Dodgers' Skubal trade shouldn't be the reason you support a salary cap

The factions started forming in MLB's salary-cap debate long before the Los Angeles Dodgers acquired ace southpaw Tarik Skubal from the Detroit Tigers. But some observers say this deal puts the nail in a cap-free league's coffin.

If you're already in favor of a salary cap, seeing a rich, successful team acquire another star isn't going to change your mind. But if you were on the fence about a salary cap, this particular move shouldn't sway you.

Here are three arguments for a salary cap based on the Skubal trade and the reasons they don't stand up to scrutiny.

1. A salary cap would prevent this trade from happening

The Dodgers opened the season with a payroll hovering around $317 million. That's well above the competitive balance tax threshold of $244 million, and it also comfortably exceeds the highest surcharge level. The team was already destined to pay a 50% tax for blowing by the base level for a third consecutive season, as well as an additional 60% on any amount above that, plus a draft-pick penalty.

Before this trade, the Dodgers were likely going to pay something close to $416 million after all salaries, taxes, and penalties were combined.

Their acquisition of Skubal probably lifts that to approximately $429 million - a 3.1% increase, or the baseball salary equivalent of spilled milk.

Many, many teams besides the Dodgers could have afforded the modest $9 million Skubal is owed over the remainder of the season. In fact, the small-market Milwaukee Brewers were reportedly willing to take on his salary. This would still be the case under a cap, and many teams would plan to have that kind of flexibility at the deadline.

What made this trade possible for the Dodgers was their great farm system. They acquired Skubal by shipping out the No. 25-ranked prospect (according to MLB Pipeline) without trading away any of their top four prospects. Every team had the opportunity to offer a prospect package, but the Dodgers are the team that invests the most in scouting and development. A salary cap wouldn't change that - and the lack of a salary cap doesn't prevent other teams from improving in that department.

"Every team could trade for me, every team could make that acquisition," Skubal said after getting traded. He added that the "Dodgers do all the right things."

That's what should make fans of small-market teams mad. The Brewers get revenue sharing and competitive balance picks, and they have a great farm system. But they couldn't put together a better package than the Dodgers, who regularly incur draft penalties? For an affordable rental with no form of trade protection that would instantly make the Brewers contenders? That sucks - and a salary cap wouldn't fix it.

2. A salary cap would make the Dodgers less willing to buy at the deadline

This argument is slightly more sound. In a cap environment, the Dodgers wouldn't have been able to run up such an ungodly tab, incentivizing them to add at every single deadline to justify the tax payments.

But a well-run team would react to a cap by restricting its offseason spending. And what move would the Dodgers have avoided this past offseason under a salary cap? They almost certainly wouldn't have signed Kyle Tucker to a four-year, $240-million contract. Tucker, by the way, has been a league-average hitter this year and has been worth 0.8 measly wins above replacement, according to FanGraphs. The Dodgers' postseason probability would have stayed exactly the same if, instead of spending $60 million per season on Tucker, they signed Lane Thomas to the one-year, $5.25-million deal he got with the Kansas City Royals.

Forcing a team to be cap-compliant in the winter doesn't guarantee parity, either; it just would've limited Tucker's earning potential.

And while we're discussing the relationship between parity and letting teams spend freely: Nobody seems to be making these arguments against the last-place New York Mets, who will spend north of $350 million on salaries this season.

3. I just hate the Dodgers

OK, that's fair, even though I would argue that it's good for baseball to have a villain - a team that the rest of the league loves to root against.

But that's no reason to institute a salary cap, which would hurt other clubs too. Why don't we start by holding the Dodgers to the same existing standards as other franchises?

Thanks to reporting from Forbes' Maury Brown, we know that the Dodgers will save approximately $2 billion of their media-rights revenue over a 25-year span that the other 29 teams would lose to revenue sharing. That's around $80 million per year that the Dodgers are effectively exempted from paying because the franchise filed for bankruptcy 15 years ago.

Perhaps MLB could also prohibit deferrals, which are weaponized by the richest teams and drive down the net-present value of player contracts. The Dodgers will pay Shohei Ohtani $68 million per year from 2034-43. That's just $10 million less than this season's Opening Day Miami Marlins payroll every year for a decade. Edwin Díaz won't be paid the entirety of his three-year, $69-million contract until 2047, and his deal was the one that pushed the team's total deferrals beyond the unfathomable $1-billion mark.

Let's try holding the Dodgers to the same rules as every other team before we turn our attention to players' earning potential.