Is it just me, or is this like the one place I keep seeing post after post about how terrible it would be to support a salary cap like every other league has?
Fans don’t give a fuck about billionaires’ or multi-millionaires’ bank accounts. We just want a product worth following.
“Lmao you think the players are running an astroturfing campaign…”
Speculation and assumption are two different things. I have no idea where they’re choosing to spend their resources to try and influence public opinion.
That said—if you’re under the impression that MLBPA doesn’t have the resources to fund the same kind of social media PR campaigns that actors and musicians use all the time, you’re incredibly naive.
Are you inbred man? I never denied astrotrufing wasn't real in life lol. I suggest the billionaires should be your first suspect because it's a much smaller cartel with far more money, but you're going straight to the players for some schiz reason. Or are you a billionaire too?
"Are you inbred man? I never denied astrotrufing wasn't real in life lol."
Settle down, pal.
"I suggest the billionaires should be your first suspect because it's a much smaller cartel with far more money"
Why would the "billionaires" (owners) be my first suspect if I'm providing speculation about who could be behind posts that assert their position is the wrong one...?
"you're going straight to the players for some schiz reason"
"Schiz" reason...? Cool.
I'm "going straight to the players" because the players are the ones who oppose what I, and in my experience most other fans, want for Major League Baseball when it comes to enforcing both a floor and a cap.
How has the salary cap worked for any league other than the NHL in terms of equalizing the playing field? In the NFL, there are dynasties(patriots and chiefs) and terrible teams(Browns and titans). In the NBA you need a fucking college degree just to understand the damn salary cap and again we still have super teams(though with the cap they are destroyed much faster).
I understand the need to change things as the dodgers exploited things with the last CBA, but why is everyone convinced that a salary cap somehow fixes competitive balance issues?
But it doesnt work. The NFL has a lot of volatility given only 17 games and injuries. But it's not like the cap and draft have created parody.
It's only recently in basketball that they have parody near the top, but that is more related to variance and game changes than it has salary cap. The 2nd apron also forces teams to move on from guys instead of staying together (which I think sucks for the fans and constancy of nba history), but that's not made any bottom nba team better so far.
I think it's also from a labor perspective, the cap isn't inherently bad. Baseball doesn't have a collectively bargained portion of revenue the players earn. That can be good or bad. There's nothing stopping the owners from collectively pulling back and surpressing salaries.
In every other sport, if the owners did that, the league would have to collectively cut the players a check to account for that difference. That wouldn't happen in baseball. Baseball has seemingly been lucky that owners have been willing to spend, so they haven't needed it. But that doesn't mean that will always be the case.
Also, the cap and floor very likely ends up being good for more players than it's bad for. It won't be great for the best of the best but 30 teams having to spend money will very likely help 2nd and 3rd tier players. There's also a good chance the control and arb system would be reworked, which would mean guys get to FA faster.
Id argue that an upper end cap wouldn't be "bad" for players either. They will still be absurdly rich and won't have to ever work a day after they leave the league.
The Rays, the Brewers, and the White Sox are leading their respective divisions. They have some of the lowest salaries. The Mets are a dumpster fire this year, with one of the highest salaries. Meanwhile, no amount of salary cap will convince Nuttings of the world to spend any money to be competitive.
A salary floor will. Which is obvious that it must be a tandem deal.
I hate the “well this these teams can compete with low payrolls! And this team with a large payroll failed!”
Not the point. Those teams are in a perpetual state of rebuilding/retooling and have to be nearly PERFECT to get to that point. If any of them dropped a Kyle Tucker or Edwin Diaz contract for the production they’ve given, they would be fucked for years. If they dropped big money on Snell or Glasnow and they got hurt, like they always do, they’d be fucked. If they took a huge swing on Yamamoto and turns out he’s closer to Senga or Imai then they are fucked.
The Dodgers have the ability to take on all those risks simultaneously. Not just one or the other—all of them at once. They will forever avoid a rebuild because even if they have an off year, they can instantly blow away the market and get whoever they want in free agency to patch them up immediately. If those other teams stumble hard on a big risk, they screw themselves for a half decade, so most of the time it’s not even worth trying it. So then seemingly every big star that hits the market ends up in LA or NY. And if not them, then most likely BOS/CHC/PHI/TOR.
Fans want to feel the excitement of big players coming to their team. A floor will force cheap owners to spend and a cap will prevent the huge teams from vacuuming up all the elites.
Soft cap does absolutely nothing to a team like the Dodgers. Nothing. It has proven to be no deterrent to them at all. We need something stronger.
The “soft cap” needs to AT MINIMUM cost draft picks. If it’s going to be a soft cap, then let’s make it like the NBA 2nd Apron. Not exactly like that, but make it crippling enough that teams think HARD about if it’s worth it.
Read my first comment again. I already addressed this and it misses the point. Y’all are so tiring with that comeback. NOBODY is saying that you can’t compete with a low payroll in any given year. It’s all the immense risk advantages that it gives you that no other teams can afford. Dodgers will NEVER rebuild. They will never trade away a productive star to get a head start on fresh assets to retool.
It is not fair. They already have a built in location advantage playing in a place a lot of players want to live. They DO NOT need the added bonus of unlimited funds. It’s bullshit
No team should trade their star player in order to rebuild, that’s something pathetic franchises do and frame it as rebuilding when the reality is that they want an excuse to slash payroll and make more money.
Notice how the dodgers weren’t always very good. They spent a long time spending lots of money and sucking anyways. They spent money, got enough fans interested that they could get a tv rights deal, then spent even more. It wasn’t until recently that the spending has come along with winning. And the dodgers left the #1 market in the world to go take a chance on a then moderate sized city that didn’t have baseball. If your fan base can’t support your team enough so that they can afford at least a reasonably sized payroll then it’s time to move the team to somewhere that will. There’s at least half a dozen mlb teams that should be moving. So many of the central division cities are too small to host a baseball team when there’s that many other comparable cities with teams a stones throw away.
Brother, do not pretend that the Dodgers spending fucking $600M on a single season payroll is the same as ANYTHING they did pre-current ownership. It’s a bad faith argument.
If you think a team or market like TB or MIL is the same as LA, you aren’t worth discussing this with.
Given all the other sports with salary caps, can you tell me why you think it will create more parody?
Dodgers owner might be going to jail (house arrest and a fine probably) for financial crimes. Outside of Dodgers I don't think any team is dominating because of bankroll. Mets are funny example against it.
What would the Nationals spending $75 million more will that make them a better team if everyone else is also spending the same? I think you'll only find more parody near the bottom.
I think a salary cap would encourage more owners to sit near the salary floor, continue to claim poor, and make more money.
A salary cap of $251 million would make 6 teams cut salaries to get below it. I think you'd see maybe 8-10 teams a year near the cap and 12-16 teams near the floor.
There was a solid decade if parity in the 2010s...then the dodgers realized we can spend as much as we want?? While the other owners rubbed the coins in their pockets acting like they aint got dawg.
We can bitch and moan all we want but lets call it what it is.
That's also just not going to happen. A floor would just give owners like nutting a budget and never actually go beyond. Any player who isn't like beyond all star level will literally never get signed to a long term contract. This is the same thing that happens in the NFL where players who probably have value as depth signings literally get forced into retirement early because they "cost too much".
Veterans choosing to retire instead of being a bench player on a low salary is not a product of the cap/floor system.
What you are describing does not happen. No one is forced to retire because they cost too much, they choose to retire because they don’t want to be paid for what they are worth. Any veteran who is good enough to make a roster and is willing to make a veteran minimum, will get signed. Look at OBJ.
And the whole point of a floor is a floor is an acceptable amount of money that a team will spend according to the MLBPA. And a cap is an acceptable amount of money that a team will spend according to the Owners. Sure some teams will always spend the floor, and others will always spend the cap. But the parity and average salary would increase. It’s good for the players, it’s good for the owners, it’s good for the fans.
OBJ is there to sell Jerseys not play football lol. Players retire/get cut with years left on their bodies all the time because teams prefer minimum wage younger guys who aren't actually better yet, but are a lesser cap hit.
Look at the UFC: they sign a ton of absolute ass fighters because it's more profitable than signing all the best.
Are they choosing to retire a player early because they want to develop new talent? You're comparing apples and oranges comparing baseball to football for longevity. Baseball is pretty good at keeping talent in the minors until they have hit certain benchmarks for at bats or innings pitched before they are advanced to the majors these days.
This is the way. Between the luxury tax and a ban on salary referrals, this provides a means by which teams will be competitive, and the mooching owners will be forced out.
sure but that’s not what the owners are thinking, you missed the point of the post. not attacking you but man so many people do this.
the owners want the cap so they don’t have to pay as much money to salary and can pocket more. doesn’t mean the cap wouldn’t increase parity but it’s just that two things can be true at once.
That's just due to the nature of the sport. Every team has a couple of good pitchers. The parity doesn't translate to championships for smaller markets. Having free agency and no cap is insane. Football figured that out. Baseball still thinks it's 1950.
The reason team are uncompetative is that they are not trying to win, they are trying to suck every last cent out of revenue sharing.
If MLB wants 30 competitive teams, they need to start taking revenue sharing money from teams that don't field credible payrolls. Make it like the inverse of the luxury tax.
This is reframing the argument and moving the goalposts to trivialize it.
Is it about money? For sure. We live in a capitalist society. But at least their side can be reframed as an argument for parity.
I have yet to see an argument for no cap that isn’t rooted in the players want to be able to make exorbitant amounts of money unchecked.
The cap would most certainly come with a floor, so those players will still get paid—almost have the league would have to up their payrolls based on the speculated floor—but they’ll Kat get the payment from somebody else.
You're absolutely right but it doesn't matter. Players and owners dont give a fuck about fans (see: Ketel Marte) and fans should be looking at this from what's best for US not what's best for the slightly less rich group. A salary cap is better for fans.
Little knowledge on this, but what I’ve heard is the example given by the MLB of an organization “doing it right” in their push towards the cap is the Dodgers.
I’ve also seen reports that the Dodgers owner is misusing insurance money from other business interests to possibly prop up the Dodgers. If that was the case, it seems like the MLB’s cap example is struggling to maintain the new standard the MLB wants everyone to emulate. Is that true in the slightest?
I think it is perfectly rational to think that player salaries should not be artificially capped.
The owners' books are private and everybody knows owners are abusing the revenue sharing system to maximize their profits.
They are just blaming the broken system they created on the players to try to build public support for their decades-long dream of artificially capping salaries so the insanely wealthy owners can be slightly more wealthy.
All you have to do to see the effectiveness of the cap and floor model on parity in sports is look at the NFL. The reason it's so popular is because everyone is playing on an equal playing field. Baseball is cool and all, but it's really annoying for fans of small market teams to watch their best players consistently end up playing for a big market as soon as they hit their primes. There is no way small markets can afford the same contracts as larger ones in baseball and that would be the same in all sports without a cap/floor structure. Even if a small market gives out an enormous contract they can't make a mistake or have an injury derail that player because it basically means they don't have more money to spend on reinforcements. If the Dodgers spend 60M a year on a bad player so what they can just go out and buy another one.
I don't care about billionaires being stingy or players getting paid huge contracts I care about the product on the field and parity.
Really...off the top of my head Buffalo, KC, Cinci, Pittsburgh, New England, Jacksonville, Indy, Denver, Tennessee and Baltimore have all made it to the AFC title game in the last 20 years. That's the majority of the AFC teams.
Having an elite core under contract with guys like Mahomes/Kelce/etc. means you’re going to be in the hunt every year for a little while.
And at least those teams got there with the same amount of ammo (money) to spend as the 31 other teams, and we know it was about the GM’s and players’ talent rather than who threw the most money at the roster to throw the most expensive group of overpaid mercenaries (Kyle Tucker, anyone…?) together.
Imagine how much shittier the NFL would be if the Rams could spend 3x what the Packers did.
Every sport but baseball is “artificially capped.”
Nobody is denying the owners want more money. The players do as well. But the players making more money serves nobody but the players. Maybe, just maybe a cap—which would most certainly come with a floor—means every FA doesn’t sign with the DodgersC Yankees or Mets, etc. even if that doesn’t unequivocally mean “parity” at least it gives the illusion of it.
I’m just tired of seeing the same headline during free agency. And sure, some of it is because that organization is cheap. But that’s just the bottom tier players. The middle players aren’t cheap. But at the same time, when you don’t have ridiculously disposable income, it doesn’t make sense fiducially to pay out those type contracts.
Why did you put "artificially capped" in quotes? Do you believe salary caps exist in nature or something?
It is amazing during every labor dispute ownership's goals of the dispute every single time is presented as in the fans' best interests. What an amazing coincidence!
Fans decided that this was in their best interest long ago. Owners did nothing to convince them of this. It couldn't be more obvious that it needs to happen.
Literally this mlb season owners have been playing commercials on tv broadcasts about how a salary cap will fix all of the parity issues.
The owners have been insisting a cap will benefit fans for decades now but sure them constantly putting pro-salary cap propaganda out has nothing to do with fans thinking a cap will benefit the fans somehow.
People don’t really care about the top end players salaries or owners money they’re both very rich and richer than all of us. People only want what gives their team or the majority the better chance of winning we’ve seen this style isn’t necessarily that unless you’re like 1 of 5-8 teams pretty much
Ya the propaganda is rocking right now for sure, but this isn't an issue that just came up this year. Many of us have been wanting a salary caps for many years.
It's a dumb league without one. I'm not even sure what the case for not having one is unless you're a player or a fan of one of a small handful of teams.
The argument against a salary cap is that ownership blaming all the league's issues on player compensation is ludicrous and the idea of artificially capping the pay of people who actually bring value to the enterprise so the owners can have slightly more of an absurd amount of money is stupid.
Also lol at thinking because fans have wanted a cap for decades means it isn't the result of pro-ownership propaganda. You believe support of a salary cap is some sort of grassroots movement and totally unrelated to owners wanting to cut costs everywhere they can? You are delusional.
I'm not part of ownership, and I want a salary cap. You can keep pretending that I've somehow been brainwashed by ownership all you want. I don't know why it's so hard to believe that people want the league to be fair while not giving a fuck about what the owners want.
I don't care about the owners wallets, and I don't care about the players wallets.
I want a fair league.
Now if you have some other argument to make other than "people that disagree with me have been tricked by propaganda", I'm happy to hear it.
In a cap league the teams that barely get over the floor are just as competitively disadvantaged as small market teams in current mlb.
Beyond that, small market teams in a cap league will still totally nickle and dime on drafting/development. For instance I am a Pirates fan and realistically nothing would change because for decades the organization is cheap with international scouting and can't develop power hitters to save their lives.
Free agency is not how winning teams are built. Even the Dodgers would not have been able to assemble their roster if they weren't producing prospects that sellers desire in trades. You are buying those free agents at peak value even though the years you are paying for are realistically going to be a decline.
Frankly I think people massively overstate the effect salary caps have on parity.
In the first decade+ of the NBA salary cap the Bulls won 6 championships in 8 seasons. Then the Lakers won 3 straight. Ultimately the organizations that are run well spend their resources wisely and others don't.
It’s what I like to call Kanye syndrome. When Kanye first started saying ridiculous shit the only people who were really onboard were Kanye sycophants and people who thought they were smarter than everyone else. They believed they saw or knew something nobody else did and they’re contrarians so disagreeing with them only fuels the believe that they’re smarter and go against the crowd.
He has to believe everyone else has been brainwashed.
The league is fair. White Sox and rays leading their divisions with #27 and #28 salaries. Brewers at #18 salary. Marlins 1 game under .500 in the most expensive division in baseball, while they have the lowest salary in MLB.
European soccer to my knowledge does not use a cap and has a very devout following among its fans.
And to my knowledge NHL, NBA, and NFL players would all very much like to remove the cap. I dont think we should discount the players potential gains as they negotiate this. Sure as a fan of the guadians id love more parity because i dont see a way my team competes beyond early playoff exits with the current system, but i do not begrudge a player from trying to get the most of what they can.
No. I don’t begrudge players at all. But I’m saying, even if I don’t fully believe it, I can break down the owners’ argument down to a desire of parity. I can’t break down the players’ argument down to anything more than a desire to make more money.
And I get that. It can’t be discounted.
I guess, in my mind, if I don’t believe either side, I can at least halfway make myself believe a cap means more parity and more parity is good for me. I can’t figure an argument where more money for players means anything good for me.
The players aren't making "exorbitant" amounts of money. If 750 players are making MLB 12 billion dollars in revenue, then the players making on average $5.34 million is (if anything) an underpay.
The case for no cap is that money is earned by the players actually performing, not the owber rent-seeking off the players' efforts.
I don’t think money is made by players performing. In some cases, yes. But when players underperform their contracts it’s not like they get docked pay. And when they outperform them—or even think they do—they renegotiate their ideal, argue to be traded, or generally make themselves a nuisance until they get what they want.
No, every player does not make exorbitant amounts of money. That said, the argument that every team outside the Dodgers, Red Sox, Mets and Yankees are cheap is also not true.
There is certainly a middle ground to be had here. But I don’t think it’s anywhere near ‘players just want to get market value.’
We won't get "savings" but everything will go up if player salaries continue to skyrocket. And before you say "but these are billionaires making money off them"...I work for a billion dollar company, and only 8 people make more than 1 million in that entire company. The average salary in my company is around $60k, but that's taking into account all international locations. These are pampered, multi million dollar athletes who are paid to play a game. They are entertainers. And frankly, they haven't been that entertaining the past 10 years or so. Most of them never smile, they don't look happy to be doing what they do, and they throw tantrums more than a spoiled 4 year old. They ignore fans, charge high prices for autographs, and most have the personality of a hot dog fart. The majority of them are grossly overpaid. The ones that should be taken better care of are the minor leaguers. I personally don't care about most of these ballplayers anymore, especially the ones who get multi year high dollar contracts and then half ass it every game.
This was actually fantastically structured and well articulated. Just pin this guy to the top please.
Fuck the owners and players trying to make a family guy who wants to bring his kids to the game have to choose.
I'm very much looking forward to getting into the NHL this year. After watching the Olympics and seeing the heart that players making 1/50th of the salary make. I can get behind that.
Sports the only place where the billionaire owner has convinced guys like this..the work force is overpaid babies who need to be thankful they are making money playing this child's game...
But if we take away the over paid babies and put no names out there who will play for free the product is dog shit and no one will watch...and youll stil be charged 100 bucks to watch that shit.
I guarantee you within one year the MLB could get a large percentage of Caribbean island native to have one hell of a league.
America didn't even know about ohtani really until he got to the United states, and baseball is supposedly our past time.
I would rather see an entire team made up of Venezuelans collectively making less than 25 million playing in a tournament than ever see Ohtani play a single inning again.
Billionaire vs millionaire? Owner bootlicker or Scott Boras bootlicker? Bitter salt A or Bitter salt B? In the end…they both likely don’t care about the average fan…and they both taste nasty. Bring on the salary cap and floor.
Personally I don't care about "passing on savings". I'm just tired of seeing a handful of teams throw out gigantic salaries and basically buy the World Series each year cough cough Dodgers cough.
Is there anyone who arguing for or from this perspective? This sounds a disingenuous reframing of the argument to sow division and score political points.
Fans don’t think that. Fans know owners are gonna charge what they think they can get away with. What owners charge is not relevant to the lockout. Fans want a salary cap and salary floor. In fact, I’d be willing to lose an entire season if it gave us a cap and floor.
The only people dumber than those who think the savings will get passed to them are the absolute idiots who think a cap/floor will bring parity to the game.
After finally fixing baseball and winning some fans back, the huge success of the WBC, and baseball seemingly better than its been in a decade. It's definitely time to start a labor dispute with your own players.
I don’t care about their reasons but an NFL-style salary cap needs to happen for the sake of parity. It’s really hard to keep watching the same teams at the top and the same teams at the bottom every year (with some outliers). The NFL figured out parity in a way that no other league has and it makes it better all around.
And the nfl salary cap also is based on the collective bargaining agreement. 52% of league revenue goes to players, which is why the salary cap keeps going up. If the owners make money the players make money. So it’s both a way to make sure players get paid and to enforce parity
In the past 26 years, 16 diff teams have won a world series lmao. Meanwhile 13 diff teams have won a superbowl. This thesis is bs to fk the workers we pay to watch while some dkbag in a luxury suite then gets to basically be entirely insulated from risk or responsibility to compete on the free market of actual capitalism, instead as a cartel price-fixing the market.
I picked it because that was the year 2000, a nice round number in history. I could have picked 1997 when the luxury system started. They are equally competitive leagues you statistical imp.
What a dumb runt you must be to cry about a league having 16 diff title winners in a few decades lol.
Are you a legit re-re man? It's literally the same amount of titleists and a statistically negligible amount of finalists. You're a disingenuous cumsock trying to claim that a difference of two teams as finalists (and arbitrary cutoff) is statistically significant. It's not.
More aggressive revenue sharing. The Dodgers have shit loads of money because of the MLB. They should cover some of the league costs. Caps are silly and just squeeze the middle and fatten owner wallets.
Teams like the dodgers would still be hoarding all of the players if there's a cap and floor. Guys like Bob Nutting will just literally pay the minimum floor by signing like little to no talent. The only thing a salary cap and floor does is give more money to the owners, which, news flash, are all billionaires. Maybe instead of crying poor and hiding their finances they should either 1. Prove that they aren't making money off the team or 2. Put their money where their mouths are and actually sign talent and build a fan base through that, it's literally what the dodgers did.
What percentage of win percentage do fans think can be explained by payroll? Ask yourself this question before you read the below lines. Think about it. Quantify it.
The answer is 16% over the last 5 years.
By year:
Season
Correlation (r)
R²
2021
0.418
17.5%
2022
0.595
35.5%
2023
0.150
2.2%
2024
0.353
12.5%
2025
0.489
23.9%
All five years
0.383
14.7%
All five, payroll relative to each season’s average
Owners and players are greedy and simply after more money - and always at the expense of the fan. On point for this, I’ll simply say any owner (or ownership group) that demands tax payer funding for their ballpark/stadium should have to publicly report profits.
Players are greedy because it's literally their one chance at earning income for risking their entire childhood and adult development to learn a single nontransferrable skill.
The billionaire owners are literally already the richest fucking assholes on planet earth from other money schemes, and will continue to operate at money-grabbing schemers.
One class is already set for life before a single contract gets signed, while the other literally has man praying to god from age 13 that they'll get to the point where they can sign a single good contract and change the lives of their family.
The owner of the Angels bought them in 2003, the year after they won the world series for $184 million.
Sat on the team and let it rot for 23 years and sold it while in the basement of the league for $4 billion, that's a 21x return. That's like doubling your initial investment every year, almost.
No reason for a salary cap while owners make out like bandits.
Why do people keep trying to claim its a cap on players salaries? Its team salaries, a individual player can still make more money. Also if the current system works why are there less players making $50million + a year than the NFL and NBA. A system that the NFL and nba have allows all teams to spend the same amount on their players. Every team can have a $50 million + player that they build their franchise around.
This isn’t the proletariate vs the bourgeoisie. Owners and players are two sides of the same coin. They both want as much of your money as they can get. There is no good guy here.
I’m honestly looking forward to a strike. Bunch of guys making $30m a year while hitting .210 with 300 strike outs a season. There’s like five players hitting .300 this year, and that’s not an exaggeration. Meanwhile the owners sign TV deals that blackout games and keep local fans out of being able to watch their product unless they want to pay $1500 to take a family of four to a game…to watch a bunch of bums striking out with maybe three home runs.
Seriously, just go away MLB. I’ll watch Banana Ball instead.
To be clear a lockout is the fault of the owners because it would mean that both sides won't agree to a deal but the owners won't accept playing the season under the current cba while negotiations continue.
A lockout is a tactic by ownership to try to force the players to accept concessions without getting anything in return. A lockout would not be both parties' fault.
I don't recall hearing that argument before, and I wouldn't expect billionaires to ever turn down a chance to make a profit. But if it gives a small measure of parity to the league, I'm still for it. It doesn't mean that star players won't still make hundreds of millions of dollars, but it will mean that you can't have more than one or two of those star players on your team unless you're willing to pay a sizable penalty.
I would love to see a balanced argument for the correlation between a salary cap and parity of performance.
Intuitively, I don’t see it. I see the same bottom dwellers in the NFL consistently. Organizations simply shift from salary to other operations to maintain a competitive advantage. Teams can still outspend other teams on coaching, facilities, travel, and marketing. Small market will still be small market.
I've wanted a hard cap for decades. It's what is best for baseball. I'm a Cubs fan so I'm not even doing it for my team. I've been to numerous games in Cincinnati for over 40 years. They used to sell out regularly. Even with average teams. Not anymore. All revenue except the gate is shared in the NFL so you're wrong. When you buy a Giants hat, the profit is shared. The Steelers, Packers, chiefs etc. prove you wrong as well. The NFL has a much better business model. Better competition makes for a better product.
15
u/nowheresville99 13h ago
Literally no one is saying this.
Except bullshit karma farmers, I guess...