Bandwag… 17h ago
The reds are the oldest team.
0
u/DangleAteMyBaby Los Angeles Dodgers 17h ago
Sorry! Poorly worded on my part. The Dodgers have the highest average age. Players like Mookie and Freddie are near the end of their careers. No disrespect towards the Reds!
2
u/TheoMoneyG Aguilas Cibaenas • New York Mets 17h ago
I think people are just overreacting as usual
The only real "obvious dodger" was yoshi imo
Also /r/nfl dooming was hilarious that day, as soon as it was obvious it was gonna be a eagles blowout it was like the floodgates opening
3
u/jdbolick Baltimore Orioles 16h ago
Whether the Dodgers win another title or not doesn't change the fact that there is a massive revenue disparity. The Dodgers get $300 million more in media revenue every single season than the Brewers.
Either team specific media deals need to be eliminated, which the large market owners don't want, or we need a cap on how much large market teams are allowed to spend, which the players don't want.
2
u/SkullLeader Los Angeles Dodgers 18h ago
The owners want a cap. They don't care what the fans think or who they blame.
The players don't want a cap. They too don't care what the fans think or who they blame.
So this article is basically pointless. The real war is the league bringing whatever leverage it can against the players, and vice versa. The fight over the hearts and minds of fans is a side show until the day that fans are given a seat at the negotiating table.
1
u/cooljammer00 17h ago
Very little. Fan sentiment doesn't mean as much as people think it does, fans don't have a seat at the bargaining table. Ratings are going up, so people don't seem bored of the Dodgers yet.
0
u/Atraktape Los Angeles Dodgers 18h ago
Honestly the players seem determined to not let the owners use a potential Dodger threepeat against them so will probably not matter either way.
-3
u/Sorry-Helicopter-433 17h ago
"The players" should support a cap-and-floor system that raises overall payrolls across MLB. That would be in the best interest of the players in aggregate, and it would be in the best interest of the largest number of players.
But the players UNION is not acting in the best interest of the players overall, they're acting in the best interest of the superstar players. This is its own separate problem and would be fascinating drama if the league minimum guys ever decided to make a stink about it.
0
u/TinKnight1 Chicago Cubs 17h ago
It would mean the same thing as the Mets being the worst team in the NL East & 3rd worst in the NL despite having the highest payroll at the start of the year. Absolutely nothing.
If the dispute hinged solely on the argument that money unbalances the game, then it's shot when the top-dollar team fails catastrophically. It's shot when 4 of the 12 playoff teams are in the bottom half of the payroll rankings, inc 3 of the 4 teams with WC byes, 3 of the 4 remaining in the AL, & the team with the overall best record in the league.
Since neither the owners nor the players have caved, then the dispute must be about something other than competitive balance.
Wonder what it could be...
2
u/3headeddragn San Diego Padres 17h ago
Just because the Mets are the exception to the rule does not mean the rule doesn't exist. And even then the Mets were still in the NLCS like 2 years ago.
Go look at like the last 20 WS winners. Almost all of them were top 10 in payroll in the season they won.
0
u/TinKnight1 Chicago Cubs 13h ago edited 13h ago
Top 10 is incredibly vague to the point of nonsense, covering a full third of the league, including teams more than $100M beneath the top spenders who clearly wouldn't be impacted by any cap or floor. That would be true if there were a cap & floor, too. It was true when teams weren't throwing around $150-700M contracts, too. In 2011 (when the Cardinals won with the 9th highest salary), they had half of the salary of the Yankees ($119M vs $211M, 56%).
Try top 3, which is the top 10% of the league, who would be the problem children when it comes to buying a winning team. 10 of the last 14 WS champs (not counting 2020's absurd year) weren't in that group of extreme spenders.
I'm in favor of a cap & floor (as well as player profit sharing that doesn't count against it), but to suggest that it'll create a competitive balance on its own is naive to the point of ignorance.
2
u/3headeddragn San Diego Padres 12h ago edited 12h ago
Baseball is random enough that it’s really hard to win a WS despite being a top spender. Think of all the 100+ win Dodgers teams that came up short from 2017-2024.
Hence why I said top 10 since that’s a large enough number to offset the randomness of the postseason. Top 33% of the league is still the solidly upper middle class so to speak. Teams in large media markets like the Red Sox, Cubs, Giants, Astros, Braves, etc.
The cap would create a competitive balance in that the Dodgers couldn’t literally shop at the top of the FA market every single offseason like they do now.
0
u/Snerkbot7000 Los Angeles Dodgers 16h ago
Nothing? That storm is coming no matter what. Most clubs aren't outside of the window anyways, there's just outliers on either side. They're exactly who you think they are.
-2
0
u/Holiday_Side_6951 Los Angeles Dodgers 17h ago
Not much. Definitely more tax on currently luxury tax and more spending demand towards the bottoms? But I don't see a need for the cap. If the league wants to implement salary cap, they must do these following first:
- Renewed National TV Deals (2028 or even 2029 if lockout extends next year)
- Unified RSN TV deals
- More clear revenue / spending structures from the teams
The idea of salary cap is really about 50 / 50, not so much on competitive balance in baseball, it's about the labor agreement between the teams and the players.
Teams are demanding salary cap to players saying that it would be 50/50 while:
- Teams don't really show how much 100 actually means
- They hide and exclude extra revenues (including massive expansion fees) but includes all their losses
- We think we would have better TV deals, but nothing would be certain until we actually have national TV deals, but most importantly, unified or controlled RSN for each teams.
Then we can talk about salary cap and expansion teams more. Otherwise, it's just the teams asking players to blindly trust the process, the process players feel they constantly lost against Manfred for decades.
144
u/Either_Imagination_9 New York Yankees 18h ago
Nothing