Why MLB’s Cheapest Teams Are Trying to Look Competitive

The Pittsburgh Pirates and Miami Marlins, teams known for their tiny payrolls and endless rebuilds, are suddenly popping up in rumors for bigger-name free agents like Josh Naylor and Kyle Schwarber.

At first glance, it looks like they’re making a competitive shift. But really, there’s a more calculated motive: they want to show the public—and the league—that they’re making some financial effort, especially now, when MLB’s economic model faces heavy scrutiny.

Why Low-Payroll Teams Are Suddenly Chasing Big Names

If you want to understand what’s going on, you have to look past the box scores and into the boardrooms. The Pirates and Marlins don’t just want more wins; they want to prove they’ll spend in an era when spending habits are a hot topic in league politics.

The optics of pursuing Josh Naylor and Kyle Schwarber

When reports link the Pirates and Marlins to hitters like Josh Naylor and Kyle Schwarber, it doesn’t mean they’re about to change their stripes overnight. These pursuits are about signaling—showing the world they’re “in the game,” even if they don’t actually land the player.

Veteran agent Seth Levinson has pointed out that this kind of activity sends a message, especially to big-market owners. The smaller-market franchises want to be seen as at least trying to improve, not just pocketing revenue-sharing money.

The Economic Tug-of-War Shaping MLB’s Future

This sudden flurry of rumors lines up with bigger conversations about MLB’s economic structure, from revenue sharing to talk of salary floors and caps.

The balance of power between big and small markets is up for debate right now.

Revenue sharing and the push to level the field

Teams like the Boston Red Sox and Los Angeles Dodgers have said they’re open to expanded revenue sharing. One idea is to pool more broadcast and media revenues, which would shrink the built-in advantage for clubs with huge local TV deals and massive fan bases.

That sounds like a win for the little guys, at least on paper. But here’s the rub: some small-market teams, including the Pirates and Marlins, have taken heat for not putting that shared revenue back into payroll.

They’ve kept salaries at the bottom of the league, even when they could spend more. That’s where optics really matter.

Big-market owners, if they’re going to send more money into the pool, want proof it’s making teams more competitive—not just padding profits. Suddenly chasing free agents lets the Pirates and Marlins claim they’re part of the push for competition.

Salary caps, floors, and Hal Steinbrenner’s stance

The debate over a salary cap and a possible salary floor is tangled up in all this. Yankees owner Hal Steinbrenner has said he supports a salary floor—forcing every team to spend a certain minimum—but he doesn’t want a cap unless that floor is part of the deal.

That’s a pretty common frustration among big spenders. They’ll take limits at the top if the bottom rises too, making sure low-payroll clubs can’t just collect revenue-sharing checks and skimp on their rosters.

Are the Pirates and Marlins Playing Defense Off the Field?

In this light, Pittsburgh and Miami’s interest in free agents looks like political maneuvering as much as a genuine push to win. Maybe they’re trying to hold onto their spot in baseball’s financial ecosystem.

Protecting revenue-sharing streams and autonomy

When small-market teams spend the bare minimum, people start asking tough questions:

The Pirates and Marlins’ recent moves to engage bigger names in free agency might be their answer. By being aggressive—floating offers, adding opt-out clauses, and popping up in rumors—they can claim they’re doing their part, even if they don’t land the player.

Otherwise, they risk losing some revenue-sharing benefits or facing stricter financial controls from league reforms. For owners who value flexibility and autonomy, that’s a big reason to at least look like they’re in the hunt.

The reality: spending interest doesn’t equal player interest

But here’s the thing: destination appeal is a tough hurdle. Even with more money on the table and creative contracts, these teams struggle to compete with franchises that offer a winning culture, bigger markets, and more prestige.

Sometimes, offering extra cash or opt-outs just isn’t enough when a player could join a perennial contender. So, even if rumors keep swirling all offseason, there’s no guarantee these pursuits will turn into actual signings.

What MLB Owners Want to See Next

As MLB inches toward possible structural changes, one thing stands out: large-market owners want proof that smaller-market clubs are really trying to compete, not just get by.

If they don’t see that, any push to expand revenue sharing or set up real salary rules will hit a wall.

The Pirates and Marlins dipping into bigger free-agent pools is interesting. Still, that’s just a start.

Over the next few years, the real question isn’t who they chat with at the winter meetings—it’s who they actually sign, how steady their spending gets, and whether that money leads to a real shot at winning.

 
Here is the source article for this story: Why MLB’s Cheapest Teams Are At Least Trying To Seem Like They’re Trying