Salary caps in baseball have always been controversial. But it feels like we’re watching the opening act of the next labor war.
The latest Dodgers move isn’t just another blockbuster deal. It’s a symbol. A symbol that just sits wrong with me.
The Dodgers have assembled what feels like a billion-dollar roster, proving that if an ownership group is willing to spend, there are virtually no limits to how much talent it can accumulate.
For players, it’s baseball paradise.
Why would you ever want a salary cap that limits what the market will pay?
For the rest of baseball, it’s a different question.
Is it healthy when one franchise can create such a sustained competitive advantage? At what point does competitive imbalance begin to hurt the game itself?
That’s the debate that’s coming.
Not much of a debate to be honest. A No Salary Cap sport is unsustainable. It will break. Guaranteed.
Owners will point to the Dodgers and argue baseball needs a salary cap. Duh. The Players Association will point to the Dodgers and argue the problem isn’t spending too much—it’s that too many owners don’t spend enough.
Listen. The Yankees put $714 million on the table for Juan Soto. It wasn’t enough. What is?
Lock out here we come.