Baseball season is soon to be starting, and once again I will be cheering for my Cleveland Guardians to do the seemingly impossible: win the World Series. It may be impossible again this year, though, because Cleveland has signed no free agents or added no significant pieces to their team. In fact, they are reported to be near the bottom in payroll going into this season.
But not everyone is going begging. The Los Angeles Dodgers again have one of the top payrolls in baseball, and they added more than a few free agents during the offseason. Spending large amounts of money seems to be their stock-in-trade these days, especially since spending all that they did to lure Shohei Ohtani from their cross-town rival the Angels a few years ago. In fact, the Dodgers have won the World Series three times in the last six years, and twice in a row in 2024 and 2025, due in no small part to their huge payroll.
What is the problem here? Are the Dodgers becoming the new New York Yankees, in that they are willing to spend money and allegedly “buy” championships? One of the reasons why the Yankees have been unpopular outside of the Bronx is this perception that the organization buys, rather than earns, championships simply by affording all the best players. While it remains true that good players tend to win more than mediocre players, it isn’t a “home run” that getting the best on paper will lead to actual on field winning performances. However, the recent Dodgers’ success and the historic Yankees success would seem to counter my argument, in the broad strokes anyway (keep reading for more on that idea).
What comes of so-called “small market” teams like Cleveland or Tampa Bay or others that can’t afford to outbid the likes of Los Angeles or New York? Are they doomed to lose out on the fall classic year after year? Perhaps. The best thing Cleveland has going for them currently is that they spent enough money to lock up star Jose Ramirez for as long as he wants to continue playing (officially through 2032).
Of course, it isn’t as clear cut as all that. Cleveland could, after all, spend more money. An article from TheScore.com suggests that Cleveland is only spending about 48% of their revenue. Los Angeles, in contrast, is spending 67% of their payroll. This doesn’t tell the entire story though, as the New York Mets are spending 102% of their revenue, and haven’t won the World Series since 1986. What this does seem to indicate, however, is that teams like Cleveland could be spending more to attract better players.
Of course, other things factor into the mix as well. For instance, playing time seems to be a factor in whether these star players sign with a team like Los Angeles versus Cleveland. This article suggests that Cleveland matched the dollar offer of some “big market” teams, but that the players chose to sign elsewhere in order to secure more playing time. After all, what star player wouldn’t want to play a majority of the games a majority of the season? Cleveland management is currently focusing on more of a “platoon” approach to the playing field, and this has allegedly turned away some potential signings.
Obviously, too, more than two factors work into where any given player signs as a free agent, which is why all this talk about salary caps in baseball intrigues me somewhat. The chatter is that when baseball’s player agreement comes due for re-negotiating next year, there will be a strike over the matter. Players, go the talk, won’t want a maximum set on how much they can earn. Owners probably will, to avoid paying out ever larger sums of cash over ever longer contracts. (See: Bobby Bonilla, the OG in deferred contracts.)
In theory, I am in favor of a salary cap, but not for any devaluation of a player’s talent. I object on social justice grounds: nobody needs that much money. Period. (And especially not for playing a kid’s game.) However, salaries won’t go backwards I am sure. Therefore, capping salaries seems a good way to try to reign in the insanity of massive contracts and obscene amounts of money. We will see how such implementation actually goes. But: also institute a league-wide minimum as well. Force these teams that have money to spend it. If there is to be an upper limit, establish a lower limit as well. Truly level the playing field. Make team culture, coaching staffs, and playing opportunity matter just as much as the money. Make fan base and location important. Give all teams the incentive to be competitive with more than the wallet.
Honestly I don’t know why Cleveland insists on a platoon strategy so much so that it made it impossible to sign some free agents this offseason. Maybe they set it up to avoid spending money and to avoid looking like they were avoiding spending money. Plausible deniability, as it were. It wouldn’t surprise me. For whatever reason, they were non-competitive this off-season; Cleveland’s culture seemingly also did not attract, at least, not this year. But maybe, with a league minimum and maximum in place (theoretically) and other small market teams becoming just as competitive as the big guys, maybe Cleveland would be forced to evaluate their playing strategies to become competitive; you know, actually play the game rather than just exist. For now, it seems like they are too conservative in terms of pocket book and playing style to hope to have a shot at the World Series.
But, you never know, and that’s why whether you are highly paid or making small potatoes, you still have to field a team and play all 162 games of the season. At some point players gotta play, and as part of team. Shohei can’t play every position simultaneously, after all.
Anyway: Go Guardians! 2026 is our year!
a simple man 