@The_Joneser_PSN said in Bryce Harper:
@yankblan_PSN, first, let's hope it doesn't come to that. It likely could, and that would be terrible for everyone... and though I doubt your ex-MLB barnstorming scenario would happen, sure, I'd pay for that for a bit, but that's not something sustainable or desirable for the players... $50 for all access takes 520,000 subscribers to pay Bryce Harper his current wage. Based on his recent behavior, I don't think he'd be too happy about taking less.
You're right that it's incredibly tough to buy a team in the first place…
I intentionally cutoff the full quote so this doesn’t get way too long to read
The Numbers Don’t Lie
• MLB posted $12.1 billion in revenue in 2024, up 10% from 2023. Player salaries have barely kept pace.
• Revenue sharing already sends ~$110M+ per team from pooled local revenue. That’s not “no support” for smaller markets.
• The Tigers were not drowning. Forbes showed a $29M loss in 2022, then a $17M profit in 2023 with $306M in revenue — reflecting a rebound, not a revenue crisis
No Cap Required—Revenue Sharing Already Exists
• MLB already forces redistribution. If a cap would suddenly inspire teams to spend, why hasn’t that happened with guaranteed revenue sharing?
• Detroit’s issues weren’t about paying players— it was about poor ownership decisions. The moment they started competing again, revenue followed. The return to black shows the safety net exists.
Rich Owners Still Reap the Rewards
• The Dodgers and Yankees pull in $200M+ annually from RSN deals. Even after sharing, they can bankroll other teams’ entire payrolls.
• Meanwhile, team values are skyrocketing—many franchises are worth $1–5 billion. This isn’t about operating profit. It’s about building assets. These franchises appreciate in value year after year—like CNBC’s 2024 numbers pegging franchise values in the $1‑5 billion range. They’re not playing for operating profit—they’re building sizable assets. Any “loss” is used as a tax loophole in their overall business ventures.
Cap Would Cement Owner Control—Not Fix Spending
• A cap limits what players can earn. If Detroit only wants to spend $90M, they’ll keep doing that whether the Dodgers are capped or not.
• Worse, a cap gives big-market teams a ceiling they’d never approach, while still allowing them to outspend via signing bonuses and perks.
• If we want parity, start with a hard floor, not a ceiling that protects billionaires from their own bad decisions.
This boils down to one point really, and this is what is pissing off the players, issue remains no enforcement of minimum spend. Owners should be forced to invest, not shielded by a cap.
Add in, there is a huge trap in all of this that needs to be determined (and would probably be the death of the negotiations) - current contracts are all fully guaranteed and absolutely CANNOT be cancelled - federal law in regards to a CBA.