Yet another offseason of hyperaggressive spending and mind-boggling CBT payrolls from the Dodgers and Mets (and, this winter, the Blue Jays) has led to increased talk of competitive balance ahead of the impending conclusion of the 2022-26 collective bargaining agreement. Owners are again expected to push for a salary cap — though that’s a perpetual goal and would absolutely have been the case regardless of how the usual suspects spent in free agency this winter — and they’ll have plenty of fan support in that regard.
Fans, particularly those of small market teams, feel a clear sense of defeatism, knowing their clubs will rarely (or in some cases never) be players for the top names in free agency. The Dodgers were close enough to losing in the World Series that it’s not fair to say they can freely buy themselves a championship — the Mets spent more in 2025 and missed the postseason entirely — but it’s fair to say they’re spending enough to give themselves something like a 95% chance of making the postseason and entering as the favorite.
The other side of the cap argument, of course, is that it would assuredly usher in the implementation of a salary floor — a level at which teams must spend on payroll or else be subject to some degree of penalization. There’s already a weak “floor” in place for revenue-sharing clubs, but it seems to lack any semblance of teeth. The A’s felt compelled to spend enough to push their CBT payroll up to $105MM last year — roughly 1.5 times the amount they receive annually from revenue-sharing — but that was seemingly because they’re the only club to have been actually stripped of revenue-sharing status in the past. The Marlins were supposedly in the same boat this winter, and they’ve thumbed their nose at the idea of spending, as evidenced by a CBT payroll in the $80MM range.
I can see the arguments for a cap/floor system. I’m skeptical that it would actually force the game’s lowest-payroll clubs to spend in meaningful ways, but that’s another topic — and one that we’ll surely debate ad nauseum in the year to come as CBA talks intensify.
But whether it’s a salary floor, firm penalties for not spending revenue-sharing funds in tangible ways, or greater access to draft/international resources for non-playoff clubs who remain competitive, something has to give. Right now, there’s at least one entire division content to sit on its hands as the five respective front offices seemingly embody that same level of defeatism felt by their small- and mid-market fan bases.
If the Dodgers are a budding dynasty, it’s unequivocally fair to say that’s in part because of their limitless spending capacity. But it’s also because there are teams seemingly content to throw their hands up and ask, “why even bother?” At a certain point, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy — and I’d argue that at least with regard to the AL Central, we’ve reached that point. Let’s look at each AL Central club’s offseason to date.
Unlock Subscriber-Exclusive Articles Like This One With a Trade Rumors Front Office Subscription
- Access weekly subscriber-only articles by Tim Dierkes, Steve Adams, and Anthony Franco.
- Join exclusive weekly live chats with Anthony.
- Remove ads and support our writers.
- Access GM-caliber tools like our MLB Contract Tracker
