Cleveland GM speaks out

[mattmitchl44]

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.

Repeating nothing it's the first time I posted that, you're the one who keeps repeating the same stuff month after month after month.

And my "claim" is backed up by FACTS (re: the lowly Pirates I intentionally picked out to show how they could afford a higher payroll).

You're reality (salary cap/floor) has ZERO chance of happen, just as he hasn't happened since the days of Marvin Miller.

The MLBPA will never accept a salary cap, the lowly franchise owners will (likely) never accept a payroll floor.

But keep posting it if it makes you feel better.

Ultimately, as I think every other professional sport has shown, some salary cap/floor has to happen in MLB.

And the players, overall, can win even if the structure means that superstar players and their agents have to lose somewhat.

It should be the rank and file of the MLBPA, who can't afford to lose the money they would stand to make from multiple years of their short playing careers who should decide this in favor of a salary cap/floor system - with the owners guaranteeing that total player salaries increase by X% per year over the period of the CBA - which ends up benefitting them directly.

You can post that till you're blue in the face matt, people have been saying the same thing for decades.

One of the main things M. Miller installed in players was they should "NEVER, EVER" accept a salary cap.

This mantra has been passed down from veterans to rookies the day they join the union.

That resolve has NEVER been broken.

I'd like it to happen, so you you..............but it won't.

Best I can see is a cap on deferred money plus some smaller issues.

And while you mention players missing out on some earning potential let's not forget the billions (National TV, Tickets sales, local TV, concessions, parking, ect...) owners will be losing out on too.

Both sides have too much to lose, I've been of the opinion the "lockout" won't last too long....I hope I'm right.

The players shouldn't agree to a cap until the owners prove a need for one. They aren't willing to do that. I wonder why?

If, in addition to a salary cap and floor, the owners guarantee that total player salaries will increase by X% per year over the period of the CBA, why would the players need to know more than that?

Total player salaries were $5.28 billion in 2025 (per Cot's).

If we start from that number and the owners agree to guaranteed, let's say, a 4% increase per year for 5 years:

2027 - $5.49 billion ($260 million cap/$130 million floor)
2028 - $5.71 billion ($270 million cap/$135 million floor)
2029 - $5.94 billion ($280 million cap/$140 million floor)
2030 - $6.18 billion ($290 million cap/$145 million floor)
2031 - $6.42 billion ($300 million cap/$150 million floor)

Why would any more information be necessary?

[alw80]

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.

Repeating nothing it's the first time I posted that, you're the one who keeps repeating the same stuff month after month after month.

And my "claim" is backed up by FACTS (re: the lowly Pirates I intentionally picked out to show how they could afford a higher payroll).

You're reality (salary cap/floor) has ZERO chance of happen, just as he hasn't happened since the days of Marvin Miller.

The MLBPA will never accept a salary cap, the lowly franchise owners will (likely) never accept a payroll floor.

But keep posting it if it makes you feel better.

Ultimately, as I think every other professional sport has shown, some salary cap/floor has to happen in MLB.

And the players, overall, can win even if the structure means that superstar players and their agents have to lose somewhat.

It should be the rank and file of the MLBPA, who can't afford to lose the money they would stand to make from multiple years of their short playing careers who should decide this in favor of a salary cap/floor system - with the owners guaranteeing that total player salaries increase by X% per year over the period of the CBA - which ends up benefitting them directly.

You can post that till you're blue in the face matt, people have been saying the same thing for decades.

One of the main things M. Miller installed in players was they should "NEVER, EVER" accept a salary cap.

This mantra has been passed down from veterans to rookies the day they join the union.

That resolve has NEVER been broken.

I'd like it to happen, so you you..............but it won't.

Best I can see is a cap on deferred money plus some smaller issues.

And while you mention players missing out on some earning potential let's not forget the billions (National TV, Tickets sales, local TV, concessions, parking, ect...) owners will be losing out on too.

Both sides have too much to lose, I've been of the opinion the "lockout" won't last too long....I hope I'm right.

The players shouldn't agree to a cap until the owners prove a need for one. They aren't willing to do that. I wonder why?

If, in addition to a salary cap and floor, the owners guarantee that total player salaries will increase by X% per year over the period of the CBA, why would the players need to know more than that?

Total player salaries were $5.28 billion in 2025 (per Cot's).

If we start from that number and the owners agree to guaranteed, let's say, a 4% increase per year for 5 years:

2027 - $5.49 billion ($260 million cap/$130 million floor)
2028 - $5.71 billion ($270 million cap/$135 million floor)
2029 - $5.94 billion ($280 million cap/$140 million floor)
2030 - $6.18 billion ($290 million cap/$145 million floor)
2031 - $6.42 billion ($300 million cap/$150 million floor)

Why would any more information be necessary?

Because owners are crying poor and want to limit what the players can make but they aren't willing to prove how poor they are, the players are just supposed to take their word for it. How are you supposed to negotiate in good faith when one side isn't willing to be honest?

[mattmitchl44]

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.

Repeating nothing it's the first time I posted that, you're the one who keeps repeating the same stuff month after month after month.

And my "claim" is backed up by FACTS (re: the lowly Pirates I intentionally picked out to show how they could afford a higher payroll).

You're reality (salary cap/floor) has ZERO chance of happen, just as he hasn't happened since the days of Marvin Miller.

The MLBPA will never accept a salary cap, the lowly franchise owners will (likely) never accept a payroll floor.

But keep posting it if it makes you feel better.

Ultimately, as I think every other professional sport has shown, some salary cap/floor has to happen in MLB.

And the players, overall, can win even if the structure means that superstar players and their agents have to lose somewhat.

It should be the rank and file of the MLBPA, who can't afford to lose the money they would stand to make from multiple years of their short playing careers who should decide this in favor of a salary cap/floor system - with the owners guaranteeing that total player salaries increase by X% per year over the period of the CBA - which ends up benefitting them directly.

You can post that till you're blue in the face matt, people have been saying the same thing for decades.

One of the main things M. Miller installed in players was they should "NEVER, EVER" accept a salary cap.

This mantra has been passed down from veterans to rookies the day they join the union.

That resolve has NEVER been broken.

I'd like it to happen, so you you..............but it won't.

Best I can see is a cap on deferred money plus some smaller issues.

And while you mention players missing out on some earning potential let's not forget the billions (National TV, Tickets sales, local TV, concessions, parking, ect...) owners will be losing out on too.

Both sides have too much to lose, I've been of the opinion the "lockout" won't last too long....I hope I'm right.

The players shouldn't agree to a cap until the owners prove a need for one. They aren't willing to do that. I wonder why?

If, in addition to a salary cap and floor, the owners guarantee that total player salaries will increase by X% per year over the period of the CBA, why would the players need to know more than that?

Total player salaries were $5.28 billion in 2025 (per Cot's).

If we start from that number and the owners agree to guaranteed, let's say, a 4% increase per year for 5 years:

2027 - $5.49 billion ($260 million cap/$130 million floor)
2028 - $5.71 billion ($270 million cap/$135 million floor)
2029 - $5.94 billion ($280 million cap/$140 million floor)
2030 - $6.18 billion ($290 million cap/$145 million floor)
2031 - $6.42 billion ($300 million cap/$150 million floor)

Why would any more information be necessary?

Because owners are crying poor and want to limit what the players can make but they aren't willing to prove how poor they are, the players are just supposed to take their word for it. How are you supposed to negotiate in good faith when one side isn't willing to be honest?

In my proposal, the players are guaranteed that they are going to get a defined increase in pay going to the players. That's what should matter to them.

Even if the owners "opened their books" the players wouldn't believe them unless they told them what the players wanted to hear. So that whole idea is just a dead end.

[alw80]

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.

Repeating nothing it's the first time I posted that, you're the one who keeps repeating the same stuff month after month after month.

And my "claim" is backed up by FACTS (re: the lowly Pirates I intentionally picked out to show how they could afford a higher payroll).

You're reality (salary cap/floor) has ZERO chance of happen, just as he hasn't happened since the days of Marvin Miller.

The MLBPA will never accept a salary cap, the lowly franchise owners will (likely) never accept a payroll floor.

But keep posting it if it makes you feel better.

Ultimately, as I think every other professional sport has shown, some salary cap/floor has to happen in MLB.

And the players, overall, can win even if the structure means that superstar players and their agents have to lose somewhat.

It should be the rank and file of the MLBPA, who can't afford to lose the money they would stand to make from multiple years of their short playing careers who should decide this in favor of a salary cap/floor system - with the owners guaranteeing that total player salaries increase by X% per year over the period of the CBA - which ends up benefitting them directly.

You can post that till you're blue in the face matt, people have been saying the same thing for decades.

One of the main things M. Miller installed in players was they should "NEVER, EVER" accept a salary cap.

This mantra has been passed down from veterans to rookies the day they join the union.

That resolve has NEVER been broken.

I'd like it to happen, so you you..............but it won't.

Best I can see is a cap on deferred money plus some smaller issues.

And while you mention players missing out on some earning potential let's not forget the billions (National TV, Tickets sales, local TV, concessions, parking, ect...) owners will be losing out on too.

Both sides have too much to lose, I've been of the opinion the "lockout" won't last too long....I hope I'm right.

The players shouldn't agree to a cap until the owners prove a need for one. They aren't willing to do that. I wonder why?

If, in addition to a salary cap and floor, the owners guarantee that total player salaries will increase by X% per year over the period of the CBA, why would the players need to know more than that?

Total player salaries were $5.28 billion in 2025 (per Cot's).

If we start from that number and the owners agree to guaranteed, let's say, a 4% increase per year for 5 years:

2027 - $5.49 billion ($260 million cap/$130 million floor)
2028 - $5.71 billion ($270 million cap/$135 million floor)
2029 - $5.94 billion ($280 million cap/$140 million floor)
2030 - $6.18 billion ($290 million cap/$145 million floor)
2031 - $6.42 billion ($300 million cap/$150 million floor)

Why would any more information be necessary?

Because owners are crying poor and want to limit what the players can make but they aren't willing to prove how poor they are, the players are just supposed to take their word for it. How are you supposed to negotiate in good faith when one side isn't willing to be honest?

In my proposal, the players are guaranteed that they are going to get a defined increase in pay going to the players. That's what should matter to them.

Even if the owners "opened their books" the players wouldn't believe them unless they told them what the players wanted to hear. So that whole idea is just a dead end.

Theres no reason for the players to agree to that. The owners need to be better at running their business.

[mattmitchl44]

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.

Repeating nothing it's the first time I posted that, you're the one who keeps repeating the same stuff month after month after month.

And my "claim" is backed up by FACTS (re: the lowly Pirates I intentionally picked out to show how they could afford a higher payroll).

You're reality (salary cap/floor) has ZERO chance of happen, just as he hasn't happened since the days of Marvin Miller.

The MLBPA will never accept a salary cap, the lowly franchise owners will (likely) never accept a payroll floor.

But keep posting it if it makes you feel better.

Ultimately, as I think every other professional sport has shown, some salary cap/floor has to happen in MLB.

And the players, overall, can win even if the structure means that superstar players and their agents have to lose somewhat.

It should be the rank and file of the MLBPA, who can't afford to lose the money they would stand to make from multiple years of their short playing careers who should decide this in favor of a salary cap/floor system - with the owners guaranteeing that total player salaries increase by X% per year over the period of the CBA - which ends up benefitting them directly.

You can post that till you're blue in the face matt, people have been saying the same thing for decades.

One of the main things M. Miller installed in players was they should "NEVER, EVER" accept a salary cap.

This mantra has been passed down from veterans to rookies the day they join the union.

That resolve has NEVER been broken.

I'd like it to happen, so you you..............but it won't.

Best I can see is a cap on deferred money plus some smaller issues.

And while you mention players missing out on some earning potential let's not forget the billions (National TV, Tickets sales, local TV, concessions, parking, ect...) owners will be losing out on too.

Both sides have too much to lose, I've been of the opinion the "lockout" won't last too long....I hope I'm right.

The players shouldn't agree to a cap until the owners prove a need for one. They aren't willing to do that. I wonder why?

If, in addition to a salary cap and floor, the owners guarantee that total player salaries will increase by X% per year over the period of the CBA, why would the players need to know more than that?

Total player salaries were $5.28 billion in 2025 (per Cot's).

If we start from that number and the owners agree to guaranteed, let's say, a 4% increase per year for 5 years:

2027 - $5.49 billion ($260 million cap/$130 million floor)
2028 - $5.71 billion ($270 million cap/$135 million floor)
2029 - $5.94 billion ($280 million cap/$140 million floor)
2030 - $6.18 billion ($290 million cap/$145 million floor)
2031 - $6.42 billion ($300 million cap/$150 million floor)

Why would any more information be necessary?

Because owners are crying poor and want to limit what the players can make but they aren't willing to prove how poor they are, the players are just supposed to take their word for it. How are you supposed to negotiate in good faith when one side isn't willing to be honest?

In my proposal, the players are guaranteed that they are going to get a defined increase in pay going to the players. That's what should matter to them.

Even if the owners "opened their books" the players wouldn't believe them unless they told them what the players wanted to hear. So that whole idea is just a dead end.

Theres no reason for the players to agree to that. The owners need to be better at running their business.

Why should/would the players NOT agree to a framework that guarantees them more money - and in particular more money likely going to the majority of players who are not superstars?

The owners could include a significant increase in the ML minimum, a framework that enables more money to go to players earlier in their careers, etc.

If the owners are going to get a cap/floor system, they are going to have to win over the majority of the MLBPA to it, and to do so they need to target their proposal to benefit those players who aren't at the top of the pyramid now.

[Cardinals1964]

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.

Agree. Cleveland would spend the same and the Dodgers would spend less.

[alw80]

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.

Repeating nothing it's the first time I posted that, you're the one who keeps repeating the same stuff month after month after month.

And my "claim" is backed up by FACTS (re: the lowly Pirates I intentionally picked out to show how they could afford a higher payroll).

You're reality (salary cap/floor) has ZERO chance of happen, just as he hasn't happened since the days of Marvin Miller.

The MLBPA will never accept a salary cap, the lowly franchise owners will (likely) never accept a payroll floor.

But keep posting it if it makes you feel better.

Ultimately, as I think every other professional sport has shown, some salary cap/floor has to happen in MLB.

And the players, overall, can win even if the structure means that superstar players and their agents have to lose somewhat.

It should be the rank and file of the MLBPA, who can't afford to lose the money they would stand to make from multiple years of their short playing careers who should decide this in favor of a salary cap/floor system - with the owners guaranteeing that total player salaries increase by X% per year over the period of the CBA - which ends up benefitting them directly.

You can post that till you're blue in the face matt, people have been saying the same thing for decades.

One of the main things M. Miller installed in players was they should "NEVER, EVER" accept a salary cap.

This mantra has been passed down from veterans to rookies the day they join the union.

That resolve has NEVER been broken.

I'd like it to happen, so you you..............but it won't.

Best I can see is a cap on deferred money plus some smaller issues.

And while you mention players missing out on some earning potential let's not forget the billions (National TV, Tickets sales, local TV, concessions, parking, ect...) owners will be losing out on too.

Both sides have too much to lose, I've been of the opinion the "lockout" won't last too long....I hope I'm right.

The players shouldn't agree to a cap until the owners prove a need for one. They aren't willing to do that. I wonder why?

If, in addition to a salary cap and floor, the owners guarantee that total player salaries will increase by X% per year over the period of the CBA, why would the players need to know more than that?

Total player salaries were $5.28 billion in 2025 (per Cot's).

If we start from that number and the owners agree to guaranteed, let's say, a 4% increase per year for 5 years:

2027 - $5.49 billion ($260 million cap/$130 million floor)
2028 - $5.71 billion ($270 million cap/$135 million floor)
2029 - $5.94 billion ($280 million cap/$140 million floor)
2030 - $6.18 billion ($290 million cap/$145 million floor)
2031 - $6.42 billion ($300 million cap/$150 million floor)

Why would any more information be necessary?

Because owners are crying poor and want to limit what the players can make but they aren't willing to prove how poor they are, the players are just supposed to take their word for it. How are you supposed to negotiate in good faith when one side isn't willing to be honest?

In my proposal, the players are guaranteed that they are going to get a defined increase in pay going to the players. That's what should matter to them.

Even if the owners "opened their books" the players wouldn't believe them unless they told them what the players wanted to hear. So that whole idea is just a dead end.

Theres no reason for the players to agree to that. The owners need to be better at running their business.

Why should/would the players NOT agree to a framework that guarantees them more money - and in particular more money likely going to the majority of players who are not superstars?

The owners could include a significant increase in the ML minimum, a framework that enables more money to go to players earlier in their careers, etc.

If the owners are going to get a cap/floor system, they are going to have to win over the majority of the MLBPA to it, and to do so they need to target their proposal to benefit those players who aren't at the top of the pyramid now.

The players don't need a cap, agreeing to one is bailing out the owners. The owners should have done some due diligence before making such a bad investment. Caveat emptor.

[PacNWCardsfan2]

As has been stated, cap/floor, never gonna happen.

If by some strange event, it did. How to you force drawdown the clubs over the cap? You could force trades but doubtful teams would pay face value for contracts know those teams HAD to get rid of them.
The players aren't going to take less by renegotiating a new contract.
You could grandfather them, but that means years before it balances out. So the cap isn't even enforceable in the current arrangement.

So the question still remains, how to force those high salary teams under a realistic cap? So the big markets still get what they have now.

[mattmitchl44]

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.

Repeating nothing it's the first time I posted that, you're the one who keeps repeating the same stuff month after month after month.

And my "claim" is backed up by FACTS (re: the lowly Pirates I intentionally picked out to show how they could afford a higher payroll).

You're reality (salary cap/floor) has ZERO chance of happen, just as he hasn't happened since the days of Marvin Miller.

The MLBPA will never accept a salary cap, the lowly franchise owners will (likely) never accept a payroll floor.

But keep posting it if it makes you feel better.

Ultimately, as I think every other professional sport has shown, some salary cap/floor has to happen in MLB.

And the players, overall, can win even if the structure means that superstar players and their agents have to lose somewhat.

It should be the rank and file of the MLBPA, who can't afford to lose the money they would stand to make from multiple years of their short playing careers who should decide this in favor of a salary cap/floor system - with the owners guaranteeing that total player salaries increase by X% per year over the period of the CBA - which ends up benefitting them directly.

You can post that till you're blue in the face matt, people have been saying the same thing for decades.

One of the main things M. Miller installed in players was they should "NEVER, EVER" accept a salary cap.

This mantra has been passed down from veterans to rookies the day they join the union.

That resolve has NEVER been broken.

I'd like it to happen, so you you..............but it won't.

Best I can see is a cap on deferred money plus some smaller issues.

And while you mention players missing out on some earning potential let's not forget the billions (National TV, Tickets sales, local TV, concessions, parking, ect...) owners will be losing out on too.

Both sides have too much to lose, I've been of the opinion the "lockout" won't last too long....I hope I'm right.

The players shouldn't agree to a cap until the owners prove a need for one. They aren't willing to do that. I wonder why?

If, in addition to a salary cap and floor, the owners guarantee that total player salaries will increase by X% per year over the period of the CBA, why would the players need to know more than that?

Total player salaries were $5.28 billion in 2025 (per Cot's).

If we start from that number and the owners agree to guaranteed, let's say, a 4% increase per year for 5 years:

2027 - $5.49 billion ($260 million cap/$130 million floor)
2028 - $5.71 billion ($270 million cap/$135 million floor)
2029 - $5.94 billion ($280 million cap/$140 million floor)
2030 - $6.18 billion ($290 million cap/$145 million floor)
2031 - $6.42 billion ($300 million cap/$150 million floor)

Why would any more information be necessary?

Because owners are crying poor and want to limit what the players can make but they aren't willing to prove how poor they are, the players are just supposed to take their word for it. How are you supposed to negotiate in good faith when one side isn't willing to be honest?

In my proposal, the players are guaranteed that they are going to get a defined increase in pay going to the players. That's what should matter to them.

Even if the owners "opened their books" the players wouldn't believe them unless they told them what the players wanted to hear. So that whole idea is just a dead end.

Theres no reason for the players to agree to that. The owners need to be better at running their business.

Why should/would the players NOT agree to a framework that guarantees them more money - and in particular more money likely going to the majority of players who are not superstars?

The owners could include a significant increase in the ML minimum, a framework that enables more money to go to players earlier in their careers, etc.

If the owners are going to get a cap/floor system, they are going to have to win over the majority of the MLBPA to it, and to do so they need to target their proposal to benefit those players who aren't at the top of the pyramid now.

The players don't need a cap, agreeing to one is bailing out the owners. The owners should have done some due diligence before making such a bad investment. Caveat emptor.

But the players do need a healthy MLB environment. And that would be one in which all teams could be relevant more often. That's what a cap and floor system should do, in this case without hurting the players' bottom line.

[alw80]

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.

Repeating nothing it's the first time I posted that, you're the one who keeps repeating the same stuff month after month after month.

And my "claim" is backed up by FACTS (re: the lowly Pirates I intentionally picked out to show how they could afford a higher payroll).

You're reality (salary cap/floor) has ZERO chance of happen, just as he hasn't happened since the days of Marvin Miller.

The MLBPA will never accept a salary cap, the lowly franchise owners will (likely) never accept a payroll floor.

But keep posting it if it makes you feel better.

Ultimately, as I think every other professional sport has shown, some salary cap/floor has to happen in MLB.

And the players, overall, can win even if the structure means that superstar players and their agents have to lose somewhat.

It should be the rank and file of the MLBPA, who can't afford to lose the money they would stand to make from multiple years of their short playing careers who should decide this in favor of a salary cap/floor system - with the owners guaranteeing that total player salaries increase by X% per year over the period of the CBA - which ends up benefitting them directly.

You can post that till you're blue in the face matt, people have been saying the same thing for decades.

One of the main things M. Miller installed in players was they should "NEVER, EVER" accept a salary cap.

This mantra has been passed down from veterans to rookies the day they join the union.

That resolve has NEVER been broken.

I'd like it to happen, so you you..............but it won't.

Best I can see is a cap on deferred money plus some smaller issues.

And while you mention players missing out on some earning potential let's not forget the billions (National TV, Tickets sales, local TV, concessions, parking, ect...) owners will be losing out on too.

Both sides have too much to lose, I've been of the opinion the "lockout" won't last too long....I hope I'm right.

The players shouldn't agree to a cap until the owners prove a need for one. They aren't willing to do that. I wonder why?

If, in addition to a salary cap and floor, the owners guarantee that total player salaries will increase by X% per year over the period of the CBA, why would the players need to know more than that?

Total player salaries were $5.28 billion in 2025 (per Cot's).

If we start from that number and the owners agree to guaranteed, let's say, a 4% increase per year for 5 years:

2027 - $5.49 billion ($260 million cap/$130 million floor)
2028 - $5.71 billion ($270 million cap/$135 million floor)
2029 - $5.94 billion ($280 million cap/$140 million floor)
2030 - $6.18 billion ($290 million cap/$145 million floor)
2031 - $6.42 billion ($300 million cap/$150 million floor)

Why would any more information be necessary?

Because owners are crying poor and want to limit what the players can make but they aren't willing to prove how poor they are, the players are just supposed to take their word for it. How are you supposed to negotiate in good faith when one side isn't willing to be honest?

In my proposal, the players are guaranteed that they are going to get a defined increase in pay going to the players. That's what should matter to them.

Even if the owners "opened their books" the players wouldn't believe them unless they told them what the players wanted to hear. So that whole idea is just a dead end.

Theres no reason for the players to agree to that. The owners need to be better at running their business.

Why should/would the players NOT agree to a framework that guarantees them more money - and in particular more money likely going to the majority of players who are not superstars?

The owners could include a significant increase in the ML minimum, a framework that enables more money to go to players earlier in their careers, etc.

If the owners are going to get a cap/floor system, they are going to have to win over the majority of the MLBPA to it, and to do so they need to target their proposal to benefit those players who aren't at the top of the pyramid now.

The players don't need a cap, agreeing to one is bailing out the owners. The owners should have done some due diligence before making such a bad investment. Caveat emptor.

But the players do need a healthy MLB environment. And that would be one in which all teams could be relevant more often. That's what a cap and floor system should do, in this case without hurting the players' bottom line.

MLB is healthy for the most part, playoff ratings were up 28% last year. The BJs were in the WS for the first time since '93 and (bleep) near won. The Mariners were in the ALCS for the first time since '01. The small market Brewers were in the NLCS. MLB/Manfred needs to do a better job of promoting the game and make it easy and available to watch the games. Owners need to do a better job of running their businesses and find creative ways to make more money to put into their teams.

[clemonsonroots]

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.

You will see more teams willing to spend to the cap. The Cards will be spending like they are now if it doesn't change. If the cap is installed at a reasonable level- say 175-200 million- you will see teams like the Cards spending to the cap. A cap also will come with a floor. This scenerio will benefit most players as there will be more money overall on the table with teams either being forced to spend a lot more or doing so because they see a point to it. It will hurt, signifigantlly, the top end players. Which is who the mlbpa represents much more fervantly. See the nhl. It is working out very well there.

[TheJackBurton]

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? The vast majority of the top 30 markets have teams in them already. There aren't an additional 30 top tv markets to pick from.

[TheJackBurton]

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.

a floor ensures they spend it.

[45s]

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.

a floor ensures they spend it.

Whether it is wisely or not…

Great plan..

[TheJackBurton]

I have read some very interesting points here. While I disagree on some, others are similar to how I think.

I personally don't think there will be a lockout, or at least not a substantial one. There will be no cap or floor, but there will be changes to deferred salaries, penalties for overages (which big teams gladly pay), which I feel should be divided amongst the lower teams as additional revenue sharing so to speak.As has been said, the players are not going to allow a lowering of total salaries.
There is currently revenue sharing, there needs to be checks and balances to ensure receiving are using it, not pocketing it as has also been stated many times.
I believe there will be an international draft, and initial contract shortened to 5 years, and arbitration begins at 2. Adjustments to min salary also.

I have believed for a long time that the league is too big. There are too many JAG players playing in the MLB. The minors were contracted, as well as the draft. The same should be done to the MLB.

Thank you for your time, have a great weekend.

None of that fixes any part of this issue.

[TheJackBurton]

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.

a floor ensures they spend it.

Whether it is wisely or not…

Great plan..

You can't overcome stupidity or ineptitude, but you can prevent teams from just pocketing millions and claiming being poor.

I want to see teams have a much better chance of retaining the stars they draft and develop instead of those players getting 5 years with a team and then it's off to one of the big 7 because they are the only ones who can afford the contract demands.

I want to see the Clevelands and Pittsburgh have a shot of getting a top free agent because the top spending teams are already capped out and can't even throw their hats in the ring, or have to trade off significant pieces in order to be able to bid on them.

The sport will be a much better product when the all stars are spread out instead of concentrated on 5 teams.