Cleveland GM speaks out

[Jatalk]

This is America. In America, we don’t cap how much an individual can make. Why do all you cap supporters hate America?

In America, you can get fired for being bad at your job and not get paid - which you can't in baseball when you are signed to a $100, $200, etc. million guaranteed contract.

Many, many contracts are guaranteed. That’s why you have a contract. It’s not just in baseball.

Most contracts are contingent on both parties fulfilling their responsibilities as part of the contract. MLB players don't have to deliver production (see Anthony Rendon, etc.) consistent with their contracts.

What is this stupid un-American logic on caps. If the league owners and player unions agree to a cap then they have the right to do so. If players don’t like it then they can go get other jobs that pay them millions of dollars a year. No one is forcing them to play Major League Baseball.

The fact is professional sports are not a free market environment. Limited franchises, controlled market areas, and an agreed set of rules all must follow. Setting a cap is just another rule.

Supporting a rule that limits what an individual makes is unAmerican. Trying to FORCE that rule on players is even MORE unAmerican. Why do you hate the American worker?

Only the idiotic ones do I hate.

[Banner29]

This is America. In America, we don’t cap how much an individual can make. Why do all you cap supporters hate America?

Hmmm, someone should tell that to the NFL then. They cap. And are successful doing it

And they limit how much an individual, an American, can make. They also show Bad Bunny. Why does the NFL hate America?

And right now teams in Kansas City and Buffalo are considered premier teams while teams in LA and NY either fall short or are just absolute jokes. But the beauty of it is in just a couple years those roles could flip flop. No team falls behind because they simply can’t afford to compete. And every team has to balance their budget wisely.

Chill out, captain america…..

[dugoutrex]

There won't be a salary cap without revenue sharing.

To do that the owners would have to determine what constitutes revenue that will be shared. Historically they have resisted "opening the books".

For me personally, baseball is a lot less enjoyable in the current climate.

There are a few reasons I watch games still:

1. In the summer there isn't much else going on and as a sports junkie I watch by default of there be limited other options.

2. Gambling. To include fantasy baseball. Personally, I enjoy both, so it gives me something to have interest in. I understand others may not enjoy this aspect, but I do.

When it's talked about teams like Cleveland making the playoffs 7 out of 8 years or whatever it is, I find that to be more a byproduct of the league creating divisions of equal spending teams and 3 wild cards. They have done all the superficial stuff available to give the appearance of fairness and keep as many teams in the playoff race as possible. There is nothing left to do other than a cap.

When an iconic franchise like the St. Louis Cardinal cannot come close to being on equal footing from a spending standpoint it seems to me there is a serious problem.

I am a million miles away from being an economist, but I do have my reasons for not enjoying the game as much as in the past. Others may disagree but I'm entitled to my reasons.

I think last year's postseason was the best I've ever seen in my 50 years as a fan - BEST EVER!

[govman]

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.

Kansas City won the super bowl 3 times in 5 years. They win the world series once every 40 years. That's what a payroll cap does for a sport.

no they were in the WS, but have only won 2 in their lifetime

[Rollin' on the River]

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.

Maybe because if all the payrolls were lower, their $100 million might be more competitive? And because individual contracts couldn't be so high in a salary cap environment which might give them the chance to lure an attractive free agent when other teams have already hit the cap?

It’s like you’re explaining rocket science to someone. The answer, as you put it is simple.

There is no more $$60MM for Kyle Tuckers of the world

[Red7]

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.

Maybe because if all the payrolls were lower, their $100 million might be more competitive? And because individual contracts couldn't be so high in a salary cap environment which might give them the chance to lure an attractive free agent when other teams have already hit the cap?

It’s like you’re explaining rocket science to someone. The answer, as you put it is simple.

There is no more $$60MM for Kyle Tuckers of the world

And that is simply wrong. The Kyle Tuckers of the world are entitled to make as much as someone is willing to pay them. Now, do I think Kyle Tucker is worth $60 million a year? No, I don’t. But, the Dodgers do and that’s the beauty of it. You’re worth what someone is willing to pay you.

[Rollin' on the River]

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.

If the owners are united and steadfast on a salary cap. There isn’t much the players can do about it realistically. I heard the MLBPA has a rainy day fund; however, that will deplete quickly and when game checks stop coming in, and tuition payments, truck payments, mortgage payments, all start to get missed, then you’ll start to get guys attention. Guys will either play in the foreign leagues, or they won’t play. The owners can literally starve 90% of the players out. The nhl had to lose an entire year before the players came to their senses. And it’s a much better league now because of it.

[ScotchMIrish]

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.

Kansas City won the super bowl 3 times in 5 years. They win the world series once every 40 years. That's what a payroll cap does for a sport.

no they were in the WS, but have only won 2 in their lifetime

Correct. The won 3 super bowls in 5 years.

[TheJackBurton]

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.

Is there a point to this post?

Nobody is suggesting that this half @$$ redistribution of wealth they call revenue sharing is doing anything to meaningfully curb spending and certainly isn’t helping with competitive balance.

So back my original comments: need salary cap and floor PLUS a better version of revenue sharing.

You do understand that, justifiably so, the players remain adamantly opposed to curbing salaries. This is America. We do not put artificial curbs on what people make. Why do you hate America? If the Guardians were put up for sale tomorrow, there’d be no shortage of buyers.

There won't be a single player who has their income restricted because of a salary cap. Not one. Kyle Tucker can still absolutely make 60 million a year, and if that takes up a 1/3 of a teams salary cap then so be it. He and that team will likely win 30 games the entire season.

Your argument has been proven wrong in every single league that has a salary cap.

[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.

Nashville, Charlotte both support nfl and other pro franchises. San Antonio has been mentioned. Montreal has been mentioned. I’m sure more out west.

Charlotte? No Nashville has been rumored so great you move the marlins. So you have The Rangers and the Astros and want to throw a team in San Antonio? No.

I guess there's always Las Vegas or some New Mexico area.

Pretty sure if you can support NFL and NBA team you can a baseball franchise. Vegas is getting the A’s.

Yeah forgot about that.

Not necessarily. Oklahoma city can support a NBA team, but they couldn't support an MLB team. New Orleans can support an NFL team and an NBA team but they wouldn't be able to support an MLB team. Miami has supported an NFL team and are currently supporting their NHL team, but other than about 3 seasons they have never supported their baseball team.

St. Louis supported all 3 and have had NFL teams leave twice.

[dugoutrex]

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.

Kansas City won the super bowl 3 times in 5 years. They win the world series once every 40 years. That's what a payroll cap does for a sport.

didn't work for the NFL in Stl - how many years did we have pro football and we got 1 little title
meanwhile ... 11 titles in 100 some years of baseball

[govman]

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.

Nashville, Charlotte both support nfl and other pro franchises. San Antonio has been mentioned. Montreal has been mentioned. I’m sure more out west.

Montreal? Been there, done that. No go

[govman]

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.

Kansas City won the super bowl 3 times in 5 years. They win the world series once every 40 years. That's what a payroll cap does for a sport.

no they were in the WS, but have only won 2 in their lifetime

Correct. The won 3 super bowls in 5 years.

WRONG--please Google see below

Kansas City Royals, American professional baseball team based in Kansas City, Missouri. The Royals have won four American League (AL) pennants and two World Series championships (1985 and 2015).

[govman]

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.

Kansas City won the super bowl 3 times in 5 years. They win the world series once every 40 years. That's what a payroll cap does for a sport.

didn't work for the NFL in Stl - how many years did we have pro football and we got 1 little title
meanwhile ... 11 titles in 100 some years of baseball

please forget Scotch--he must be thinking of the Giants, who did win in 3 of 5 years

[govman]

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.

Kansas City won the super bowl 3 times in 5 years. They win the world series once every 40 years. That's what a payroll cap does for a sport.

no they were in the WS, but have only won 2 in their lifetime

Correct. The won 3 super bowls in 5 years.

WRONG--please Google see below

Kansas City Royals, American professional baseball team based in Kansas City, Missouri. The Royals have won four American League (AL) pennants and two World Series championships (1985 and 2015).

and KC has only been around for 40 years. You've confused KC with SF

[ScotchMIrish]

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.

Kansas City won the super bowl 3 times in 5 years. They win the world series once every 40 years. That's what a payroll cap does for a sport.

didn't work for the NFL in Stl - how many years did we have pro football and we got 1 little title
meanwhile ... 11 titles in 100 some years of baseball

It worked after they enacted the payroll cap. Then the fools fired Martz and went back to losing. You notice the Cowboys haven't won anything in a long time. Jerry Jones can't buy the super bowl now.