Why are Billionaire owners whining?

[Cardinals1964]

These owners are businessmen, and they are diversifying in many ways. For example, Ball Park Village is a big hit for DeWallet. Teams are looking to buy parking lots, real estate around these parks, ... in order to make money that technically is not tied to the team's finances. Yet, they really are. To be sure, DeWallet made it clear that if attendance dropped, team spending would drop. He didn't hide that. It is a business to him, and he doesn't care about winning a World Series. He cares about his bottom line and whether his investment is making him money.

And that is his prerogative. I don’t care if I have the best produce stand in the world. I just cared that the 20 I own are making me money. That’s the only analogy I could think of. I don’t own a produce stand.

[Voldemort]

These owners are businessmen, and they are diversifying in many ways. For example, Ball Park Village is a big hit for DeWallet. Teams are looking to buy parking lots, real estate around these parks, ... in order to make money that technically is not tied to the team's finances. Yet, they really are. To be sure, DeWallet made it clear that if attendance dropped, team spending would drop. He didn't hide that. It is a business to him, and he doesn't care about winning a World Series. He cares about his bottom line and whether his investment is making him money.

And that is his prerogative. I don’t care if I have the best produce stand in the world. I just cared that the 20 I own are making me money. That’s the only analogy I could think of. I don’t own a produce stand.

I agree and have understood it all along. Augie Busch was not only an owner, but he also lived it as the owner of the Cardinals. He wore something signifying the Cardinals on his person at all times. I had the pleasure of talking to him multiple times. Dewallet, not so much. Cardinal Nation needs to accept this. I am still a fan and will focus on the youngins this year and see how they develop. That doesn't mean that I will be happy.

[Cranny]

These owners are businessmen, and they are diversifying in many ways. For example, Ball Park Village is a big hit for DeWallet. Teams are looking to buy parking lots, real estate around these parks, ... in order to make money that technically is not tied to the team's finances. Yet, they really are. To be sure, DeWallet made it clear that if attendance dropped, team spending would drop. He didn't hide that. It is a business to him, and he doesn't care about winning a World Series. He cares about his bottom line and whether his investment is making him money.

And that is his prerogative. I don’t care if I have the best produce stand in the world. I just cared that the 20 I own are making me money. That’s the only analogy I could think of. I don’t own a produce stand.

I agree and have understood it all along. Augie Busch was not only an owner, but he also lived it as the owner of the Cardinals. He wore something signifying the Cardinals on his person at all times. I had the pleasure of talking to him multiple times. Dewallet, not so much. Cardinal Nation needs to accept this. I am still a fan and will focus on the youngins this year and see how they develop. That doesn't mean that I will be happy.

I’ll be happy watching the youngins this season. As usual, will check out the minor league box scores every day.

[redbird1.2.3.4]

Because you're looking at it the wrong way. It is not a hobby. It's an investment. Period . They expect to make money as they should.

[AtillaTheBlue1]

Professional sports are a hobby for them. Much like hunting or any other sport for the average human. All hobbies are fun and not designed to generate profits. These owners have hundreds of businesses that generate their wealth. I think if you asked any of them prior to buying a team that is how they envisioned it. I beleive what changes is 30 smart guys get it a room and it changes from sport to business. All of the sudden every one of them wants to be the “smartest guy in the room”. Until that changes the fans pay the freight. MLB has an ownership problem except a few at the top.

Loosing $100m per season on a hobby that value increases $200m should not be a problem

I can see why u aren't a Billionaire

[renostl]

To change the subject. I don’t know why some people blame the players for the owners overspending. The owners are dishing out this money and then they want the players to accept a salary cap to keep themselves from spending too much. It’s ridiculous. Then fans rush in to feel sorry for owners that are spending too much. As if these owners don’t know how to handle their finances.

Pretty rare for top businessmen to pay employees more
than they can afford or significantly more than they need to.
So Tucker had $50M+ somewhere they gave $60 to stop the bidding.
Even so they get most of KT's prime seasons under those
who predicted him for $300M, $400+M crazy predictions.

Best controlled with a free market, if at all possible, IMO.

The playing field to pay such needs leveled better.
I have doubts of accomplishing since I'm a skeptic of working together.

Players and fans would benefit, jmo.
If a player plays for 5 teams he doesn't care what 25 teams do.
The players on those teams should.
The tax needs more penalties than money since
pockets are insanely deep in some markets.

I would like everybody that has a job to go to work tomorrow and ask for a reduction in their pay, so whatever product you’re company is selling will be cheaper for me as a consumer.

When these horrible business men that own, these teams all go bankrupt, then they can work on a solution.

Which mixes up your topics here.
I totally agreed with you and called it extremely rare for employees to get overpaid.
Fans and players IMO would both benefit from a level playing field. What way works can be debated
forever, here's a clue, all ways have flaws.
Caps are not, teams will have budgets. One of your positions suggested concern of the vets. Well they get
squeezed just as much by budget as caps.

Nobody is asking for anyone to take a cut just level the field.

[TheJackBurton]

3 other leagues have figured it out without a problem. There are only so many roster spots so players will have to sign elsewhere whether they want to or not.

3 other leagues with a cap and floor has punished middle journeyman talent.
Pay your top talent as much as you can. Pay your lesser talent as little as possible. No room for journeymen.
Why would I pay a utility guy $10 million to make the floor when I could pay a rookie $1 million? I’d save $9 million to go after higher level talent. This is a real problem in one of the other major sports.

No it hasn't, if anything it has kept them in the league longer because they are affordable and consistent. You know exactly what you are going to get with them.

Who has been squeezed out are vets who no longer produce at their previous levels and still want to be paid like they are.

I think you’re guessing at that.
Salary caps/floor Impact on Journeyman Talent:
Cost vs. Value: Teams often prefer cheaper rookie contracts or minimum-salary veterans over journeymen, who occupy valuable cap space without being franchise cornerstones.
Cap Management: Teams frequently restructure contracts of top stars, converting salary to bonuses, which creates "dead money" and necessitates shedding middle-tier, veteran contracts to stay under the cap.
Rookie Wage Scale: The rookie wage scale has changed the economics, favoring young, cost-controlled talent over experienced, mid-tier veterans.
Floor Constraints: While the 90% floor requires minimum spending, teams often prefer to spend that required money on top-tier talent rather than spreading it across multiple veteran journeymen.


Thats the reality.

No I'm not guessing. Mid-tier guys tend to have a longer shelf life because they can be signed easily, don't request much in the form of salary, and generally play close to their contract value. When the buyout season in the NHL comes, it's never the 3rd or 4th line guys who guys get cut, it's the superstars whose contracts have far exceeded their value on the ice. A lower end contract is always easier to trade and should they get waived they end up getting re-signed as the contract demands again are minimal.

They sign very quickly in UFA as they know there only a finite amount of money and contracts available. Superstars can wait months before signing if they want, as MLB has proven over the past decade.

It's the 12-15 year veteran who gets squeezed out now because it's a young mans game and they can no longer keep up and no longer are valued contract wise.

A "just spend as much or as little as you want" league is no longer viable in the sports world and MLB is absolutely proving it.

I disagree. 100%.

Of course you do, based on everything you've said it doesn't surprise me in the least. At this point I'd imagine you are Tony Clark.

The NFL started their salary cap decades ago, they have a cap and a floor and they are easily at the top of the food chain for sports entertainment and have a single event that gets more eyeballs on it then the majority of MLB games combined for an entire season. They have 4 of the top 10 and 11 of the top 20 earnings athletes in 2025. Guess it works for them.

The NBA has a salary cap and a floor, and they even have exceptions to maximize paying a player and have 6 of the top 20 paid athletes in 2025. Huh, doesn't seem to be hurting the players at all.

The NHL has seen their revenue and overall league health increase 10x since they instituted a salary cap and floor and are now the longest running league without any lock outs or strikes. Huh guess it works for them.

Funny how those 3 leagues have a salary cap and floor and yet 2 of them have 17 of the top 20 paid athletes in 2025. MLB has exactly 2. Ohtanei and Snell.

One of the largest differences between those 3 leagues and MLB currently is, if Paul Skenes played hockey and was as good at it as he is at pitching, the Penguins would have a 90% chance of keeping him his entire career as the other 31 teams are capped at what they can offer or destroy their team overpaying him.

The Pirates? No chance, unless he is willing to take less and stay there, but there's no way his agent allows it. None.

I'll let you discuss it amongst yourself.

[renostl]

These owners are businessmen, and they are diversifying in many ways. For example, Ball Park Village is a big hit for DeWallet. Teams are looking to buy parking lots, real estate around these parks, ... in order to make money that technically is not tied to the team's finances. Yet, they really are. To be sure, DeWallet made it clear that if attendance dropped, team spending would drop. He didn't hide that. It is a business to him, and he doesn't care about winning a World Series. He cares about his bottom line and whether his investment is making him money.

I would not make that jump that he doesn't care about championships with a definitive stance.
Championship feed the system.

What you stated about BPV is true. It's considered by MLB as an investment. It stays out of the 48% that must be
shared. It is also true in the TV ownerships and partial ownerships. These are the loopholes in the 48% rules. The Cards
attempted to take some advantage here but failed for several reasons. That money might have gone in Bills wallet but
it could also go toward the team if he gets to keep more of it. As a partial owner it has partial affect.

Fast forward to full network ownership in a very large TV network. The network could keep almost all profits
and pay the team low broadcast fees. Keeps revenue out of the 48% but they are indeed getting revenue from
the team in advertising fees.

[Cardinals1964]

These owners are businessmen, and they are diversifying in many ways. For example, Ball Park Village is a big hit for DeWallet. Teams are looking to buy parking lots, real estate around these parks, ... in order to make money that technically is not tied to the team's finances. Yet, they really are. To be sure, DeWallet made it clear that if attendance dropped, team spending would drop. He didn't hide that. It is a business to him, and he doesn't care about winning a World Series. He cares about his bottom line and whether his investment is making him money.

And that is his prerogative. I don’t care if I have the best produce stand in the world. I just cared that the 20 I own are making me money. That’s the only analogy I could think of. I don’t own a produce stand.

I agree and have understood it all along. Augie Busch was not only an owner, but he also lived it as the owner of the Cardinals. He wore something signifying the Cardinals on his person at all times. I had the pleasure of talking to him multiple times. Dewallet, not so much. Cardinal Nation needs to accept this. I am still a fan and will focus on the youngins this year and see how they develop. That doesn't mean that I will be happy.

I’ll be happy watching the youngins this season. As usual, will check out the minor league box scores every day.

Me too.

[Cardinals1964]

3 other leagues have figured it out without a problem. There are only so many roster spots so players will have to sign elsewhere whether they want to or not.

3 other leagues with a cap and floor has punished middle journeyman talent.
Pay your top talent as much as you can. Pay your lesser talent as little as possible. No room for journeymen.
Why would I pay a utility guy $10 million to make the floor when I could pay a rookie $1 million? I’d save $9 million to go after higher level talent. This is a real problem in one of the other major sports.

No it hasn't, if anything it has kept them in the league longer because they are affordable and consistent. You know exactly what you are going to get with them.

Who has been squeezed out are vets who no longer produce at their previous levels and still want to be paid like they are.

I think you’re guessing at that.
Salary caps/floor Impact on Journeyman Talent:
Cost vs. Value: Teams often prefer cheaper rookie contracts or minimum-salary veterans over journeymen, who occupy valuable cap space without being franchise cornerstones.
Cap Management: Teams frequently restructure contracts of top stars, converting salary to bonuses, which creates "dead money" and necessitates shedding middle-tier, veteran contracts to stay under the cap.
Rookie Wage Scale: The rookie wage scale has changed the economics, favoring young, cost-controlled talent over experienced, mid-tier veterans.
Floor Constraints: While the 90% floor requires minimum spending, teams often prefer to spend that required money on top-tier talent rather than spreading it across multiple veteran journeymen.


Thats the reality.

No I'm not guessing. Mid-tier guys tend to have a longer shelf life because they can be signed easily, don't request much in the form of salary, and generally play close to their contract value. When the buyout season in the NHL comes, it's never the 3rd or 4th line guys who guys get cut, it's the superstars whose contracts have far exceeded their value on the ice. A lower end contract is always easier to trade and should they get waived they end up getting re-signed as the contract demands again are minimal.

They sign very quickly in UFA as they know there only a finite amount of money and contracts available. Superstars can wait months before signing if they want, as MLB has proven over the past decade.

It's the 12-15 year veteran who gets squeezed out now because it's a young mans game and they can no longer keep up and no longer are valued contract wise.

A "just spend as much or as little as you want" league is no longer viable in the sports world and MLB is absolutely proving it.

I disagree. 100%.

Of course you do, based on everything you've said it doesn't surprise me in the least. At this point I'd imagine you are Tony Clark.

The NFL started their salary cap decades ago, they have a cap and a floor and they are easily at the top of the food chain for sports entertainment and have a single event that gets more eyeballs on it then the majority of MLB games combined for an entire season. They have 4 of the top 10 and 11 of the top 20 earnings athletes in 2025. Guess it works for them.

The NBA has a salary cap and a floor, and they even have exceptions to maximize paying a player and have 6 of the top 20 paid athletes in 2025. Huh, doesn't seem to be hurting the players at all.

The NHL has seen their revenue and overall league health increase 10x since they instituted a salary cap and floor and are now the longest running league without any lock outs or strikes. Huh guess it works for them.

Funny how those 3 leagues have a salary cap and floor and yet 2 of them have 17 of the top 20 paid athletes in 2025. MLB has exactly 2. Ohtanei and Snell.

One of the largest differences between those 3 leagues and MLB currently is, if Paul Skenes played hockey and was as good at it as he is at pitching, the Penguins would have a 90% chance of keeping him his entire career as the other 31 teams are capped at what they can offer or destroy their team overpaying him.

The Pirates? No chance, unless he is willing to take less and stay there, but there's no way his agent allows it. None.

I'll let you discuss it amongst yourself.

You are correct. Top-tier players don’t get hurt. That’s what I said. This is what I base my opinion on. What brings you to your conclusion? I remember when salary caps were introduced and I remember journeymen players finding it hard to get a job. In some leagues, the minimum salary increases with years of service. So instead of having a four-year player making a higher minimum league salary it’s better to have a one year player making a lower amount of money. I can’t believe you don’t remember this when it first happened.

How Salary Caps Hurt Journeyman Players:
Salary Squeeze: When a large portion of the salary cap is allocated to a few superstar players, teams have less money to distribute among the rest of the roster. This forces them to fill out the team with lower-paid, younger, or minimum-salary players, often at the expense of established veteran journeymen.
"Cap Casualties": To stay under the cap, teams frequently release veteran players with higher salaries once their performance begins to decline, even if they are still solid contributors.
Reduced Leverage: Salary caps act as a ceiling, limiting the bargaining power of non-star players who might otherwise receive higher offers in an unrestricted market.
Talent Concentration vs. Rotation: While intended to spread talent, caps can sometimes encourage teams to maximize efficiency by dumping reliable mid-level talent to keep top-tier players, reducing the overall demand for experienced, dependable, but non-star, professionals.
The "Superstar" Effect:
In leagues with hard caps (like the NFL or NHL), teams often pay a premium for elite talent, leaving little room for error or high-cost role players. As a result, the middle class of players often faces stagnant wages or job insecurity, as teams opt for cheaper alternatives to maximize their cap space.
Alternative Viewpoint:
Some arguments suggest that salary caps, when combined with a strong salary floor (minimum spend), can actually raise the minimum salary for the lowest-paid players, effectively strengthening the income of the bottom tier. However, the "middle-class" journeyman player often faces the most significant squeeze.

[TheJackBurton]

3 other leagues have figured it out without a problem. There are only so many roster spots so players will have to sign elsewhere whether they want to or not.

3 other leagues with a cap and floor has punished middle journeyman talent.
Pay your top talent as much as you can. Pay your lesser talent as little as possible. No room for journeymen.
Why would I pay a utility guy $10 million to make the floor when I could pay a rookie $1 million? I’d save $9 million to go after higher level talent. This is a real problem in one of the other major sports.

No it hasn't, if anything it has kept them in the league longer because they are affordable and consistent. You know exactly what you are going to get with them.

Who has been squeezed out are vets who no longer produce at their previous levels and still want to be paid like they are.

I think you’re guessing at that.
Salary caps/floor Impact on Journeyman Talent:
Cost vs. Value: Teams often prefer cheaper rookie contracts or minimum-salary veterans over journeymen, who occupy valuable cap space without being franchise cornerstones.
Cap Management: Teams frequently restructure contracts of top stars, converting salary to bonuses, which creates "dead money" and necessitates shedding middle-tier, veteran contracts to stay under the cap.
Rookie Wage Scale: The rookie wage scale has changed the economics, favoring young, cost-controlled talent over experienced, mid-tier veterans.
Floor Constraints: While the 90% floor requires minimum spending, teams often prefer to spend that required money on top-tier talent rather than spreading it across multiple veteran journeymen.


Thats the reality.

No I'm not guessing. Mid-tier guys tend to have a longer shelf life because they can be signed easily, don't request much in the form of salary, and generally play close to their contract value. When the buyout season in the NHL comes, it's never the 3rd or 4th line guys who guys get cut, it's the superstars whose contracts have far exceeded their value on the ice. A lower end contract is always easier to trade and should they get waived they end up getting re-signed as the contract demands again are minimal.

They sign very quickly in UFA as they know there only a finite amount of money and contracts available. Superstars can wait months before signing if they want, as MLB has proven over the past decade.

It's the 12-15 year veteran who gets squeezed out now because it's a young mans game and they can no longer keep up and no longer are valued contract wise.

A "just spend as much or as little as you want" league is no longer viable in the sports world and MLB is absolutely proving it.

I disagree. 100%.

Of course you do, based on everything you've said it doesn't surprise me in the least. At this point I'd imagine you are Tony Clark.

The NFL started their salary cap decades ago, they have a cap and a floor and they are easily at the top of the food chain for sports entertainment and have a single event that gets more eyeballs on it then the majority of MLB games combined for an entire season. They have 4 of the top 10 and 11 of the top 20 earnings athletes in 2025. Guess it works for them.

The NBA has a salary cap and a floor, and they even have exceptions to maximize paying a player and have 6 of the top 20 paid athletes in 2025. Huh, doesn't seem to be hurting the players at all.

The NHL has seen their revenue and overall league health increase 10x since they instituted a salary cap and floor and are now the longest running league without any lock outs or strikes. Huh guess it works for them.

Funny how those 3 leagues have a salary cap and floor and yet 2 of them have 17 of the top 20 paid athletes in 2025. MLB has exactly 2. Ohtanei and Snell.

One of the largest differences between those 3 leagues and MLB currently is, if Paul Skenes played hockey and was as good at it as he is at pitching, the Penguins would have a 90% chance of keeping him his entire career as the other 31 teams are capped at what they can offer or destroy their team overpaying him.

The Pirates? No chance, unless he is willing to take less and stay there, but there's no way his agent allows it. None.

I'll let you discuss it amongst yourself.

You are correct. Top-tier players don’t get hurt. That’s what I said. This is what I base my opinion on. What brings you to your conclusion? I remember when salary caps were introduced and I remember journeymen players finding it hard to get a job. In some leagues, the minimum salary increases with years of service. So instead of having a four-year player making a higher minimum league salary it’s better to have a one year player making a lower amount of money. I can’t believe you don’t remember this when it first happened.

How Salary Caps Hurt Journeyman Players:
Salary Squeeze: When a large portion of the salary cap is allocated to a few superstar players, teams have less money to distribute among the rest of the roster. This forces them to fill out the team with lower-paid, younger, or minimum-salary players, often at the expense of established veteran journeymen.
"Cap Casualties": To stay under the cap, teams frequently release veteran players with higher salaries once their performance begins to decline, even if they are still solid contributors.
Reduced Leverage: Salary caps act as a ceiling, limiting the bargaining power of non-star players who might otherwise receive higher offers in an unrestricted market.
Talent Concentration vs. Rotation: While intended to spread talent, caps can sometimes encourage teams to maximize efficiency by dumping reliable mid-level talent to keep top-tier players, reducing the overall demand for experienced, dependable, but non-star, professionals.
The "Superstar" Effect:
In leagues with hard caps (like the NFL or NHL), teams often pay a premium for elite talent, leaving little room for error or high-cost role players. As a result, the middle class of players often faces stagnant wages or job insecurity, as teams opt for cheaper alternatives to maximize their cap space.
Alternative Viewpoint:
Some arguments suggest that salary caps, when combined with a strong salary floor (minimum spend), can actually raise the minimum salary for the lowest-paid players, effectively strengthening the income of the bottom tier. However, the "middle-class" journeyman player often faces the most significant squeeze.

the leagues have changed significantly and have balanced out their payroll as well as figuring out that you can't have multiple superstars making max money and win. You have to build a complete team, and that includes middle journeyman who in baseball terms gets you a 270 average, a 325-330 obp can field decently or is a plus glove and likely plays multiple positions just about every single year like clockwork. That is the majority of MLB so no those players won't get squeezed out.

A team can still load up on superstars but once one of them get hurts they are screwed because they can't just go an sign or trade for another superstar because the cap doesn't allow it. You have to draft develop and keep your players.

MLB also has to fix their draft it's a complete mess as well.

[Cardinals1964]

3 other leagues have figured it out without a problem. There are only so many roster spots so players will have to sign elsewhere whether they want to or not.

3 other leagues with a cap and floor has punished middle journeyman talent.
Pay your top talent as much as you can. Pay your lesser talent as little as possible. No room for journeymen.
Why would I pay a utility guy $10 million to make the floor when I could pay a rookie $1 million? I’d save $9 million to go after higher level talent. This is a real problem in one of the other major sports.

No it hasn't, if anything it has kept them in the league longer because they are affordable and consistent. You know exactly what you are going to get with them.

Who has been squeezed out are vets who no longer produce at their previous levels and still want to be paid like they are.

I think you’re guessing at that.
Salary caps/floor Impact on Journeyman Talent:
Cost vs. Value: Teams often prefer cheaper rookie contracts or minimum-salary veterans over journeymen, who occupy valuable cap space without being franchise cornerstones.
Cap Management: Teams frequently restructure contracts of top stars, converting salary to bonuses, which creates "dead money" and necessitates shedding middle-tier, veteran contracts to stay under the cap.
Rookie Wage Scale: The rookie wage scale has changed the economics, favoring young, cost-controlled talent over experienced, mid-tier veterans.
Floor Constraints: While the 90% floor requires minimum spending, teams often prefer to spend that required money on top-tier talent rather than spreading it across multiple veteran journeymen.


Thats the reality.

No I'm not guessing. Mid-tier guys tend to have a longer shelf life because they can be signed easily, don't request much in the form of salary, and generally play close to their contract value. When the buyout season in the NHL comes, it's never the 3rd or 4th line guys who guys get cut, it's the superstars whose contracts have far exceeded their value on the ice. A lower end contract is always easier to trade and should they get waived they end up getting re-signed as the contract demands again are minimal.

They sign very quickly in UFA as they know there only a finite amount of money and contracts available. Superstars can wait months before signing if they want, as MLB has proven over the past decade.

It's the 12-15 year veteran who gets squeezed out now because it's a young mans game and they can no longer keep up and no longer are valued contract wise.

A "just spend as much or as little as you want" league is no longer viable in the sports world and MLB is absolutely proving it.

I disagree. 100%.

Of course you do, based on everything you've said it doesn't surprise me in the least. At this point I'd imagine you are Tony Clark.

The NFL started their salary cap decades ago, they have a cap and a floor and they are easily at the top of the food chain for sports entertainment and have a single event that gets more eyeballs on it then the majority of MLB games combined for an entire season. They have 4 of the top 10 and 11 of the top 20 earnings athletes in 2025. Guess it works for them.

The NBA has a salary cap and a floor, and they even have exceptions to maximize paying a player and have 6 of the top 20 paid athletes in 2025. Huh, doesn't seem to be hurting the players at all.

The NHL has seen their revenue and overall league health increase 10x since they instituted a salary cap and floor and are now the longest running league without any lock outs or strikes. Huh guess it works for them.

Funny how those 3 leagues have a salary cap and floor and yet 2 of them have 17 of the top 20 paid athletes in 2025. MLB has exactly 2. Ohtanei and Snell.

One of the largest differences between those 3 leagues and MLB currently is, if Paul Skenes played hockey and was as good at it as he is at pitching, the Penguins would have a 90% chance of keeping him his entire career as the other 31 teams are capped at what they can offer or destroy their team overpaying him.

The Pirates? No chance, unless he is willing to take less and stay there, but there's no way his agent allows it. None.

I'll let you discuss it amongst yourself.

You are correct. Top-tier players don’t get hurt. That’s what I said. This is what I base my opinion on. What brings you to your conclusion? I remember when salary caps were introduced and I remember journeymen players finding it hard to get a job. In some leagues, the minimum salary increases with years of service. So instead of having a four-year player making a higher minimum league salary it’s better to have a one year player making a lower amount of money. I can’t believe you don’t remember this when it first happened.

How Salary Caps Hurt Journeyman Players:
Salary Squeeze: When a large portion of the salary cap is allocated to a few superstar players, teams have less money to distribute among the rest of the roster. This forces them to fill out the team with lower-paid, younger, or minimum-salary players, often at the expense of established veteran journeymen.
"Cap Casualties": To stay under the cap, teams frequently release veteran players with higher salaries once their performance begins to decline, even if they are still solid contributors.
Reduced Leverage: Salary caps act as a ceiling, limiting the bargaining power of non-star players who might otherwise receive higher offers in an unrestricted market.
Talent Concentration vs. Rotation: While intended to spread talent, caps can sometimes encourage teams to maximize efficiency by dumping reliable mid-level talent to keep top-tier players, reducing the overall demand for experienced, dependable, but non-star, professionals.
The "Superstar" Effect:
In leagues with hard caps (like the NFL or NHL), teams often pay a premium for elite talent, leaving little room for error or high-cost role players. As a result, the middle class of players often faces stagnant wages or job insecurity, as teams opt for cheaper alternatives to maximize their cap space.
Alternative Viewpoint:
Some arguments suggest that salary caps, when combined with a strong salary floor (minimum spend), can actually raise the minimum salary for the lowest-paid players, effectively strengthening the income of the bottom tier. However, the "middle-class" journeyman player often faces the most significant squeeze.

the leagues have changed significantly and have balanced out their payroll as well as figuring out that you can't have multiple superstars making max money and win. You have to build a complete team, and that includes middle journeyman who in baseball terms gets you a 270 average, a 325-330 obp can field decently or is a plus glove and likely plays multiple positions just about every single year like clockwork. That is the majority of MLB so no those players won't get squeezed out.

A team can still load up on superstars but once one of them get hurts they are screwed because they can't just go an sign or trade for another superstar because the cap doesn't allow it. You have to draft develop and keep your players.

MLB also has to fix their draft it's a complete mess as well.

Do you think Harrison Bader gets 2 year $20.5 million with a cap. I don’t think so. Probably why the players don’t want one.

[mattmitchl44]

Journeyman players would get helped - a lot - if there is a salary floor set at ~50% of the salary cap.

IIRC running the numbers, if you had a $250 million salary cap and a $125 million salary floor, assuming the middle payroll teams between the cap and floor didn't change their spending, you'd have more money overall going to player salaries and those teams like Miami, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Tampa Bay, etc. who have to raise their spending would be doing it by putting more money toward a bunch of journeyman/average players.

[OldRed]

3 other leagues have figured it out without a problem. There are only so many roster spots so players will have to sign elsewhere whether they want to or not.

3 other leagues with a cap and floor has punished middle journeyman talent.
Pay your top talent as much as you can. Pay your lesser talent as little as possible. No room for journeymen.
Why would I pay a utility guy $10 million to make the floor when I could pay a rookie $1 million? I’d save $9 million to go after higher level talent. This is a real problem in one of the other major sports.

No it hasn't, if anything it has kept them in the league longer because they are affordable and consistent. You know exactly what you are going to get with them.

Who has been squeezed out are vets who no longer produce at their previous levels and still want to be paid like they are.

I think you’re guessing at that.
Salary caps/floor Impact on Journeyman Talent:
Cost vs. Value: Teams often prefer cheaper rookie contracts or minimum-salary veterans over journeymen, who occupy valuable cap space without being franchise cornerstones.
Cap Management: Teams frequently restructure contracts of top stars, converting salary to bonuses, which creates "dead money" and necessitates shedding middle-tier, veteran contracts to stay under the cap.
Rookie Wage Scale: The rookie wage scale has changed the economics, favoring young, cost-controlled talent over experienced, mid-tier veterans.
Floor Constraints: While the 90% floor requires minimum spending, teams often prefer to spend that required money on top-tier talent rather than spreading it across multiple veteran journeymen.


Thats the reality.

No I'm not guessing. Mid-tier guys tend to have a longer shelf life because they can be signed easily, don't request much in the form of salary, and generally play close to their contract value. When the buyout season in the NHL comes, it's never the 3rd or 4th line guys who guys get cut, it's the superstars whose contracts have far exceeded their value on the ice. A lower end contract is always easier to trade and should they get waived they end up getting re-signed as the contract demands again are minimal.

They sign very quickly in UFA as they know there only a finite amount of money and contracts available. Superstars can wait months before signing if they want, as MLB has proven over the past decade.

It's the 12-15 year veteran who gets squeezed out now because it's a young mans game and they can no longer keep up and no longer are valued contract wise.

A "just spend as much or as little as you want" league is no longer viable in the sports world and MLB is absolutely proving it.

I disagree. 100%.

Of course you do, based on everything you've said it doesn't surprise me in the least. At this point I'd imagine you are Tony Clark.

The NFL started their salary cap decades ago, they have a cap and a floor and they are easily at the top of the food chain for sports entertainment and have a single event that gets more eyeballs on it then the majority of MLB games combined for an entire season. They have 4 of the top 10 and 11 of the top 20 earnings athletes in 2025. Guess it works for them.

The NBA has a salary cap and a floor, and they even have exceptions to maximize paying a player and have 6 of the top 20 paid athletes in 2025. Huh, doesn't seem to be hurting the players at all.

The NHL has seen their revenue and overall league health increase 10x since they instituted a salary cap and floor and are now the longest running league without any lock outs or strikes. Huh guess it works for them.

Funny how those 3 leagues have a salary cap and floor and yet 2 of them have 17 of the top 20 paid athletes in 2025. MLB has exactly 2. Ohtanei and Snell.

One of the largest differences between those 3 leagues and MLB currently is, if Paul Skenes played hockey and was as good at it as he is at pitching, the Penguins would have a 90% chance of keeping him his entire career as the other 31 teams are capped at what they can offer or destroy their team overpaying him.

The Pirates? No chance, unless he is willing to take less and stay there, but there's no way his agent allows it. None.

I'll let you discuss it amongst yourself.

You are correct. Top-tier players don’t get hurt. That’s what I said. This is what I base my opinion on. What brings you to your conclusion? I remember when salary caps were introduced and I remember journeymen players finding it hard to get a job. In some leagues, the minimum salary increases with years of service. So instead of having a four-year player making a higher minimum league salary it’s better to have a one year player making a lower amount of money. I can’t believe you don’t remember this when it first happened.

How Salary Caps Hurt Journeyman Players:
Salary Squeeze: When a large portion of the salary cap is allocated to a few superstar players, teams have less money to distribute among the rest of the roster. This forces them to fill out the team with lower-paid, younger, or minimum-salary players, often at the expense of established veteran journeymen.
"Cap Casualties": To stay under the cap, teams frequently release veteran players with higher salaries once their performance begins to decline, even if they are still solid contributors.
Reduced Leverage: Salary caps act as a ceiling, limiting the bargaining power of non-star players who might otherwise receive higher offers in an unrestricted market.
Talent Concentration vs. Rotation: While intended to spread talent, caps can sometimes encourage teams to maximize efficiency by dumping reliable mid-level talent to keep top-tier players, reducing the overall demand for experienced, dependable, but non-star, professionals.
The "Superstar" Effect:
In leagues with hard caps (like the NFL or NHL), teams often pay a premium for elite talent, leaving little room for error or high-cost role players. As a result, the middle class of players often faces stagnant wages or job insecurity, as teams opt for cheaper alternatives to maximize their cap space.
Alternative Viewpoint:
Some arguments suggest that salary caps, when combined with a strong salary floor (minimum spend), can actually raise the minimum salary for the lowest-paid players, effectively strengthening the income of the bottom tier. However, the "middle-class" journeyman player often faces the most significant squeeze.

the leagues have changed significantly and have balanced out their payroll as well as figuring out that you can't have multiple superstars making max money and win. You have to build a complete team, and that includes middle journeyman who in baseball terms gets you a 270 average, a 325-330 obp can field decently or is a plus glove and likely plays multiple positions just about every single year like clockwork. That is the majority of MLB so no those players won't get squeezed out.

A team can still load up on superstars but once one of them get hurts they are screwed because they can't just go an sign or trade for another superstar because the cap doesn't allow it. You have to draft develop and keep your players.

MLB also has to fix their draft it's a complete mess as well.

Do you think Harrison Bader gets 2 year $20.5 million with a cap. I don’t think so. Probably why the players don’t want one.

I'd rather have Bader at $10 million a year than Lance Lynn or Kyle Gibson, cap or no cap.

[Cardinals1964]

Journeyman players would get helped - a lot - if there is a salary floor set at ~50% of the salary cap.

IIRC running the numbers, if you had a $250 million salary cap and a $125 million salary floor, assuming the middle payroll teams between the cap and floor didn't change their spending, you'd have more money overall going to player salaries and those teams like Miami, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Tampa Bay, etc. who have to raise their spending would be doing it by putting more money toward a bunch of journeyman/average players.

lol OR they would offer more money to stars and pay younger players less. Just like a certain other league.

[Cardinals1964]

3 other leagues have figured it out without a problem. There are only so many roster spots so players will have to sign elsewhere whether they want to or not.

3 other leagues with a cap and floor has punished middle journeyman talent.
Pay your top talent as much as you can. Pay your lesser talent as little as possible. No room for journeymen.
Why would I pay a utility guy $10 million to make the floor when I could pay a rookie $1 million? I’d save $9 million to go after higher level talent. This is a real problem in one of the other major sports.

No it hasn't, if anything it has kept them in the league longer because they are affordable and consistent. You know exactly what you are going to get with them.

Who has been squeezed out are vets who no longer produce at their previous levels and still want to be paid like they are.

I think you’re guessing at that.
Salary caps/floor Impact on Journeyman Talent:
Cost vs. Value: Teams often prefer cheaper rookie contracts or minimum-salary veterans over journeymen, who occupy valuable cap space without being franchise cornerstones.
Cap Management: Teams frequently restructure contracts of top stars, converting salary to bonuses, which creates "dead money" and necessitates shedding middle-tier, veteran contracts to stay under the cap.
Rookie Wage Scale: The rookie wage scale has changed the economics, favoring young, cost-controlled talent over experienced, mid-tier veterans.
Floor Constraints: While the 90% floor requires minimum spending, teams often prefer to spend that required money on top-tier talent rather than spreading it across multiple veteran journeymen.


Thats the reality.

No I'm not guessing. Mid-tier guys tend to have a longer shelf life because they can be signed easily, don't request much in the form of salary, and generally play close to their contract value. When the buyout season in the NHL comes, it's never the 3rd or 4th line guys who guys get cut, it's the superstars whose contracts have far exceeded their value on the ice. A lower end contract is always easier to trade and should they get waived they end up getting re-signed as the contract demands again are minimal.

They sign very quickly in UFA as they know there only a finite amount of money and contracts available. Superstars can wait months before signing if they want, as MLB has proven over the past decade.

It's the 12-15 year veteran who gets squeezed out now because it's a young mans game and they can no longer keep up and no longer are valued contract wise.

A "just spend as much or as little as you want" league is no longer viable in the sports world and MLB is absolutely proving it.

I disagree. 100%.

Of course you do, based on everything you've said it doesn't surprise me in the least. At this point I'd imagine you are Tony Clark.

The NFL started their salary cap decades ago, they have a cap and a floor and they are easily at the top of the food chain for sports entertainment and have a single event that gets more eyeballs on it then the majority of MLB games combined for an entire season. They have 4 of the top 10 and 11 of the top 20 earnings athletes in 2025. Guess it works for them.

The NBA has a salary cap and a floor, and they even have exceptions to maximize paying a player and have 6 of the top 20 paid athletes in 2025. Huh, doesn't seem to be hurting the players at all.

The NHL has seen their revenue and overall league health increase 10x since they instituted a salary cap and floor and are now the longest running league without any lock outs or strikes. Huh guess it works for them.

Funny how those 3 leagues have a salary cap and floor and yet 2 of them have 17 of the top 20 paid athletes in 2025. MLB has exactly 2. Ohtanei and Snell.

One of the largest differences between those 3 leagues and MLB currently is, if Paul Skenes played hockey and was as good at it as he is at pitching, the Penguins would have a 90% chance of keeping him his entire career as the other 31 teams are capped at what they can offer or destroy their team overpaying him.

The Pirates? No chance, unless he is willing to take less and stay there, but there's no way his agent allows it. None.

I'll let you discuss it amongst yourself.

You are correct. Top-tier players don’t get hurt. That’s what I said. This is what I base my opinion on. What brings you to your conclusion? I remember when salary caps were introduced and I remember journeymen players finding it hard to get a job. In some leagues, the minimum salary increases with years of service. So instead of having a four-year player making a higher minimum league salary it’s better to have a one year player making a lower amount of money. I can’t believe you don’t remember this when it first happened.

How Salary Caps Hurt Journeyman Players:
Salary Squeeze: When a large portion of the salary cap is allocated to a few superstar players, teams have less money to distribute among the rest of the roster. This forces them to fill out the team with lower-paid, younger, or minimum-salary players, often at the expense of established veteran journeymen.
"Cap Casualties": To stay under the cap, teams frequently release veteran players with higher salaries once their performance begins to decline, even if they are still solid contributors.
Reduced Leverage: Salary caps act as a ceiling, limiting the bargaining power of non-star players who might otherwise receive higher offers in an unrestricted market.
Talent Concentration vs. Rotation: While intended to spread talent, caps can sometimes encourage teams to maximize efficiency by dumping reliable mid-level talent to keep top-tier players, reducing the overall demand for experienced, dependable, but non-star, professionals.
The "Superstar" Effect:
In leagues with hard caps (like the NFL or NHL), teams often pay a premium for elite talent, leaving little room for error or high-cost role players. As a result, the middle class of players often faces stagnant wages or job insecurity, as teams opt for cheaper alternatives to maximize their cap space.
Alternative Viewpoint:
Some arguments suggest that salary caps, when combined with a strong salary floor (minimum spend), can actually raise the minimum salary for the lowest-paid players, effectively strengthening the income of the bottom tier. However, the "middle-class" journeyman player often faces the most significant squeeze.

the leagues have changed significantly and have balanced out their payroll as well as figuring out that you can't have multiple superstars making max money and win. You have to build a complete team, and that includes middle journeyman who in baseball terms gets you a 270 average, a 325-330 obp can field decently or is a plus glove and likely plays multiple positions just about every single year like clockwork. That is the majority of MLB so no those players won't get squeezed out.

A team can still load up on superstars but once one of them get hurts they are screwed because they can't just go an sign or trade for another superstar because the cap doesn't allow it. You have to draft develop and keep your players.

MLB also has to fix their draft it's a complete mess as well.

Do you think Harrison Bader gets 2 year $20.5 million with a cap. I don’t think so. Probably why the players don’t want one.

I'd rather have Bader at $10 million a year than Lance Lynn or Kyle Gibson, cap or no cap.

I’d rather have Lou Brock in his prime at $100,000 a year. I don’t see the point there but, would you rather have Bader at $10 million or Donovan at $5 million?