Jatalk wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 06:57 am
Secondly if they are that strapped on the revenue side then it’s clear the Cleveland market can’t support a team. Sell or move the franchise.
There aren't 30 markets, or 30 owners in those markets, who can/will compete monetarily with the likes of the Dodgers, Yankees, etc. without imposed restraints.
True but that’s not my main point. If Cleveland can only afford a $95 million payroll that market can’t support never support a franchise. Time to face facts some of these markets cannot support teams. Either that are owners a not being honest. Understand this only applies to the bottom few teams.
Again I am for salary restraints but not for propping up losing markets.
Yes, I don't understand why teams like Cleveland, Pittsburg and Miami are so poor.
The Florida cities are massive and yet they are the poorest teams.
I would say this - Cleveland is the 3rd largest metropolitan city in Ohio AND it's been shriking in population
Miami has never really had fan support. Their stadium is always empty of fans. Pittsburgh same but it appears they are making some moves to put a good team on the field. Cleveland not very familiar with although I attended a game there a few years ago. Place was packed and they have the best nachos in all MLB stadiums.
Frankly some owners have never really invested in putting a competitive team on the field. Fans won’t support losers.
I just don’t want to hear whining from these types of franchises.
Jatalk wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 06:57 am
Secondly if they are that strapped on the revenue side then it’s clear the Cleveland market can’t support a team. Sell or move the franchise.
There aren't 30 markets, or 30 owners in those markets, who can/will compete monetarily with the likes of the Dodgers, Yankees, etc. without imposed restraints.
True but that’s not my main point. If Cleveland can only afford a $95 million payroll that market can’t support never support a franchise. Time to face facts some of these markets cannot support teams. Either that are owners a not being honest. Understand this only applies to the bottom few teams.
Again I am for salary restraints but not for propping up losing markets.
Then what? Contract MLB down to 24, 20, etc. teams that can exist in large enough markets (if you eliminate Cleveland or Cincinnati, does all of Ohio consolidate around one team? if you eliminate one of Miami or Tampa Bay, does all of Florida consolidate around the other?) in order to support larger payrolls?
Is it good for the players to eliminate 1/6 or 1/3 of the MLB roster positions?
I think MLB should send some really tough guys over there to show him what's what. That way the other whiny owners will stop complaining about being leisure services for the behemoths.
What's next? Mars complaining that Jupiter keeps denying its chance for an atmosphere?
Jatalk wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 06:57 am
Secondly if they are that strapped on the revenue side then it’s clear the Cleveland market can’t support a team. Sell or move the franchise.
There aren't 30 markets, or 30 owners in those markets, who can/will compete monetarily with the likes of the Dodgers, Yankees, etc. without imposed restraints.
True but that’s not my main point. If Cleveland can only afford a $95 million payroll that market can’t support never support a franchise. Time to face facts some of these markets cannot support teams. Either that are owners a not being honest. Understand this only applies to the bottom few teams.
Again I am for salary restraints but not for propping up losing markets.
Then what? Contract MLB down to 24, 20, etc. teams that can exist in large enough markets (if you eliminate Cleveland or Cincinnati, does all of Ohio consolidate around one team? if you eliminate one of Miami or Tampa Bay, does all of Florida consolidate around the other?) in order to support larger payrolls?
Is it good for the players to eliminate 1/6 or 1/3 of the MLB roster positions?
You move or sell them to better markets. You don’t have to reduce the number of teams. We are probably talking about 3-5 franchises. Simple to find better markets. I have no concerns about Ohio or Florida. You don’t just deserve a team.
Jatalk wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 06:57 am
Secondly if they are that strapped on the revenue side then it’s clear the Cleveland market can’t support a team. Sell or move the franchise.
There aren't 30 markets, or 30 owners in those markets, who can/will compete monetarily with the likes of the Dodgers, Yankees, etc. without imposed restraints.
True but that’s not my main point. If Cleveland can only afford a $95 million payroll that market can’t support never support a franchise. Time to face facts some of these markets cannot support teams. Either that are owners a not being honest. Understand this only applies to the bottom few teams.
Again I am for salary restraints but not for propping up losing markets.
Then what? Contract MLB down to 24, 20, etc. teams that can exist in large enough markets (if you eliminate Cleveland or Cincinnati, does all of Ohio consolidate around one team? if you eliminate one of Miami or Tampa Bay, does all of Florida consolidate around the other?) in order to support larger payrolls?
Is it good for the players to eliminate 1/6 or 1/3 of the MLB roster positions?
You move or sell them to better markets. You don’t have to reduce the number of teams. We are probably talking about 3-5 franchises. Simple to find better markets. I have no concerns about Ohio or Florida. You don’t just deserve a team.
What better markets are available with stadiums and willing owners? I don't think it is that easy.
90% chance of lockout in 2027. Would like to see the cap, floor, and requisite increased revenue sharing.
Jatalk wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 06:57 am
Secondly if they are that strapped on the revenue side then it’s clear the Cleveland market can’t support a team. Sell or move the franchise.
There aren't 30 markets, or 30 owners in those markets, who can/will compete monetarily with the likes of the Dodgers, Yankees, etc. without imposed restraints.
True but that’s not my main point. If Cleveland can only afford a $95 million payroll that market can’t support never support a franchise. Time to face facts some of these markets cannot support teams. Either that are owners a not being honest. Understand this only applies to the bottom few teams.
Again I am for salary restraints but not for propping up losing markets.
Then what? Contract MLB down to 24, 20, etc. teams that can exist in large enough markets (if you eliminate Cleveland or Cincinnati, does all of Ohio consolidate around one team? if you eliminate one of Miami or Tampa Bay, does all of Florida consolidate around the other?) in order to support larger payrolls?
Is it good for the players to eliminate 1/6 or 1/3 of the MLB roster positions?
You move or sell them to better markets. You don’t have to reduce the number of teams. We are probably talking about 3-5 franchises. Simple to find better markets. I have no concerns about Ohio or Florida. You don’t just deserve a team.
Again - there aren't 30 markets, or 30 owners in those markets, who can/will spend like you want them to. If there were, they would already own teams and they would be there.
rockondlouie wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 08:47 am
Guardian owner Paul Dolan inherited the team from his father who bought them for $323M, currently worth over $1B.
His uncle, partial owner, is worth $5.4B and is the founder of Cablevision and HBO.
Sounds like our ownership, crying poor mouth when they're sitting on a family fortune.
(And I don't see any chance we get a salary cap or increased revenue sharing)
And fans continue to try to impose their thoughts on how owners should spend money.
The simple fact is that there aren't 30 Steve Cohens who want to own and operate MLB franchises seemingly independent of any concern regarding annual operating income, expenses, and revenue.
cardstatman wrote: ↑20 Feb 2026 22:52 pm
I don't understand how a salary cap fixes anything for Cleveland.
Their revenue remains the same and they say they can only spend $100M on payroll now.
The answer is more revenue sharing. If the revenue was more equal, then the salary cap would not be necessary.
A salary cap just forces the Yankees/Dodgers/Cubs owners to pocket a lot of money or invest huge dollars in something other than payroll. The Yankees and Cubs owners are already voluntarily doing just that.
Revenue sharing just puts more money in owners pockets.
peterman'srealitytour wrote: ↑20 Feb 2026 23:51 pm
Amen to a cap, a floor and some form of revenue sharing. Whatever it takes to restore competitive balance.
There is already revenue sharing. Be better at running your business and stop asking for handouts.
cardstatman wrote: ↑20 Feb 2026 22:52 pm
I don't understand how a salary cap fixes anything for Cleveland.
Their revenue remains the same and they say they can only spend $100M on payroll now.
The answer is more revenue sharing. If the revenue was more equal, then the salary cap would not be necessary.
A salary cap just forces the Yankees/Dodgers/Cubs owners to pocket a lot of money or invest huge dollars in something other than payroll. The Yankees and Cubs owners are already voluntarily doing just that.
Revenue sharing just puts more money in owners pockets.
And a salary floor forces the smaller market owners who receive more revenue sharing to spend it on player salaries.
rockondlouie wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 08:47 am
Guardian owner Paul Dolan inherited the team from his father who bought them for $323M, currently worth over $1B.
His uncle, partial owner, is worth $5.4B and is the founder of Cablevision and HBO.
Sounds like our ownership, crying poor mouth when they're sitting on a family fortune.
(And I don't see any chance we get a salary cap or increased revenue sharing)
And fans continue to try to impose their thoughts on how owners should spend money.
The simple fact is that there aren't 30 Steve Cohens who want to own and operate MLB franchises seemingly independent of any concern regarding annual operating income, expenses, and revenue.
No, we fans continue to point out SUPER WEALTHY BILLIONARE owners who cry poormouth while wanting we fans to shoulder the financial burden and weep for them.
The simple fact is virtually every MLB owner or ownership group has the revenues from their teams to easily spend much more than they're willing to spend.
Given his revenues there's little argument BDWJr etal could easily afford a $180-200M payroll w/o touching a dime of their personal fortune.
It's the same for the majority of MLB team sans a very small handful.
Even the lowly Pirates reported a 2025 Operating Income (Profit before ITDA) of $47 million!
Yet this season we're getting a 26 man payroll under what K. Tucker will make this season w/the Dodgers.
rockondlouie wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 08:47 am
Guardian owner Paul Dolan inherited the team from his father who bought them for $323M, currently worth over $1B.
His uncle, partial owner, is worth $5.4B and is the founder of Cablevision and HBO.
Sounds like our ownership, crying poor mouth when they're sitting on a family fortune.
(And I don't see any chance we get a salary cap or increased revenue sharing)
And fans continue to try to impose their thoughts on how owners should spend money.
The simple fact is that there aren't 30 Steve Cohens who want to own and operate MLB franchises seemingly independent of any concern regarding annual operating income, expenses, and revenue.
No, we fans continue to point out SUPER WEALTHY BILLIONARE owners who cry poormouth while wanting we fans to shoulder the financial burden and weep for them.
The simple fact is virtually every MLB owner or ownership group has the revenues from their teams to easily spend much more than they're willing to spend.
Given his revenues there's little argument BDWJr etal could easily afford a $180-200M payroll w/o touching a dime of their personal fortune.
It's the same for the majority of MLB team sans a very small handful.
Even the lowly Pirates reported a 2025 Operating Income (Profit before ITDA) of $47 million!
Yet this season we're getting a 26 man payroll under what K. Tucker will make this season w/the Dodgers.
You can keep repeating that, but none of it changes reality - there aren't 30 Steve Cohens who want to own and operate MLB franchises like you claim they could afford to.
We've seen it across almost all MLB teams for decades - owners will operate their teams to generally make at least some annual profit. That's not going to change.
If you are going to find a solution to improve the quality of the MLB product, you have to start from that reality.
Last edited by mattmitchl44 on 21 Feb 2026 10:22 am, edited 3 times in total.
rockondlouie wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 08:47 am
Guardian owner Paul Dolan inherited the team from his father who bought them for $323M, currently worth over $1B.
His uncle, partial owner, is worth $5.4B and is the founder of Cablevision and HBO.
Sounds like our ownership, crying poor mouth when they're sitting on a family fortune.
(And I don't see any chance we get a salary cap or increased revenue sharing)
And fans continue to try to impose their thoughts on how owners should spend money.
The simple fact is that there aren't 30 Steve Cohens who want to own and operate MLB franchises seemingly independent of any concern regarding annual operating income, expenses, and revenue.
No, we fans continue to point out SUPER WEALTHY BILLIONARE owners who cry poormouth while wanting we fans to shoulder the financial burden and weep for them.
The simple fact is virtually every MLB owner or ownership group has the revenues from their teams to easily spend much more than they're willing to spend.
Given his revenues there's little argument BDWJr etal could easily afford a $180-200M payroll w/o touching a dime of their personal fortune.
It's the same for the majority of MLB team sans a very small handful.
Even the lowly Pirates reported a 2025 Operating Income (Profit before ITDA) of $47 million!
Yet this season we're getting a 26 man payroll under what K. Tucker will make this season w/the Dodgers.
So these owners want the fans to shoulder the financial burdens..
cardstatman wrote: ↑20 Feb 2026 22:52 pm
I don't understand how a salary cap fixes anything for Cleveland.
Their revenue remains the same and they say they can only spend $100M on payroll now.
The answer is more revenue sharing. If the revenue was more equal, then the salary cap would not be necessary.
A salary cap just forces the Yankees/Dodgers/Cubs owners to pocket a lot of money or invest huge dollars in something other than payroll. The Yankees and Cubs owners are already voluntarily doing just that.
Revenue sharing just puts more money in owners pockets.
And a salary floor forces the smaller market owners who receive more revenue sharing to spend it on player salaries.
And they'll spend to the floor and pocket the rest then complain how unfair it is for them.
peterman'srealitytour wrote: ↑20 Feb 2026 23:51 pm
Amen to a cap, a floor and some form of revenue sharing. Whatever it takes to restore competitive balance.
There is already revenue sharing. Be better at running your business and stop asking for handouts.
I think there should be some revenue sharing but not to extent it bails out poorly ran franchises. You make a valid point that some can’t understand.
