Competitive Balance

Pelican · 11-05-2025, 04:27 PM

My absolute favorite challenge in OOTP is to take a bad team and try - through trades, free agent signings, international players, promotions from the minors, to shift the paradigm. I've done this with, for example, the 1911 St. Louis Browns (although I shifted the team to Baltimore as the Orioles, 43 years early, even signing a couple of early black players, to break the color line 36 years early!). I've also experimented in present day with the 2023 and 2024 Pirates, the 2024 White Sox, and about to work with the 2025 Rockies. Some would call this masochistic, and they would not be wrong. But there's nowhere to go but up!

The basic approach is, what if these lousy teams, that have in common low payrolls, spent money on salary more like the wealthy teams with high payrolls? In modern terms, not necessarily Dodgers money or Mets money, but at least an average payroll. At the very least, retaining young stars, rather than trading them before other teams wave money at them as free agents.

Part of my motivation is to tackle the lack of competitive balance in baseball, which can be traced to teams spending vastly different amounts of money on salary, particularly long-term deals, as well as player development. Is is true that giving the Pirates a blank check would make the team competitive? Would something like a payroll floor (rather than a salary cap), force teams to compete?

My preliminary answer, small sample size, is a big, but qualified yes. It's relatively simple to spend money to plug holes, add depth, and thus make a bad team into a mediocre (.500) team. 81 wins is better than 52 wins. But it may take more than one year and a few deals to make that team truly competitive. Ultimately you are going to need replacement players from the farm system. You can't ignore player development. And in OOTP like IRL, that requires steady investment in a farm and scouting system, that won't pay dividends right away.

I am going to publish by way of example the kinds of off-season changes I have been able to make in Pittsburgh (actually a franchise move to New Orleans), the Chisox, and the Rockies. It's a work in progress, as I simply cannot resist managing game by game for these teams. But the results are promising, even if the economics are daunting. (Will the Buccaneers draw enough new fans in the Big Easy to offset the huge new payroll? How much more can I charge for tickets, when the team starts winning? How much patience will the new owners have?)

Approaching the competitive balance issue from a different angle, is there a way to trim the sails of the dominating teams, without imposing a salary cap? There is. Expansion. At least, an expansion draft with firm (low) limits on the number of players retained by the established teams. [I keep the existing rule that players with less than three years MLB experience are exempt. I only allow teams to protect twelve additional players. And I don't allow teams to claim an additional protected player for each guy drafted.] My approach leads to reasonably competitive expansion teams. And it has the effect of "the rich get poorer and the poor get richer". Dominant teams that are stacked are motivated to trade guys they won't be able to protect and keep. Guys with huge contracts who have underperformed are exposed to the draft, and often not taken. It's a more humane way of bringing in new teams, and the pennant races are legit.

I'm curious if others have similarly experimented with the MLB financial system, or with individual team spending, and/or with expansion in this fashion. We need to throw out a lifeline to MLB and the Players Union, to suggest how to avoid another prolonged lockout or strike.

Pelican · 11-10-2025, 03:43 PM

So, here goes. Taking the 47-win Rockies and spending some money. Going from a meagre budget of $180,000,000 to a middle-of-the-pack $340,000,000. From a miserly $59 million payroll to just over $300 million. For comparison, the Dodgers are $535 million and $430 million, respectively. And yeah, same Division, but opposite ends. Here is how the off-season went:

Signed IF Ha-seong Kim for $20.6 M per year, for five years.

Signed SP Cody Ponce from overseas for $5.6M/5 years.

Nabbed Harrison Bader for $21M/5. Sorry, Phillies.

Swing guy Mike Lorenzen for $2.2M for one year.

Broke the hearts of Philly signing Kyle Schwarber for $43M/5. How many HR can he hit at Coors?

Young SP Cole Ragans for $25M/7 years. I obviously think he is going to get even better than he was with the royals.

Veteran Nathan Eovaldi for $32M/7.

Super-veteran Jacob deGrom at $33.3M/3. Sorry, Rangers.

2B Jorge Polanco at $17.5M/5.

Former Phillies Nick Pavetta at $20.4M/5.

Denver native Griffin Jax for $21M/3.

Another former Phil, 1B/DH Rhys Hoskins at bargain $9.5M/4.

3B Michael Vargas for discounted $7M/5.

According to the off-season computations, that represents a gain of 34.7 WAR, balanced by a loss of 5.2. No other team comes close to that.

So, a team with an entirely new five-man rotation, and new closer, relief help. Building on a decent lineup of Goodman at C/DH, Tovar at SS, Doyle in CF, Moniak/Veen in RF.

I raised ticket prices, and sold more season tickets. With each free agent signing, there was an increase if fan enthusiasm. This is a team that always - even in an awful year - has drawn well. The owner has the money. Let's see if the investment pays off.

Pelican · 11-22-2025, 01:56 PM

And, in simulation #2, the Pittsburgh Pirates with an average-size MLB budget, modest projected increase in revenue, and a big increase in payroll (from a paltry $92M 2025).

szathkey · 11-24-2025, 04:07 PM

I love doing the same thing. I House Rule that I can’t sign anyone without at least NORMAL interest so it takes nearly bit longer to right the ship.

Interested to see how the season goes!

Pelican · 11-25-2025, 02:15 PM

I like your House Rule. Unlikely that all those guys would actually sign with the Pirates or the Rockies - no matter the money. [Although once you've signed some big names, the other guys will be anxious to join.]. In each case, I was aggressive early, in November, before the Winter Meetings. No other teams were making offers to the free agents. I calculated roughly what I thought the final deals would likely be (less than the demands listed), and put that on the table, up front. Some guys haggled or asked for time, but most signed in a few days. The rest of the market moved much more slowly, with many prime free agents unsigned going into Spring Training.

It's troubling in a way to see how great a difference spending makes. But flashy signing don't automatically make a ball club. They will have to play together, and depth will be an issue, with inevitable injuries and fatigue.

szathkey · 11-26-2025, 09:07 PM

Using my house rule, the game mimics players being a little more open as free agency moves forward. Once preseason starts there are always a few guys that are now potentially interested in signing with my rebuilding team.

With a more successful team, I’m aggressive. With a rebuild, I’m waiting to get deals on players that I can flip at the deadline for prospects.

11-05-2025, 04:27 PM	#1
Pelican Hall Of Famer Join Date: Mar 2021 Location: Wilmington, Delaware Posts: 2,983	Competitive Balance My absolute favorite challenge in OOTP is to take a bad team and try - through trades, free agent signings, international players, promotions from the minors, to shift the paradigm. I've done this with, for example, the 1911 St. Louis Browns (although I shifted the team to Baltimore as the Orioles, 43 years early, even signing a couple of early black players, to break the color line 36 years early!). I've also experimented in present day with the 2023 and 2024 Pirates, the 2024 White Sox, and about to work with the 2025 Rockies. Some would call this masochistic, and they would not be wrong. But there's nowhere to go but up! The basic approach is, what if these lousy teams, that have in common low payrolls, spent money on salary more like the wealthy teams with high payrolls? In modern terms, not necessarily Dodgers money or Mets money, but at least an average payroll. At the very least, retaining young stars, rather than trading them before other teams wave money at them as free agents. Part of my motivation is to tackle the lack of competitive balance in baseball, which can be traced to teams spending vastly different amounts of money on salary, particularly long-term deals, as well as player development. Is is true that giving the Pirates a blank check would make the team competitive? Would something like a payroll floor (rather than a salary cap), force teams to compete? My preliminary answer, small sample size, is a big, but qualified yes. It's relatively simple to spend money to plug holes, add depth, and thus make a bad team into a mediocre (.500) team. 81 wins is better than 52 wins. But it may take more than one year and a few deals to make that team truly competitive. Ultimately you are going to need replacement players from the farm system. You can't ignore player development. And in OOTP like IRL, that requires steady investment in a farm and scouting system, that won't pay dividends right away. I am going to publish by way of example the kinds of off-season changes I have been able to make in Pittsburgh (actually a franchise move to New Orleans), the Chisox, and the Rockies. It's a work in progress, as I simply cannot resist managing game by game for these teams. But the results are promising, even if the economics are daunting. (Will the Buccaneers draw enough new fans in the Big Easy to offset the huge new payroll? How much more can I charge for tickets, when the team starts winning? How much patience will the new owners have?) Approaching the competitive balance issue from a different angle, is there a way to trim the sails of the dominating teams, without imposing a salary cap? There is. Expansion. At least, an expansion draft with firm (low) limits on the number of players retained by the established teams. [I keep the existing rule that players with less than three years MLB experience are exempt. I only allow teams to protect twelve additional players. And I don't allow teams to claim an additional protected player for each guy drafted.] My approach leads to reasonably competitive expansion teams. And it has the effect of "the rich get poorer and the poor get richer". Dominant teams that are stacked are motivated to trade guys they won't be able to protect and keep. Guys with huge contracts who have underperformed are exposed to the draft, and often not taken. It's a more humane way of bringing in new teams, and the pennant races are legit. I'm curious if others have similarly experimented with the MLB financial system, or with individual team spending, and/or with expansion in this fashion. We need to throw out a lifeline to MLB and the Players Union, to suggest how to avoid another prolonged lockout or strike. __________________ Pelican OOTP 2020-? ”Hard to believe, Harry.” Last edited by Pelican; 11-05-2025 at 04:34 PM.

11-22-2025, 01:56 PM	#3
Pelican Hall Of Famer Join Date: Mar 2021 Location: Wilmington, Delaware Posts: 2,983	And, in simulation #2, the Pittsburgh Pirates with an average-size MLB budget, modest projected increase in revenue, and a big increase in payroll (from a paltry $92M 2025). Attached Images __________________ Pelican OOTP 2020-? ”Hard to believe, Harry.” Last edited by Pelican; 11-22-2025 at 02:03 PM.

11-25-2025, 02:15 PM	#5
Pelican Hall Of Famer Join Date: Mar 2021 Location: Wilmington, Delaware Posts: 2,983	I like your House Rule. Unlikely that all those guys would actually sign with the Pirates or the Rockies - no matter the money. [Although once you've signed some big names, the other guys will be anxious to join.]. In each case, I was aggressive early, in November, before the Winter Meetings. No other teams were making offers to the free agents. I calculated roughly what I thought the final deals would likely be (less than the demands listed), and put that on the table, up front. Some guys haggled or asked for time, but most signed in a few days. The rest of the market moved much more slowly, with many prime free agents unsigned going into Spring Training. It's troubling in a way to see how great a difference spending makes. But flashy signing don't automatically make a ball club. They will have to play together, and depth will be an issue, with inevitable injuries and fatigue. __________________ Pelican OOTP 2020-? ”Hard to believe, Harry.” Last edited by Pelican; 11-25-2025 at 02:16 PM.

11-10-2025, 03:43 PM	#2
Pelican Hall Of Famer Join Date: Mar 2021 Location: Wilmington, Delaware Posts: 2,983	So, here goes. Taking the 47-win Rockies and spending some money. Going from a meagre budget of $180,000,000 to a middle-of-the-pack $340,000,000. From a miserly $59 million payroll to just over $300 million. For comparison, the Dodgers are $535 million and $430 million, respectively. And yeah, same Division, but opposite ends. Here is how the off-season went: Signed IF Ha-seong Kim for $20.6 M per year, for five years. Signed SP Cody Ponce from overseas for $5.6M/5 years. Nabbed Harrison Bader for $21M/5. Sorry, Phillies. Swing guy Mike Lorenzen for $2.2M for one year. Broke the hearts of Philly signing Kyle Schwarber for $43M/5. How many HR can he hit at Coors? Young SP Cole Ragans for $25M/7 years. I obviously think he is going to get even better than he was with the royals. Veteran Nathan Eovaldi for $32M/7. Super-veteran Jacob deGrom at $33.3M/3. Sorry, Rangers. 2B Jorge Polanco at $17.5M/5. Former Phillies Nick Pavetta at $20.4M/5. Denver native Griffin Jax for $21M/3. Another former Phil, 1B/DH Rhys Hoskins at bargain $9.5M/4. 3B Michael Vargas for discounted $7M/5. According to the off-season computations, that represents a gain of 34.7 WAR, balanced by a loss of 5.2. No other team comes close to that. So, a team with an entirely new five-man rotation, and new closer, relief help. Building on a decent lineup of Goodman at C/DH, Tovar at SS, Doyle in CF, Moniak/Veen in RF. I raised ticket prices, and sold more season tickets. With each free agent signing, there was an increase if fan enthusiasm. This is a team that always - even in an awful year - has drawn well. The owner has the money. Let's see if the investment pays off. __________________ Pelican OOTP 2020-? ”Hard to believe, Harry.” Last edited by Pelican; 11-10-2025 at 03:45 PM.

11-24-2025, 04:07 PM	#4
szathkey Minors (Double A) Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 199	I love doing the same thing. I House Rule that I can’t sign anyone without at least NORMAL interest so it takes nearly bit longer to right the ship. Interested to see how the season goes!

11-26-2025, 09:07 PM	#6
szathkey Minors (Double A) Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 199	Using my house rule, the game mimics players being a little more open as free agency moves forward. Once preseason starts there are always a few guys that are now potentially interested in signing with my rebuilding team. With a more successful team, I’m aggressive. With a rebuild, I’m waiting to get deals on players that I can flip at the deadline for prospects.