Restructuring MLB Payrolls from 2025

[mattmitchl44]

*A more refined version of a thought I started yesterday.*

Per Cot's, MLB players in total were paid $5.28 billion in salary in 2025. If pay and production were more closely linked than they are in the current system, what might team payrolls have looked like, and what might that tell us about what a starting point could be for a salary cap/salary floor system?

First, assume every team sets aside $20 million (~$770,000 per roster spot) to pay the ML minimum to each player. That leaves $4.68 billion.

Next, there were 1000 fWAR across MLB in 2025. However, negative fWAR players are all going to get the ML minimum, so we really need to determine how many positive fWAR there were in 2025. There were 1157.6 positive fWAR (and, therefore, 157.6 negative fWAR to balance out to a total of 1000 fWAR).

So that would imply that positive fWAR players should get ~$4.04 million per positive fWAR they produce ($4.68 billion / 1157.6 = $4.04 million per positive fWAR), on top of their ML minimum.

To figure what, arguably, each team's payroll "should have been" in 2025:

Team payroll = $20 million + (positive team fWAR * $4.04 million)

Phillies - 54.4 positive fWAR - $240 million
Dodgers - 53.7 - $237 million
Yankees - 53.6 - $237 million
Brewers - 50.0 - $222 million
Blue Jays - 49.0 - $218 million
Cubs - 48.9 - $218 million
Red Sox - 48.8 - $217 million
Mets - 48.2 - $215 million
Mariners - 45.4 - $203 million
Padres - 43.0 - $194 million
Astros - 42.4 - $191 million
Diamondbacks - 41.5 - $188 million
Tigers - 41.2 - $186 million
Royals - 39.3 - $179 million
Twins - 38.8 - $177 million
Rangers - 38.5 - $176 million
Braves - 37.8 - $173 million
Reds - 37.5 - $172 million
Giants - 36.4 - $167 million
Athletics - 35.1 - $162 million
Rays - 34.7 - $160 million
Cardinals - 34.3 - $159 million
Guardians - 34.0 - $157 million
Orioles - 32.1 - $150 million
Marlins - 30.8 - $144 million
Pirates - 30.7 - $144 million
White Sox - 26.4 - $127 million
Nationals - 24.1 - $117 million
Angels - 23.8 - $116 million
Rockies - 16.0 - $85 million

So the story this tells me is that, if you had enough revenue sharing among owners to make it work, having a payroll ceiling of $250 million and a floor of $125 million would just about align with what each team should be paying its players given their production.

But more realistically, since some of the teams that should be more toward the middle (Royals, Twins, Reds, Athletics, Rays, etc.) would probably still push to be closer to the floor, you might need to bump the ceiling to $260 or $270 million and the floor to $130 or $135 million to allow for some more polarization by the biggest and smallest market teams while still holding on to that $5.28 billion going to the players.

[sikeston bulldog2]

*A more refined version of a thought I started yesterday.*

Per Cot's, MLB players in total were paid $5.28 billion in salary in 2025. If pay and production were more closely linked than they are in the current system, what might team payrolls have looked like, and what might that tell us about what a starting point could be for a salary cap/salary floor system?

First, assume every team sets aside $20 million (~$770,000 per roster spot) to pay the ML minimum to each player. That leaves $4.68 billion.

Next, there were 1000 fWAR across MLB in 2025. However, negative fWAR players are all going to get the ML minimum, so we really need to determine how many positive fWAR there were in 2025. There were 1157.6 positive fWAR (and, therefore, 157.6 negative fWAR to balance out to a total of 1000 fWAR).

So that would imply that positive fWAR players should get ~$4.04 million per positive fWAR they produce ($4.68 billion / 1157.6 = $4.04 million per positive fWAR), on top of their ML minimum.

To figure what, arguably, each team's payroll "should have been" in 2025:

Team payroll = $20 million + (positive team fWAR * $4.04 million)

Phillies - 54.4 positive fWAR - $240 million
Dodgers - 53.7 - $237 million
Yankees - 53.6 - $237 million
Brewers - 50.0 - $222 million
Blue Jays - 49.0 - $218 million
Cubs - 48.9 - $218 million
Red Sox - 48.8 - $217 million
Mets - 48.2 - $215 million
Mariners - 45.4 - $203 million
Padres - 43.0 - $194 million
Astros - 42.4 - $191 million
Diamondbacks - 41.5 - $188 million
Tigers - 41.2 - $186 million
Royals - 39.3 - $179 million
Twins - 38.8 - $177 million
Rangers - 38.5 - $176 million
Braves - 37.8 - $173 million
Reds - 37.5 - $172 million
Giants - 36.4 - $167 million
Athletics - 35.1 - $162 million
Rays - 34.7 - $160 million
Cardinals - 34.3 - $159 million
Guardians - 34.0 - $157 million
Orioles - 32.1 - $150 million
Marlins - 30.8 - $144 million
Pirates - 30.7 - $144 million
White Sox - 26.4 - $127 million
Nationals - 24.1 - $117 million
Angels - 23.8 - $116 million
Rockies - 16.0 - $85 million

So the story this tells me is that, if you had enough revenue sharing among owners to make it work, having a payroll ceiling of $250 million and a floor of $125 million would just about align with what each team should be paying its players given their production.

But more realistically, since some of the teams that should be more toward the middle (Royals, Twins, Reds, Athletics, Rays, etc.) would probably still push to be closer to the floor, you might need to bump the ceiling to $260 or $270 million and the floor to $130 or $135 million to allow for some more polarization by the biggest and smallest market teams while still holding on to that $5.28 billion going to the players.

This model is dependent on the actual numbers you provided. If those numbers get worse without regulation, what does that do to the model? Nothing. Just increase the cap and half that amount to create the floor.

Isn’t the whole concept depending on the Cap?

[alw80]

Is it "fair" if a team spends $250M and another team only spends $125M?

[mattmitchl44]

Is it "fair" if a team spends $250M and another team only spends $125M?

Considering that the difference between the top and the bottom is ~a factor of four in spending, reducing that to just a factor of two would seem to be a huge step forward in trying to ensure better competitiveness across MLB.

With the historic differences in local revenue, there is just no way that MLB is going to jump to some cap/floor system which has the floor - in its first iteration - as being much more than 50% of the cap, IMO. And even that would require a sea change in how the teams agree to revenue sharing.

IMO - there is a sensible ceiling in the $250-$270 million range and a sensible floor in the $125-$135 million range that, again with enough revenue sharing, could work for large market team owners, small market team owners, and players.

[zamadoo]

I'm thinking the reverse. Floor more like $100M, Ceiling $220M. Even a lower floor initially, depending on any type of collective bargaining or shared revenues.

[alw80]

Is it "fair" if a team spends $250M and another team only spends $125M?

Considering that the difference between the top and the bottom is ~a factor of four in spending, reducing that to just a factor of two would seem to be a huge step forward in trying to ensure better competitiveness across MLB.

With the historic differences in local revenue, there is just no way that MLB is going to jump to some cap/floor system which has the floor - in its first iteration - as being much more than 50% of the cap, IMO. And even that would require a sea change in how the teams agree to revenue sharing.

I just think you will have the same teams who refuse to spend money only spend to the floor and we still have the same disparities. And I'll never understand why we're trying to make the owners more money.

[mattmitchl44]

I'm thinking the reverse. Floor more like $100M, Ceiling $220M. Even a lower floor initially, depending on any type of collective bargaining or shared revenues.

You can't go that low and get the players to agree. Those limits would result in the amount of money going to the players to go down significantly from the $5.28 billion in 2025.

[mattmitchl44]

Is it "fair" if a team spends $250M and another team only spends $125M?

Considering that the difference between the top and the bottom is ~a factor of four in spending, reducing that to just a factor of two would seem to be a huge step forward in trying to ensure better competitiveness across MLB.

With the historic differences in local revenue, there is just no way that MLB is going to jump to some cap/floor system which has the floor - in its first iteration - as being much more than 50% of the cap, IMO. And even that would require a sea change in how the teams agree to revenue sharing.

I just think you will have the same teams who refuse to spend money only spend to the floor and we still have the same disparities. And I'll never understand why we're trying to make the owners more money.

10 teams had payrolls under $130 million in 2025. Setting the floor at $130 million would be forcing 1/3 of the league to spend between $1 million and $53 million more than they did in 2025. That's not insignificant.

[alw80]

Is it "fair" if a team spends $250M and another team only spends $125M?

Considering that the difference between the top and the bottom is ~a factor of four in spending, reducing that to just a factor of two would seem to be a huge step forward in trying to ensure better competitiveness across MLB.

With the historic differences in local revenue, there is just no way that MLB is going to jump to some cap/floor system which has the floor - in its first iteration - as being much more than 50% of the cap, IMO. And even that would require a sea change in how the teams agree to revenue sharing.

I just think you will have the same teams who refuse to spend money only spend to the floor and we still have the same disparities. And I'll never understand why we're trying to make the owners more money.

10 teams had payrolls under $130 million in 2025. Setting the floor at $130 million would be forcing 1/3 of the league to spend between $1 million and $53 million more than they did in 2025. That's not insignificant.

Sure but they would still be outspent by over $100M. Why is that "fair"?

[mattmitchl44]

Is it "fair" if a team spends $250M and another team only spends $125M?

Considering that the difference between the top and the bottom is ~a factor of four in spending, reducing that to just a factor of two would seem to be a huge step forward in trying to ensure better competitiveness across MLB.

With the historic differences in local revenue, there is just no way that MLB is going to jump to some cap/floor system which has the floor - in its first iteration - as being much more than 50% of the cap, IMO. And even that would require a sea change in how the teams agree to revenue sharing.

I just think you will have the same teams who refuse to spend money only spend to the floor and we still have the same disparities. And I'll never understand why we're trying to make the owners more money.

10 teams had payrolls under $130 million in 2025. Setting the floor at $130 million would be forcing 1/3 of the league to spend between $1 million and $53 million more than they did in 2025. That's not insignificant.

Sure but they would still be outspent by over $100M. Why is that "fair"?

Again - it is unrealistic to think you are going to completely rectify the revenue/payroll differences between the Dodgers, Yankees, Mets, Phillies and the Marlins, Rays, Athletics, Pirates in one fell swoop. That is just never going to happen.

[alw80]

Is it "fair" if a team spends $250M and another team only spends $125M?

Considering that the difference between the top and the bottom is ~a factor of four in spending, reducing that to just a factor of two would seem to be a huge step forward in trying to ensure better competitiveness across MLB.

With the historic differences in local revenue, there is just no way that MLB is going to jump to some cap/floor system which has the floor - in its first iteration - as being much more than 50% of the cap, IMO. And even that would require a sea change in how the teams agree to revenue sharing.

I just think you will have the same teams who refuse to spend money only spend to the floor and we still have the same disparities. And I'll never understand why we're trying to make the owners more money.

10 teams had payrolls under $130 million in 2025. Setting the floor at $130 million would be forcing 1/3 of the league to spend between $1 million and $53 million more than they did in 2025. That's not insignificant.

Sure but they would still be outspent by over $100M. Why is that "fair"?

Again - it is unrealistic to think you are going to completely rectify the revenue/payroll differences between the Dodgers, Yankees, Mets, Phillies and the Marlins, Rays, Athletics, Pirates in one fell swoop. That is just never going to happen.

I get that and Im not being critical of your proposal. Its just that the pro-cap crowd wants the game to be "fair" and I don't see how they could consider such a big gap in payrolls as "fair". I guess I want to hear from the pro-cappers as to how such a discrepancy would be "fair". The Pirates would still spend right to the floor and pocket the rest of the money. How is that better?

[Jatalk]

I would set the floor at $150 million. If market can’t support it move team. Cap at about $300.

Also I don’t buy the argument floor is inflationary to the fans. Prices for tickets are already high.

[mattmitchl44]

Is it "fair" if a team spends $250M and another team only spends $125M?

Considering that the difference between the top and the bottom is ~a factor of four in spending, reducing that to just a factor of two would seem to be a huge step forward in trying to ensure better competitiveness across MLB.

With the historic differences in local revenue, there is just no way that MLB is going to jump to some cap/floor system which has the floor - in its first iteration - as being much more than 50% of the cap, IMO. And even that would require a sea change in how the teams agree to revenue sharing.

I just think you will have the same teams who refuse to spend money only spend to the floor and we still have the same disparities. And I'll never understand why we're trying to make the owners more money.

10 teams had payrolls under $130 million in 2025. Setting the floor at $130 million would be forcing 1/3 of the league to spend between $1 million and $53 million more than they did in 2025. That's not insignificant.

Sure but they would still be outspent by over $100M. Why is that "fair"?

Again - it is unrealistic to think you are going to completely rectify the revenue/payroll differences between the Dodgers, Yankees, Mets, Phillies and the Marlins, Rays, Athletics, Pirates in one fell swoop. That is just never going to happen.

I get that and Im not being critical of your proposal. Its just that the pro-cap crowd wants the game to be "fair" and I don't see how they could consider such a big gap in payrolls as "fair". I guess I want to hear from the pro-cappers as to how such a discrepancy would be "fair". The Pirates would still spend right to the floor and pocket the rest of the money. How is that better?

The actual difference in 2025 payroll was from the Dodgers at about $345 million to the Marlins at about $70 million.

Would not the Dodgers at $250-$270 million and the Marlins at $125-$135 million not be a significant improvement towards competitiveness or "fairness"?

If the Marlins had to spend $125-$135 million on payroll, depending on how much revenue sharing changed, I'm not sure how much their owners would be "pocketing."

[alw80]

Is it "fair" if a team spends $250M and another team only spends $125M?

Considering that the difference between the top and the bottom is ~a factor of four in spending, reducing that to just a factor of two would seem to be a huge step forward in trying to ensure better competitiveness across MLB.

With the historic differences in local revenue, there is just no way that MLB is going to jump to some cap/floor system which has the floor - in its first iteration - as being much more than 50% of the cap, IMO. And even that would require a sea change in how the teams agree to revenue sharing.

I just think you will have the same teams who refuse to spend money only spend to the floor and we still have the same disparities. And I'll never understand why we're trying to make the owners more money.

10 teams had payrolls under $130 million in 2025. Setting the floor at $130 million would be forcing 1/3 of the league to spend between $1 million and $53 million more than they did in 2025. That's not insignificant.

Sure but they would still be outspent by over $100M. Why is that "fair"?

Again - it is unrealistic to think you are going to completely rectify the revenue/payroll differences between the Dodgers, Yankees, Mets, Phillies and the Marlins, Rays, Athletics, Pirates in one fell swoop. That is just never going to happen.

I get that and Im not being critical of your proposal. Its just that the pro-cap crowd wants the game to be "fair" and I don't see how they could consider such a big gap in payrolls as "fair". I guess I want to hear from the pro-cappers as to how such a discrepancy would be "fair". The Pirates would still spend right to the floor and pocket the rest of the money. How is that better?

The actual difference in 2025 payroll was from the Dodgers at about $345 million to the Marlins at about $70 million.

Would not the Dodgers at $250-$270 million and the Marlins at $125-$135 million not be a significant improvement towards competitiveness or "fairness"?

If the Marlins had to spend $125-$135 million on payroll, depending on how much revenue sharing changed, I'm not sure how much their owners would be "pocketing."

I just think we'll have the same issues on a smaller scale. The Pirates could pay Skenes what he's worth but then not sign anyone else and they're still the sh*tty Pirates. But why would Skenes want to stay there, he'd probably go and sign with a better team anyways. And again, the only people who benefit from this are the owners who make more money. F*ck them.

[sikeston bulldog2]

Is it "fair" if a team spends $250M and another team only spends $125M?

Considering that the difference between the top and the bottom is ~a factor of four in spending, reducing that to just a factor of two would seem to be a huge step forward in trying to ensure better competitiveness across MLB.

With the historic differences in local revenue, there is just no way that MLB is going to jump to some cap/floor system which has the floor - in its first iteration - as being much more than 50% of the cap, IMO. And even that would require a sea change in how the teams agree to revenue sharing.

I just think you will have the same teams who refuse to spend money only spend to the floor and we still have the same disparities. And I'll never understand why we're trying to make the owners more money.

10 teams had payrolls under $130 million in 2025. Setting the floor at $130 million would be forcing 1/3 of the league to spend between $1 million and $53 million more than they did in 2025. That's not insignificant.

Sure but they would still be outspent by over $100M. Why is that "fair"?

Again - it is unrealistic to think you are going to completely rectify the revenue/payroll differences between the Dodgers, Yankees, Mets, Phillies and the Marlins, Rays, Athletics, Pirates in one fell swoop. That is just never going to happen.

I get that and Im not being critical of your proposal. Its just that the pro-cap crowd wants the game to be "fair" and I don't see how they could consider such a big gap in payrolls as "fair". I guess I want to hear from the pro-cappers as to how such a discrepancy would be "fair". The Pirates would still spend right to the floor and pocket the rest of the money. How is that better?

The actual difference in 2025 payroll was from the Dodgers at about $345 million to the Marlins at about $70 million.

Would not the Dodgers at $250-$270 million and the Marlins at $125-$135 million not be a significant improvement towards competitiveness or "fairness"?

If the Marlins had to spend $125-$135 million on payroll, depending on how much revenue sharing changed, I'm not sure how much their owners would be "pocketing."

I just think we'll have the same issues on a smaller scale. The Pirates could pay Skenes what he's worth but then not sign anyone else and they're still the sh*tty Pirates. But why would Skenes want to stay there, he'd probably go and sign with a better team anyways. And again, the only people who benefit from this are the owners who make more money. F*ck them.

Fight the good fight. And good luck. Looking back, it’s always been this way in every industry.

[HorseTrader]

Is it "fair" if a team spends $250M and another team only spends $125M?

Considering that the difference between the top and the bottom is ~a factor of four in spending, reducing that to just a factor of two would seem to be a huge step forward in trying to ensure better competitiveness across MLB.

With the historic differences in local revenue, there is just no way that MLB is going to jump to some cap/floor system which has the floor - in its first iteration - as being much more than 50% of the cap, IMO. And even that would require a sea change in how the teams agree to revenue sharing.

I just think you will have the same teams who refuse to spend money only spend to the floor and we still have the same disparities. And I'll never understand why we're trying to make the owners more money.

10 teams had payrolls under $130 million in 2025. Setting the floor at $130 million would be forcing 1/3 of the league to spend between $1 million and $53 million more than they did in 2025. That's not insignificant.

Sure but they would still be outspent by over $100M. Why is that "fair"?

Matt are you talking a hard floor and ceiling? I think they need to be pretty strict. The cap they have now is pretty much worthless, a few teams ignore it (Dodgers) a few play game of getting under the cap every so often, while most are so far below it doesn't matter. So assuming it's a hard ceiling, how do the Dodgers get down to the $270 mill?

Also, do you believe there needs to be a change in deferred pay setup?