MLB Salary Cap—key issues?

[opti mist]

Let’s start the discussion, because it is going to be a tough negotiation. I picked 4 key issues.

Hard cap vs soft cap.
A hard cap like what the NFL has would be difficult to accomplish, so maybe a fall back is a soft cap with certain exemptions and penalties for exceeding the soft cap.
Level would likely be around $275 to $300 million.

Floor
Ideally about 60% of the cap or higher. This would mean around $150 to $180 million.
This would be great for baseball competitiveness.

Revenue sharing
If we think the cap will be a hard sell to the players, imagine selling the minimum floor to owners, especially since it would have to include revenue sharing. Key concept would be to assure each team has minimum income to meet the floor. Identification of owners' $$ that should be shared will be difficult.

Contracts
Players will want a minimum salary, and owners will want limits on years of contracts, bonus $$, deferred $$, and guarantees/buyouts.

This is my list of the most significant issues that will need to be addressed.

What do Cards talk members think?

Opti

[Youboughtit]

Let’s start the discussion, because it is going to be a tough negotiation. I picked 4 key issues.

Hard cap vs soft cap.
A hard cap like what the NFL has would be difficult to accomplish, so maybe a fall back is a soft cap with certain exemptions and penalties for exceeding the soft cap.
Level would likely be around $275 to $300 million.

Floor
Ideally about 60% of the cap or higher. This would mean around $150 to $180 million.
This would be great for baseball competitiveness.

Revenue sharing
If we think the cap will be a hard sell to the players, imagine selling the minimum floor to owners, especially since it would have to include revenue sharing. Key concept would be to assure each team has minimum income to meet the floor. Identification of owners' $$ that should be shared will be difficult.

Contracts
Players will want a minimum salary, and owners will want limits on years of contracts, bonus $$, deferred $$, and guarantees/buyouts.

This is my list of the most significant issues that will need to be addressed.

What do Cards talk members think?

Opti

Key issue is 100% full revenue sharing must come first to establish where that cap and floor should be set with equal revenues established. The lowest floo of any professional sport is 85%

[Dazepster]

Let’s start the discussion, because it is going to be a tough negotiation. I picked 4 key issues.

Hard cap vs soft cap.
A hard cap like what the NFL has would be difficult to accomplish, so maybe a fall back is a soft cap with certain exemptions and penalties for exceeding the soft cap.
Level would likely be around $275 to $300 million.

Floor
Ideally about 60% of the cap or higher. This would mean around $150 to $180 million.
This would be great for baseball competitiveness.

Revenue sharing
If we think the cap will be a hard sell to the players, imagine selling the minimum floor to owners, especially since it would have to include revenue sharing. Key concept would be to assure each team has minimum income to meet the floor. Identification of owners' $$ that should be shared will be difficult.

Contracts
Players will want a minimum salary, and owners will want limits on years of contracts, bonus $$, deferred $$, and guarantees/buyouts.

This is my list of the most significant issues that will need to be addressed.

What do Cards talk members think?

Opti

Key issue is 100% full revenue sharing must come first to establish where that cap and floor should be set with equal revenues established. The lowest floo of any professional sport is 85%

100 percent revenue share is a Non-Starter

Any significant form of revenue share outside of weights being applied is also a Non-Starter.

Not all have equal initial investments. Many have decades worth of deferred capitalization/maintenance/operations and have simply been pigs at the trough.

Yanks and Dodgers aren't going to simply give up their hard earned profits and a large portion of their potential Net Worth for the benefit of the Pittsburgh's of the Union. They will support contraction, relocation and expansion elsewhere before giving in.

A Cap they will support. With a floor as well. But 100 percent Revenue Share. Not happening.

[Punkk6]

Salary cap plus need a solution to this redicilious deferred money nonsense.

[Youboughtit]

Let’s start the discussion, because it is going to be a tough negotiation. I picked 4 key issues.

Hard cap vs soft cap.
A hard cap like what the NFL has would be difficult to accomplish, so maybe a fall back is a soft cap with certain exemptions and penalties for exceeding the soft cap.
Level would likely be around $275 to $300 million.

Floor
Ideally about 60% of the cap or higher. This would mean around $150 to $180 million.
This would be great for baseball competitiveness.

Revenue sharing
If we think the cap will be a hard sell to the players, imagine selling the minimum floor to owners, especially since it would have to include revenue sharing. Key concept would be to assure each team has minimum income to meet the floor. Identification of owners' $$ that should be shared will be difficult.

Contracts
Players will want a minimum salary, and owners will want limits on years of contracts, bonus $$, deferred $$, and guarantees/buyouts.

This is my list of the most significant issues that will need to be addressed.

What do Cards talk members think?

Opti

Key issue is 100% full revenue sharing must come first to establish where that cap and floor should be set with equal revenues established. The lowest floo of any professional sport is 85%

100 percent revenue share is a Non-Starter

Any significant form of revenue share outside of weights being applied is also a Non-Starter.

Not all have equal initial investments. Many have decades worth of deferred capitalization/maintenance/operations and have simply been pigs at the trough.

Yanks and Dodgers aren't going to simply give up their hard earned profits and a large portion of their potential Net Worth for the benefit of the Pittsburgh's of the Union. They will support contraction, relocation and expansion elsewhere before giving in.

A Cap they will support. With a floor as well. But 100 percent Revenue Share. Not happening.

Of course the owners want the cap without addressing the real problem. The floor needed will require full revenue sharing. I don’t beleive it requires a 100% vote from owners. The small markets have to all get together and force it to happen or in your words a salary cap will continue to be a “Non Starter” for the players because the floor cannot be at the 80% level

[mattmitchl44]

The owners will likely have to guarantee the players that the total amount of money going to the players under a new capped system will grow by 4-5% per year.

So if the last uncapped year was, say, $4 billion to the players, the first capped year might have to be at least $4.2 billion, the second $4.41 billion, etc.

If the total falls short of that amount of growth, the owners will have to collect money among themselves and give it to the MLBPA to distribute among the players as they see fit.

[Red Bird Classic]

Let’s start the discussion, because it is going to be a tough negotiation. I picked 4 key issues.

Hard cap vs soft cap.
A hard cap like what the NFL has would be difficult to accomplish, so maybe a fall back is a soft cap with certain exemptions and penalties for exceeding the soft cap.
Level would likely be around $275 to $300 million.

Floor
Ideally about 60% of the cap or higher. This would mean around $150 to $180 million.
This would be great for baseball competitiveness.

Revenue sharing
If we think the cap will be a hard sell to the players, imagine selling the minimum floor to owners, especially since it would have to include revenue sharing. Key concept would be to assure each team has minimum income to meet the floor. Identification of owners' $$ that should be shared will be difficult.

Contracts
Players will want a minimum salary, and owners will want limits on years of contracts, bonus $$, deferred $$, and guarantees/buyouts.

This is my list of the most significant issues that will need to be addressed.

What do Cards talk members think?

Opti

Key issue is 100% full revenue sharing must come first to establish where that cap and floor should be set with equal revenues established. The lowest floo of any professional sport is 85%

100 percent revenue share is a Non-Starter

Any significant form of revenue share outside of weights being applied is also a Non-Starter.

Not all have equal initial investments. Many have decades worth of deferred capitalization/maintenance/operations and have simply been pigs at the trough.

Yanks and Dodgers aren't going to simply give up their hard earned profits and a large portion of their potential Net Worth for the benefit of the Pittsburgh's of the Union. They will support contraction, relocation and expansion elsewhere before giving in.

A Cap they will support. With a floor as well. But 100 percent Revenue Share. Not happening.

Don't know about 100%, but you simply can not have a cap/floor system without a lot more revenue sharing. TV revenue at minimum.

Taking about a cap without revenue sharing is just a waste of time.

First, the owners must make some kind of deal between themselves to shrink the revenue disparity. Then they can ask players for a cap/floor system.

Any other kind of talk is just silly.

[Youboughtit]

The owners will likely have to guarantee the players that the total amount of money going to the players under a new capped system will grow by 4-5% per year.

So if the last uncapped year was, say, $4 billion to the players, the first capped year might have to be at least $4.2 billion, the second $4.41 billion, etc.

If the total falls short of that amount of growth, the owners will have to collect money among themselves and give it to the MLBPA to distribute among the players as they see fit.

I see the resolve being when the 20-25 small market owners put the same pressure on as the players for full revenue sharing. Let’s see the Yankees Mets Dodgers Phillies etc play without the other 25 teams. I am curious how many owner votes are needed to pass 00% revenue sharing like all other sports have.

[Dazepster]

@ youboughtit

Role play.

You are the Yanks. I am the Dodgers.

We each have a franchise in excess of a 5B valuations. We each have revenues exceeding 750M.

We are asked to share that largesse with the Cincys and Pittsburgh's and Miami's of MLB. And quite a few more.

Great deal for them. Their revenues and profits jump, their valuations explode.

Ours crater!!!

They purchased teams for under a 100 M in many cases. Cohen spent a few Billion for his. Must bring all to a par before can seriously consider 100 percent revenue share.

The other owners willing to buck up to buy in for a par footing and then share revenue 100 percent. Doubt that.

[Youboughtit]

@ youboughtit

Role play.

You are the Yanks. I am the Dodgers.

We each have a franchise in excess of a 5B valuations. We each have revenues exceeding 750M.

We are asked to share that largesse with the Cincys and Pittsburgh's and Miami's of MLB. And quite a few more.

Great deal for them. Their revenues and profits jump, their valuations explode.

Ours crater!!!

They purchased teams for under a 100 M in many cases. Cohen spent a few Billion for his. Must bring all to a par before can seriously consider 100 percent revenue share.

The other owners willing to buck up to buy in for a par footing and then share revenue 100 percent. Doubt that.

It was done in NHL NFL MLS and every other sport. The small market owners have to side with the players and force it. Otherwise let those 5-6 teams go somewhere else and play. I see no world where a cap exhist without full revenue sharing. It doesn’t compute because it has to have a 80% or more floor and that $ has to come from somewhere. How do you propose Oakland have $175-200m for payroll? Why should it be the players responsibility to take less because the owners refuse to fix the real problem?

[Dazepster]

Let’s start the discussion, because it is going to be a tough negotiation. I picked 4 key issues.

Hard cap vs soft cap.
A hard cap like what the NFL has would be difficult to accomplish, so maybe a fall back is a soft cap with certain exemptions and penalties for exceeding the soft cap.
Level would likely be around $275 to $300 million.

Floor
Ideally about 60% of the cap or higher. This would mean around $150 to $180 million.
This would be great for baseball competitiveness.

Revenue sharing
If we think the cap will be a hard sell to the players, imagine selling the minimum floor to owners, especially since it would have to include revenue sharing. Key concept would be to assure each team has minimum income to meet the floor. Identification of owners' $$ that should be shared will be difficult.

Contracts
Players will want a minimum salary, and owners will want limits on years of contracts, bonus $$, deferred $$, and guarantees/buyouts.

This is my list of the most significant issues that will need to be addressed.

What do Cards talk members think?

Opti

Key issue is 100% full revenue sharing must come first to establish where that cap and floor should be set with equal revenues established. The lowest floo of any professional sport is 85%

100 percent revenue share is a Non-Starter

Any significant form of revenue share outside of weights being applied is also a Non-Starter.

Not all have equal initial investments. Many have decades worth of deferred capitalization/maintenance/operations and have simply been pigs at the trough.

Yanks and Dodgers aren't going to simply give up their hard earned profits and a large portion of their potential Net Worth for the benefit of the Pittsburgh's of the Union. They will support contraction, relocation and expansion elsewhere before giving in.

A Cap they will support. With a floor as well. But 100 percent Revenue Share. Not happening.

Don't know about 100%, but you simply can not have a cap/floor system without a lot more revenue sharing. TV revenue at minimum.

Taking about a cap without revenue sharing is just a waste of time.

First, the owners must make some kind of deal between themselves to shrink the revenue disparity. Then they can ask players for a cap/floor system.

Any other kind of talk is just silly.

I fully support forms of revenue share. But needs to be fair and not something that can be gamed.

Where and how deep is where it gets interesting.

Home Stadium. Home Team keeps all. Build a good team, people come to the park to see you, you earned it. And all that goes with it. Parking concessions yada yada yada.

Broadcast Rights.
Local. Home Team keeps.
National. 100 percent revenue share.
Ditto for radio and streaming.
Mdse outside of team and stadium stores is 100 percent revenue shared.

What else we got???

[Youboughtit]

Let’s start the discussion, because it is going to be a tough negotiation. I picked 4 key issues.

Hard cap vs soft cap.
A hard cap like what the NFL has would be difficult to accomplish, so maybe a fall back is a soft cap with certain exemptions and penalties for exceeding the soft cap.
Level would likely be around $275 to $300 million.

Floor
Ideally about 60% of the cap or higher. This would mean around $150 to $180 million.
This would be great for baseball competitiveness.

Revenue sharing
If we think the cap will be a hard sell to the players, imagine selling the minimum floor to owners, especially since it would have to include revenue sharing. Key concept would be to assure each team has minimum income to meet the floor. Identification of owners' $$ that should be shared will be difficult.

Contracts
Players will want a minimum salary, and owners will want limits on years of contracts, bonus $$, deferred $$, and guarantees/buyouts.

This is my list of the most significant issues that will need to be addressed.

What do Cards talk members think?

Opti

Key issue is 100% full revenue sharing must come first to establish where that cap and floor should be set with equal revenues established. The lowest floo of any professional sport is 85%

100 percent revenue share is a Non-Starter

Any significant form of revenue share outside of weights being applied is also a Non-Starter.

Not all have equal initial investments. Many have decades worth of deferred capitalization/maintenance/operations and have simply been pigs at the trough.

Yanks and Dodgers aren't going to simply give up their hard earned profits and a large portion of their potential Net Worth for the benefit of the Pittsburgh's of the Union. They will support contraction, relocation and expansion elsewhere before giving in.

A Cap they will support. With a floor as well. But 100 percent Revenue Share. Not happening.

Don't know about 100%, but you simply can not have a cap/floor system without a lot more revenue sharing. TV revenue at minimum.

Taking about a cap without revenue sharing is just a waste of time.

First, the owners must make some kind of deal between themselves to shrink the revenue disparity. Then they can ask players for a cap/floor system.

Any other kind of talk is just silly.

I fully support forms of revenue share. But needs to be fair and not something that can be gamed.

Where and how deep is where it gets interesting.

Home Stadium. Home Team keeps all. Build a good team, people come to the park to see you, you earned it. And all that goes with it. Parking concessions yada yada yada.

Broadcast Rights.
Local. Home Team keeps.
National. 100 percent revenue share.
Ditto for radio and streaming.
Mdse outside of team and stadium stores is 100 percent revenue shared.

What else we got???

Well you’re keeping the only part that matters the same. Local TV rights must be shared. The Yankees cannot play themselves. The Local TV is the game changer. Some teams get 100x more than others. Or do what the NFL did. All one contract. National and NFL has the rights to all. Not the individual teams.

[45s]

Given the current arbitration process, a floor is inflationary..

[Whatashame]

No one thinks this is going to be easy. Sure there’s variables but MLB has to figure out a way to make the game more competitive. The large market teams have to make a concerted effort to make the small market teams more viable. Did anyone not think that the NL would be led by the Dodgers, Mets, Phillies, Cubs and the AL led by the Yankees, Red Sox, Houston, Toronto.

Each side is going to dig in with their personal interests but the viability of the game is front and center. The league can’t operate on 10 large market teams and 20 also rans. The owners AND players have to put their differences aside and realize this cash cow makes lots of money for everyone.

A hard cap, a hard floor and some form of revenue sharing is essential to grow the game for everyone.

[ClassicO]

I'm 90% sure the MLBPA won't allow any of these -- and will strike for a long time, if not locked out, because "the have" teams won't agree to equality on spending -- or revenue. Players and owners fought this in the last CBA, and the Dodgers and others railed about how they gave too much -- to the other owners, not players!

They've used the luxury tax as a faux-Cap, and although it certainly has affected the spending of most teams, it's not all.

There IS already a lot of revenue per the 2022 CBA, as teams share 48% of local revenues equally shared (over $100M per team) and reallocation of the total national TV and licensing (also over $100M per team), where 'the haves" get less. The "have-not" teams that receive huge dollars from "the haves" don't spend it! This disincentivizes giving the have-nots more when logically viewed by the other owners, players and fans.

So would your cap include a spending floor? The haves owners and players would require this IMHO.

[Dazepster]

@youboughtit

No issue sharing Natl Rights. But not sharing local. I am bringing in local patrons because I am putting a compelling product in front of them.

Don't give a hoot who the opponent might be.

They can keep their home gate provided they also provide a compelling product. If they can't, shame on them, you are not getting me to subsidize their Failures.

You subscribe to your local cable provider or steam via Cards Site it goes to the Cards. You get your Cards through MLB or alt streamer, it is Natl and subject to 100 percent revenue share.

Buy a hat or jersey at Busch or on Cards Team site it is local and team keeps all. You buy on the Web outside of Cards Site it is Natl. Buy at a local Mall. Local sale. Buy outside of a specific territory it is a Natl sale.

Etc etc etc

Cannot Reward Complacency and Incompetence. And that is rampant among The Burghers of Baseball

You do well or a good job, there is a Reward. You screw up, you earn yourself a demerit. Not a Safety Net. This isn't Socialism or Communism.

Too Much Money for that!!!