Do fans agree with these "truths"?

[mattmitchl44]

1. As fans, we want to see MLB be a competitive environment where every team (in particular the one we root for) has the opportunity to regularly rise to significance, make the playoffs, and maybe win a World Series.

Seemingly, it makes for a better overall product for the fans to consume when more games are played between teams which are competitive with one another. It makes the quality of regular season and postseason games better.

2. (1.) can only be achieved if it is inherent within baseball for talent to be distributed rather evenly around the league.

Talent is, obviously, the bedrock of being competitive. The more evenly talent can be distributed throughout baseball, the more uniformly competitive the environment will be.

3. Talent is only distributed as evenly as it is today because of the MLB draft, international signings, and the suppression of player salaries through six years of pre-arbitration and arbitration team control.

Because MLB teams, from the Dodgers/Yankees down to the Marlins/Rays, have significantly different resources to draw on, MLB currently enforces some distribution of talent to the small market (and mid-market) teams by ensuring that those teams have access to a somewhat "captive workforce" - the ability to have young talented players who they can pay a minimal amount of money to.

4. As fans, however, we believe that players should be paid justly based on their talent and how much they do to help their teams win.

If we believe in fairness, we should believe that all players should be paid as best possible relative based on their talent and what they contribute to helping their team be successful.

If we believe in these four "truths" or assertions, it starts to explain why the current system is broken and in need of a full reset.

Even if you believe the current system achieves (1.) and (2.) (and given the direction MLB has been going to the last few years and the path it appears to be on into the future, that might be dubious), it can only achieve that through (3.). But (3.) inherently conflicts with (4.).

This is why some of us call for a salary cap/floor system. A salary cap/floor system (with additional revenue sharing among teams if necessary) would help to achieve (2.) (and hence (1.)) without being so dependent on the suppression of money going to that "captive workforce" of young players through the mechanisms of (3.).

If MLB, in particular via a salary floor for small market teams, becomes less dependent on (3.) in order to achieve (2.), the "protections" of (3.) that prop up the competitiveness of small/mid market teams can be rolled back and MLB can do a better job of achieving (4.) where all players can be paid more appropriately based on their talent.

Here's the thing from the players perspective though. Why would you vote to cap your own earnings. You have finite skills and a finite time to market those skills, why should it fall on you to lay down for the profit of billionaires? They can obviously afford to pay these crazy contracts but it's the players and their livelihoods that everywhere talks about capping. When was the last time you heard someone talk about capping a businesses profits or a billionaires profits (though they should have a wealth based tax in my opinion)? Is it really contingent on the players to save the game from the owners? Most players work their whole lives to get to the point of making enough wealth to set up their families and pay back the people that helped them along the way, they weren't born with a silver spoon as most of the owners were. Maybe there should be a system where it's all divided right down the middle and there is no Dodger extravagance or Miami cheapness. Owners wouldn't go for that I'm sure. I don't know about a ceiling but there definitely needs to be a higher floor.

The only individual players who should see their earnings negatively impacted by a salary cap/floor are the few superstar players.

You can ensure that no less money goes to the players, as a whole, by writing a provision into the CBA.

You can raise the ML minimum, you can reduce years of team control to five or four, you can offer ARB to start after only one season of ML time.

You can remake the system to enable more players to achieve "set for life" money - even if that is just $5-$6 million instead of $2-3 million for being in the majors for three years - at the expense of Juan Soto maybe "only" getting to sign a $500+ million contract instead of a $700+ million one.

[rockondlouie]

ZERO chance MLBPA ever accepts a salary cap.

ZERO chance owners ever accepts a payroll floor.

Agreed. Owners push the cap/floor buzz before every new contract is due to expire. It's not happening.

I expect the new agreement will treat deferred money differently so it counts against current payroll. Maybe the owners will limit the Dodgers' sweet TV deal and push the Marlins and Rays of the world to start spending more of their shared money but that's about it.

One other thing: everyone assumes there will be a lockout and loss of games when the CBA expires but there's no reason players and owners couldn't continue under the same rules while continuing to negotiate.

That's been my position as well jcgmoi, there has to be something done to stop the Dodgers from deferring as much money as they've been doing when they sign premium free agents.

I don't think they can do anything about the Dodgers TV deal though.

Unfortunately there's some new owners (fools) who seem to think they can get a salary cap ( ) and they're going to force the lockout.

[ramfandan]

The 'owners' must get thier act together . If they wish a salary cap system , then what are they offering to the players in exchange for that major change. I have yet to hear what the owners would offer to the players. It's called quid pro quo ( Latin 'this for that ' ) It would need to be along the lines of major change in 'free agency ' (reducing time to reach free agency from 6 years to whatever ), enhanced retirement benefits, negating draft pick compensaton for a free agent , etc. Without significan changes by the owners, the salary cap will have a tough time flying .
If there is no baseball March 2027 , it will be due to the owners 'locking out' the players NOT the players going on strike .

[mattmitchl44]

The 'owners' must get thier act together . If they wish a salary cap system , then what are they offering to the players in exchange for that major change. I have yet to hear what the owners would offer to the players. It's called quid pro quo .
If there is no baseball March 2027 , it will be due to the owners 'locking out' the players NOT the players going on strike .

If it were me, I would be offering:

(1) a guarantee that total player salary ($5.28 billion in 2025) would increase by X% per year over the life of the CBA (if it didn't naturally, owners, like in other professional leagues, would have to collect money and hand over enough to the MLBPA for distribution to the players to make up the difference)

and

(2) substantial changes (increased ML minimum, fewer years to ARB, fewer years to FA, etc.) to directly improve the money going to all players in the opening years of their careers.

A lot of players don't stick in the majors for more than a handful of years. If you can improve their prospects from making $3, $4, $5 million to making $6, $7, $8 million instead, you should get a lot of support for changing the system.

[jcgmoi]

I don't think they can do anything about the Dodgers TV deal though.

When previous owner McCourt ran the Dodgers into bankruptcy, the league agreed to a $3 billion evaluation of their new TV deal. When Guggenheim took over they sold those rights for $8.35 billion but the settlement remained in place so the league's cut, then 34 percent, now 48 percent, is based on the lower number. That's great for the Dodgers, not so great for the other 29 teams.

My view is the league giveth and the league can taketh away, and they can re-work agreements that no longer make economic sense. It's time to remove the special consideration they offered during bankruptcy.

MLB also could and should channel some of the money stream LAD gets from their special relationship with Japan into their own pockets. Reports indicate the Dodgers recouped Ohtani's entire contract cost within the first year through Japanese merchandise sales and sponsorship deals. The Dodgers don't work in a vacuum and while they deserve credit for how they've developed new revenue, they shouldn't get to keep the whole pie. The other teams are more than an unpaid backdrop for Dodgers games.

I think the league's big beef is with the Dodgers not the players. If it's not it should be. Maybe a few owners want to bust the union but the bulk just want more of the revenue the game is producing.

[mattmitchl44]

I think the league's big beef is with the Dodgers not the players. If it's not it should be. Maybe a few owners want to bust the union but the bulk just want more of the revenue the game is producing.

And I think many of the other owners see a future where the Dodgers, Yankees, Mets, etc. win WS after WS after WS, to the point where interest in their franchises - being unable to compete effectively for a WS title - diminishes because of fans adopting a "what's the use?" attitude which undermines their profitability and the value of their teams.

[dugoutrex]

1. As fans, we want to see MLB be a competitive environment where every team (in particular the one we root for) has the opportunity to regularly rise to significance, make the playoffs, and maybe win a World Series.

Seemingly, it makes for a better overall product for the fans to consume when more games are played between teams which are competitive with one another. It makes the quality of regular season and postseason games better.

2. (1.) can only be achieved if it is inherent within baseball for talent to be distributed rather evenly around the league.

Talent is, obviously, the bedrock of being competitive. The more evenly talent can be distributed throughout baseball, the more uniformly competitive the environment will be.

3. Talent is only distributed as evenly as it is today because of the MLB draft, international signings, and the suppression of player salaries through six years of pre-arbitration and arbitration team control.

Because MLB teams, from the Dodgers/Yankees down to the Marlins/Rays, have significantly different resources to draw on, MLB currently enforces some distribution of talent to the small market (and mid-market) teams by ensuring that those teams have access to a somewhat "captive workforce" - the ability to have young talented players who they can pay a minimal amount of money to.

4. As fans, however, we believe that players should be paid justly based on their talent and how much they do to help their teams win.

If we believe in fairness, we should believe that all players should be paid as best possible relative based on their talent and what they contribute to helping their team be successful.

If we believe in these four "truths" or assertions, it starts to explain why the current system is broken and in need of a full reset.

Even if you believe the current system achieves (1.) and (2.) (and given the direction MLB has been going to the last few years and the path it appears to be on into the future, that might be dubious), it can only achieve that through (3.). But (3.) inherently conflicts with (4.).

This is why some of us call for a salary cap/floor system. A salary cap/floor system (with additional revenue sharing among teams if necessary) would help to achieve (2.) (and hence (1.)) without being so dependent on the suppression of money going to that "captive workforce" of young players through the mechanisms of (3.).

If MLB, in particular via a salary floor for small market teams, becomes less dependent on (3.) in order to achieve (2.), the "protections" of (3.) that prop up the competitiveness of small/mid market teams can be rolled back and MLB can do a better job of achieving (4.) where all players can be paid more appropriately based on their talent.

only about half of what you stated is truthful

[HorseTrader]

Those playing CT fantasy baseball with Matt remind him of number 2 if he's winning.

2. (1.) can only be achieved if it is inherent within baseball for talent to be distributed rather evenly around the league.

Talent is, obviously, the bedrock of being competitive. The more evenly talent can be distributed throughout baseball, the more uniformly competitive the environment will be.

Our draft ensures that talent should be evenly distributed around the league - if owners were equally good at drafting.

Matt I'm just poking fun at the winner. YOu did a great job last year. Made the right moves. The talent was equal more or less at the begining, as time went on some were smarter/luckier whatever and talent was a little more skewed BUT that's the name of the game.

[butsir01]

Don’t change a thing. Let it go on as is.
It will eventually wither and die or prosper. Either way, the market has spoken. Players and owners richly deserve all of the bad things they get. The fans have been their sheep fo the shearing for all too long.

[CCard]

1. As fans, we want to see MLB be a competitive environment where every team (in particular the one we root for) has the opportunity to regularly rise to significance, make the playoffs, and maybe win a World Series.

Seemingly, it makes for a better overall product for the fans to consume when more games are played between teams which are competitive with one another. It makes the quality of regular season and postseason games better.

2. (1.) can only be achieved if it is inherent within baseball for talent to be distributed rather evenly around the league.

Talent is, obviously, the bedrock of being competitive. The more evenly talent can be distributed throughout baseball, the more uniformly competitive the environment will be.

3. Talent is only distributed as evenly as it is today because of the MLB draft, international signings, and the suppression of player salaries through six years of pre-arbitration and arbitration team control.

Because MLB teams, from the Dodgers/Yankees down to the Marlins/Rays, have significantly different resources to draw on, MLB currently enforces some distribution of talent to the small market (and mid-market) teams by ensuring that those teams have access to a somewhat "captive workforce" - the ability to have young talented players who they can pay a minimal amount of money to.

4. As fans, however, we believe that players should be paid justly based on their talent and how much they do to help their teams win.

If we believe in fairness, we should believe that all players should be paid as best possible relative based on their talent and what they contribute to helping their team be successful.

If we believe in these four "truths" or assertions, it starts to explain why the current system is broken and in need of a full reset.

Even if you believe the current system achieves (1.) and (2.) (and given the direction MLB has been going to the last few years and the path it appears to be on into the future, that might be dubious), it can only achieve that through (3.). But (3.) inherently conflicts with (4.).

This is why some of us call for a salary cap/floor system. A salary cap/floor system (with additional revenue sharing among teams if necessary) would help to achieve (2.) (and hence (1.)) without being so dependent on the suppression of money going to that "captive workforce" of young players through the mechanisms of (3.).

If MLB, in particular via a salary floor for small market teams, becomes less dependent on (3.) in order to achieve (2.), the "protections" of (3.) that prop up the competitiveness of small/mid market teams can be rolled back and MLB can do a better job of achieving (4.) where all players can be paid more appropriately based on their talent.

Here's the thing from the players perspective though. Why would you vote to cap your own earnings. You have finite skills and a finite time to market those skills, why should it fall on you to lay down for the profit of billionaires? They can obviously afford to pay these crazy contracts but it's the players and their livelihoods that everywhere talks about capping. When was the last time you heard someone talk about capping a businesses profits or a billionaires profits (though they should have a wealth based tax in my opinion)? Is it really contingent on the players to save the game from the owners? Most players work their whole lives to get to the point of making enough wealth to set up their families and pay back the people that helped them along the way, they weren't born with a silver spoon as most of the owners were. Maybe there should be a system where it's all divided right down the middle and there is no Dodger extravagance or Miami cheapness. Owners wouldn't go for that I'm sure. I don't know about a ceiling but there definitely needs to be a higher floor.

The only individual players who should see their earnings negatively impacted by a salary cap/floor are the few superstar players.

You can ensure that no less money goes to the players, as a whole, by writing a provision into the CBA.

You can raise the ML minimum, you can reduce years of team control to five or four, you can offer ARB to start after only one season of ML time.

You can remake the system to enable more players to achieve "set for life" money - even if that is just $5-$6 million instead of $2-3 million for being in the majors for three years - at the expense of Juan Soto maybe "only" getting to sign a $500+ million contract instead of a $700+ million one.

Have you ever heard the phrase "A rising tide lifts all boats."? It works in reverse too. A salary cap would limit even lower paid players that are above the minimum. It would also cost some players their jobs because if they have to cut cap money they're the ones likely to be the first casualty. A provison? Do you mean like a plan that doesn't count some players against the cap? All those other things you mention would be acceptable to players but probably not owners. What they have right now is basically indentured servitude for minor league players. They're the ones playing every day and one serious injury away from never cashing in. I mean the disparity between players salaries is kind of ridiculous and surely something could be done, but I don't know how you get two different species to agree on anything very far from what they're used too. I agree though something has to be done or eventually smaller teams will start folding maybe. You bring up some good options but can they be sold to both parties? I don't know.

[cardstatman]

The answer is to flood the market. Eliminate arbitration and players become UFA’s after Year 1. The greater the supply, the lower the cost.

That would just ensure that, if the Dodgers/Yankees have 4x, 5x, etc. the ML payroll as the Marlins/Rays, they would also presumably have 4x, 5x, etc. the talent.

Exactly correct. Six years of control is the only thing keeping teams that completely rely on scouting and development able to win at all. Teams would just abandon their entire minor league systems if they didn't get any rights of control for the players they successfully develop.

Baseball is different than football and basketball because very, very few players can go from high school or college directly to MLB without 1 to 5 years of development first and 90+% of players teams try to develop end up not becoming average or better MLB players. 30 teams pay to develop players and they get to keep them for 6 years and then the Yankees/Dodgers/Cubs get to use their excessive unfair revenue advantage to benefit from these players for the rest of their careers.

IMHO the answer is not a salary cap or floor. It is simply much more revenue sharing. With more even revenue sharing, all the teams can bid on free agents rather than half a dozen team. The Dodgers currently dominate because the Yankees, Mets, Cubs, Angels, Red Sox, Blue Jays, Phillies, Giants, etc, are letting them. Some are stupid (Mets, Angels), some are just pocketing huge profits (Yankees, Cubs). The small market teams are just helpless, which is what the Guardians are saying. They have to just watch their best players leave over and over and over. Maybe they can keep one or two but that is it.

Most Yankee, Dodger fans believe the Dodgers/Yankees dominate because they are smarter, not because they have very highly populated home territory. They post idiotic things like "the other teams are simply not competent".

If so, then share your revenue and let's see if you can still dominate when you are not playing tug-of-war on a 30% downward slope.

If the revenue is nearly equal, then you don't need a cap. Maybe a reasonable floor would still be nice to stop the tanking but if Tampa wants to spend an extra $100M on player development rather than free agents because they think that will help them win, then why should they be stopped from doing that?

[mattmitchl44]

1. As fans, we want to see MLB be a competitive environment where every team (in particular the one we root for) has the opportunity to regularly rise to significance, make the playoffs, and maybe win a World Series.

Seemingly, it makes for a better overall product for the fans to consume when more games are played between teams which are competitive with one another. It makes the quality of regular season and postseason games better.

2. (1.) can only be achieved if it is inherent within baseball for talent to be distributed rather evenly around the league.

Talent is, obviously, the bedrock of being competitive. The more evenly talent can be distributed throughout baseball, the more uniformly competitive the environment will be.

3. Talent is only distributed as evenly as it is today because of the MLB draft, international signings, and the suppression of player salaries through six years of pre-arbitration and arbitration team control.

Because MLB teams, from the Dodgers/Yankees down to the Marlins/Rays, have significantly different resources to draw on, MLB currently enforces some distribution of talent to the small market (and mid-market) teams by ensuring that those teams have access to a somewhat "captive workforce" - the ability to have young talented players who they can pay a minimal amount of money to.

4. As fans, however, we believe that players should be paid justly based on their talent and how much they do to help their teams win.

If we believe in fairness, we should believe that all players should be paid as best possible relative based on their talent and what they contribute to helping their team be successful.

If we believe in these four "truths" or assertions, it starts to explain why the current system is broken and in need of a full reset.

Even if you believe the current system achieves (1.) and (2.) (and given the direction MLB has been going to the last few years and the path it appears to be on into the future, that might be dubious), it can only achieve that through (3.). But (3.) inherently conflicts with (4.).

This is why some of us call for a salary cap/floor system. A salary cap/floor system (with additional revenue sharing among teams if necessary) would help to achieve (2.) (and hence (1.)) without being so dependent on the suppression of money going to that "captive workforce" of young players through the mechanisms of (3.).

If MLB, in particular via a salary floor for small market teams, becomes less dependent on (3.) in order to achieve (2.), the "protections" of (3.) that prop up the competitiveness of small/mid market teams can be rolled back and MLB can do a better job of achieving (4.) where all players can be paid more appropriately based on their talent.

Here's the thing from the players perspective though. Why would you vote to cap your own earnings. You have finite skills and a finite time to market those skills, why should it fall on you to lay down for the profit of billionaires? They can obviously afford to pay these crazy contracts but it's the players and their livelihoods that everywhere talks about capping. When was the last time you heard someone talk about capping a businesses profits or a billionaires profits (though they should have a wealth based tax in my opinion)? Is it really contingent on the players to save the game from the owners? Most players work their whole lives to get to the point of making enough wealth to set up their families and pay back the people that helped them along the way, they weren't born with a silver spoon as most of the owners were. Maybe there should be a system where it's all divided right down the middle and there is no Dodger extravagance or Miami cheapness. Owners wouldn't go for that I'm sure. I don't know about a ceiling but there definitely needs to be a higher floor.

The only individual players who should see their earnings negatively impacted by a salary cap/floor are the few superstar players.

You can ensure that no less money goes to the players, as a whole, by writing a provision into the CBA.

You can raise the ML minimum, you can reduce years of team control to five or four, you can offer ARB to start after only one season of ML time.

You can remake the system to enable more players to achieve "set for life" money - even if that is just $5-$6 million instead of $2-3 million for being in the majors for three years - at the expense of Juan Soto maybe "only" getting to sign a $500+ million contract instead of a $700+ million one.

Have you ever heard the phrase "A rising tide lifts all boats."? It works in reverse too. A salary cap would limit even lower paid players that are above the minimum. It would also cost some players their jobs because if they have to cut cap money they're the ones likely to be the first casualty. A provison? Do you mean like a plan that doesn't count some players against the cap? All those other things you mention would be acceptable to players but probably not owners. What they have right now is basically indentured servitude for minor league players. They're the ones playing every day and one serious injury away from never cashing in. I mean the disparity between players salaries is kind of ridiculous and surely something could be done, but I don't know how you get two different species to agree on anything very far from what they're used too. I agree though something has to be done or eventually smaller teams will start folding maybe. You bring up some good options but can they be sold to both parties? I don't know.

I've heard the phrase I don't think it applies to player salaries.

And the owners would have to buy in to provisions like I note in order to get the MLBPA to agree to it.

My point here is - you have to look at all of these things simultaneously - small/mid market teams wanting salary caps on large market teams for better competitiveness; more revenue sharing; a better distribution of money going to the players; a salary floor/guarantees to ensure total payroll for players does not go down; etc.

You can craft a system that both (1) does better for the competitiveness of MLB with a cap/floor system AND (2) does a better job of playing players representative amounts for their production throughout their careers.

[CCard]

1. As fans, we want to see MLB be a competitive environment where every team (in particular the one we root for) has the opportunity to regularly rise to significance, make the playoffs, and maybe win a World Series.

Seemingly, it makes for a better overall product for the fans to consume when more games are played between teams which are competitive with one another. It makes the quality of regular season and postseason games better.

2. (1.) can only be achieved if it is inherent within baseball for talent to be distributed rather evenly around the league.

Talent is, obviously, the bedrock of being competitive. The more evenly talent can be distributed throughout baseball, the more uniformly competitive the environment will be.

3. Talent is only distributed as evenly as it is today because of the MLB draft, international signings, and the suppression of player salaries through six years of pre-arbitration and arbitration team control.

Because MLB teams, from the Dodgers/Yankees down to the Marlins/Rays, have significantly different resources to draw on, MLB currently enforces some distribution of talent to the small market (and mid-market) teams by ensuring that those teams have access to a somewhat "captive workforce" - the ability to have young talented players who they can pay a minimal amount of money to.

4. As fans, however, we believe that players should be paid justly based on their talent and how much they do to help their teams win.

If we believe in fairness, we should believe that all players should be paid as best possible relative based on their talent and what they contribute to helping their team be successful.

If we believe in these four "truths" or assertions, it starts to explain why the current system is broken and in need of a full reset.

Even if you believe the current system achieves (1.) and (2.) (and given the direction MLB has been going to the last few years and the path it appears to be on into the future, that might be dubious), it can only achieve that through (3.). But (3.) inherently conflicts with (4.).

This is why some of us call for a salary cap/floor system. A salary cap/floor system (with additional revenue sharing among teams if necessary) would help to achieve (2.) (and hence (1.)) without being so dependent on the suppression of money going to that "captive workforce" of young players through the mechanisms of (3.).

If MLB, in particular via a salary floor for small market teams, becomes less dependent on (3.) in order to achieve (2.), the "protections" of (3.) that prop up the competitiveness of small/mid market teams can be rolled back and MLB can do a better job of achieving (4.) where all players can be paid more appropriately based on their talent.

Here's the thing from the players perspective though. Why would you vote to cap your own earnings. You have finite skills and a finite time to market those skills, why should it fall on you to lay down for the profit of billionaires? They can obviously afford to pay these crazy contracts but it's the players and their livelihoods that everywhere talks about capping. When was the last time you heard someone talk about capping a businesses profits or a billionaires profits (though they should have a wealth based tax in my opinion)? Is it really contingent on the players to save the game from the owners? Most players work their whole lives to get to the point of making enough wealth to set up their families and pay back the people that helped them along the way, they weren't born with a silver spoon as most of the owners were. Maybe there should be a system where it's all divided right down the middle and there is no Dodger extravagance or Miami cheapness. Owners wouldn't go for that I'm sure. I don't know about a ceiling but there definitely needs to be a higher floor.

The only individual players who should see their earnings negatively impacted by a salary cap/floor are the few superstar players.

You can ensure that no less money goes to the players, as a whole, by writing a provision into the CBA.

You can raise the ML minimum, you can reduce years of team control to five or four, you can offer ARB to start after only one season of ML time.

You can remake the system to enable more players to achieve "set for life" money - even if that is just $5-$6 million instead of $2-3 million for being in the majors for three years - at the expense of Juan Soto maybe "only" getting to sign a $500+ million contract instead of a $700+ million one.

Have you ever heard the phrase "A rising tide lifts all boats."? It works in reverse too. A salary cap would limit even lower paid players that are above the minimum. It would also cost some players their jobs because if they have to cut cap money they're the ones likely to be the first casualty. A provison? Do you mean like a plan that doesn't count some players against the cap? All those other things you mention would be acceptable to players but probably not owners. What they have right now is basically indentured servitude for minor league players. They're the ones playing every day and one serious injury away from never cashing in. I mean the disparity between players salaries is kind of ridiculous and surely something could be done, but I don't know how you get two different species to agree on anything very far from what they're used too. I agree though something has to be done or eventually smaller teams will start folding maybe. You bring up some good options but can they be sold to both parties? I don't know.

I've heard the phrase I don't think it applies to player salaries.

And the owners would have to buy in to provisions like I note in order to get the MLBPA to agree to it.

My point here is - you have to look at all of these things simultaneously - small/mid market teams wanting salary caps on large market teams for better competitiveness; more revenue sharing; a better distribution of money going to the players; a salary floor/guarantees to ensure total payroll for players does not go down; etc.

You can craft a system that both (1) does better for the competitiveness of MLB with a cap/floor system AND (2) does a better job of playing players representative amounts for their production throughout their careers.

Well, with the advent of what the Dodgers have done, they're going to have to do something because the Dodgers are making the MLB a mockery.

[PacNWCardsfan2]

There are some great dreams on this thread. None that will ever happen.
You can't expect players of greater talent to give up money to lesser talent players. There will always be the have and the have nots. You can't expect Soto to give up say, $10 million per year so the Gorman's of the league can make more. How is that fair?
Some are correct, there will not be a cap/floor in the near future. Baseball is to way to profitable and popular for that to happen. Neither side will agree.
Should entry level players make more? Sure. If they prove worthy by producing in the show. Not just because they are there.
Any team could have signed Ohtani to that kind of salary and deferred amount, even the Cards. Don't be sore because the dodgers took advantage of something within the rules.
I have stated what is the more likely compromises that will be made for the CBA. None of them will include cap/floor, additional revenue sharing, etc.
Both sides are making record money, they won't jeapordise that with a work stoppage.
It needs to stay realistic, which doesn't happen in dream land.

[mattmitchl44]

There are some great dreams on this thread. None that will ever happen.
You can't expect players of greater talent to give up money to lesser talent players. There will always be the have and the have nots. You can't expect Soto to give up say, $10 million per year so the Gorman's of the league can make more. How is that fair?
Some are correct, there will not be a cap/floor in the near future. Baseball is to way to profitable and popular for that to happen. Neither side will agree.
Should entry level players make more? Sure. If they prove worthy by producing in the show. Not just because they are there.
Any team could have signed Ohtani to that kind of salary and deferred amount, even the Cards. Don't be sore because the dodgers took advantage of something within the rules.
I have stated what is the more likely compromises that will be made for the CBA. None of them will include cap/floor, additional revenue sharing, etc.
Both sides are making record money, they won't jeapordise that with a work stoppage.
It needs to stay realistic, which doesn't happen in dream land.

I did the math on this. Based on 1000 fWAR, a ML minimum of $760,000, and $5.28 million going to players overall in 2025, your best representation of what players should be paid is:

$760,000 + ($4.04 million per positive fWAR * (positive fWAR produced))

So, for Soto last year, that should be about $24.2 million (+5.8 fWAR), not the $61 million he made last year.

If your fWAR is zero or negative, like Gorman, it should be the ML minimum $760,000.

Others:

Gray - $15.5 milion
Winn - $15 million
Donovan - $12.5 million
Contreras - $12 million
Herrera - $12 million
Burleson - $9.25 million
Arenado - $4.5 million
Mikolas - $2 million
Fedde, Walker - ML minimum

Judge - $41.5 million
Ohtani - $38.75 million
Raleigh - $37.5 million
Skubal - $27.5 million
Skenes - $27 million

[PacNWCardsfan2]

According to fangraphs, Soto's 5.8 was worth $46.4M, not $24.2M. Yet Gorman gets $2.65M for for substandard performance, so he got a $2M raise for being substantially below replacement level, because Arbitration doesn't allow salary to go down. At best he should have stayed a league minimum.
That being said, it's not about that, it's about what a team is willing to pay.
You can't expect him to accept less so some JAG can make more.
I do think salaries are too high which increases ticket prices but that is the norm now.