A salary floor is a concept which has long been suggested for Major League Baseball. The NBA operates with a floor and a cap, and many MLB fans have been discussing ways to make front offices spend more.
There will always be a range of MLB World Series odds, but there is a concern that too many teams enter a season without even an ambition to win. Franchises are content being bad. Owners are not motivated to improve the on-field product, leading to years without producing a competitive ballclub.
There is a chasm between payrolls in MLB. In 2021, five teams were over $190 million, and 12 teams were below $100 million. However, two of those sub-$100 million teams made the postseason, while five of the eight teams that spent $179 million or more didn’t even reach the playoffs. Part of the reason owners are not motivated to spend is because there is a limited link between payroll size and team success.
Spending isn’t a guarantee of wins in any sport, but this is particularly clear in baseball. It makes a salary floor into an interesting concept. Does the sport really have an on-field parity issue despite such payroll disparity?
Unpredictable Sport
By its very nature, baseball is relatively unpredictable.
The playoff format is designed to throw up surprise winners. This alone is a factor to discourage teams from spending every possible cent on ‘improving’ their roster.
Where there have been dynasties in the NBA and NFL, World Series titles have been shared out across the last two decades. Even teams like the Giants, who won three Fall Classics in five years, were not dominant.
Low-Salary Teams Still Compete
Thanks to intelligent decision-making and the low-cost of early-career players, franchises can be competitive in MLB without splashing on free agents or acquiring hefty salaries through trades. The Tampa Bay Rays and Oakland Athletics continue to compete despite always ranking in the bottom 10 in payroll.
Forcing a salary cap on these teams wouldn’t necessarily make them better. Rather, it could just lead to bloated contracts for post-peak players in free agency, potentially blocking the path of more productive peers.
Well-run teams have shown they can be in and around the playoff spots with a payroll less than half of the big spenders. The teams which are not so adept at finding value might improve marginally if forced to spend more with a salary floor, but should we believe that they would spend that money well?
Salary Floor Doesn’t Solve Problems
Even after the lockout was resolved on March 10th, Major League Baseball has some issues to address. There will always be bad teams, but it’s uncertain if this CBA will encourage owners to prioritize winning.
A salary floor is a crude, if understandable, option. It would not necessarily fix much unless there was further overhaul of player salaries throughout their careers in the Majors.
As a short-term measure, though, many are going to like the idea of a salary floor. It avoids the relatively tiny payrolls we have seen in recent years, and in theory, should improve the quality of the league’s worst teams.
Source: Plato Data Intelligence: PlatoData.io
