A Cap/Floor Proposal The Union Would Go For

[TheJackBurton]

First, eliminate the CBT. Cap ceiling $400 million. Cap floor $200 million. Teams can sell whatever cap space they have to teams wanting to exceed the cap. Example: Reds have met the $200 million floor. They can sell the remaining $200 million. There would be no limit to the amount a team could purchase or how many teams they can buy cap space from. That should make everyone happy.

how does that solve anything? You are forcing teams to a floor they can't afford then allowing them to sell cap space so teams can exceed it?

No that's not how any of this work.

The whole idea of the floor is for it to be an amount a team should easily meet, 200 million isn't it.

And exactly how would the next owner do so, if the revenue and operating costs make the math unchanged and equally impossible?

By setting a floor that every team can meet. Teams will have to open their books and give up the magical accounting and be honest with their revenue. Revenue sharing would have to be spread out equally its as simple as that.

[dugoutrex]

now, work on a proposal that the owners would go for cause this ain't it!

[Cardinals1964]

First, eliminate the CBT. Cap ceiling $400 million. Cap floor $200 million. Teams can sell whatever cap space they have to teams wanting to exceed the cap. Example: Reds have met the $200 million floor. They can sell the remaining $200 million. There would be no limit to the amount a team could purchase or how many teams they can buy cap space from. That should make everyone happy.

how does that solve anything? You are forcing teams to a floor they can't afford then allowing them to sell cap space so teams can exceed it?

No that's not how any of this work.

The whole idea of the floor is for it to be an amount a team should easily meet, 200 million isn't it.

And exactly how would the next owner do so, if the revenue and operating costs make the math unchanged and equally impossible?

By setting a floor that every team can meet. Teams will have to open their books and give up the magical accounting and be honest with their revenue. Revenue sharing would have to be spread out equally its as simple as that.

True. Owners have to open books, shorten rule 5 time, shorten arbitration years and lower free agency time served.

[Stlcardsblues]

now, work on a proposal that the owners would go for cause this ain't it!

Fully agree, the Ops suggestion further widens the competitive balance issue not fix it.

[RamFan08NY]

That's crazy but I love the out of the box thinking RedBaron!

Can you imagine how quickly the Dodgers would buy up all of the Rockies cap space they could, the Mets the same w/the Marlins?

The fascinating thing would be if BDWJr would be a buyer or a seller?

Exactly. We would see exactly how much competitive balance actually means to the owners. The ability to sell cap space would allow teams to achieve the floor and still make a huge profit. It would allow the big spenders to continue to spend and the players to make their money. In essence, it’s still the CBT/revenue sharing, but the money goes directly to the smaller market teams. Baseball doesn’t have a spending problem. It has a revenue distribution problem. This solves that problem.

This won't work.
To cut it down to the very basics....the small market teams would all sell their cap and MLB would end up being in the same boat 3-5 years from now. The teams that have no interest in being competitive need to be punished..in other words, they need a reason to not suck.

How are you going to determine which teams are not interested in being competitive….and those that are simply inept at building an organization…

I submit the St. Louis cardinals as a club that wasted millions on lousy players…

So….were they not interested in winning….or just had no idea what they were doing?

Do you really not know the answer to that?

I think I do…but…it was obvious they were not interested in winning……but they knew how to sell a bunch of tickets….

I just wonder who is going to determine when a club is inept….and will they be “punished “?

Generally we don’t punish the feeble minded in this country…

Whether anyone wants to admit it or not, there is ALWAYS going to be cellar teams. Only a limited number make the playoffs. What ever needs to be done, has to be done so we dont see the same 10 teams in the playoffs every year.

Look at the Seahawks. Vegas had their win total at 6.5 this year. Teams in the NFL often go from worst to first in their division, by making smart roster moves with free agents. They can do that because its a level playing field.

MLB is basically saying, we have several caps. Here they are...
LA 400m
TB 100 m
A's 100m
Stl 120m
NY 400m
NY 400m
Bos 350m

How is that a level playing field? How can other teams compete when the Dodgers can offer 40m over a qualifying offer on a player who has no business getting paid 60m per?

You cant penalize a team for being in last place in a contest they simply cannot afford to compete in.

[Red7]

The problem is, most of you have fallen for the owners smokescreen of competitive balance, when in actuality, they just want to keep more of the almost $13 billion in revenue baseball rakes in. The beauty of my proposal is two-fold: one, it will expose the lower end team’s fraudulent claims when they sell their surplus cap space and two, it will force baseball into a revenue sharing mode they’ve never experienced before. By being able to sell their surplus cap space, they’ll make enough money to spend to the cap. Again, don’t be fooled by the competitive balance [nonsense]. It’s a money grab by the owners.

[mattmitchl44]

The problem is, most of you have fallen for the owners smokescreen of competitive balance, when in actuality, they just want to keep more of the almost $13 billion in revenue baseball rakes in. The beauty of my proposal is two-fold: one, it will expose the lower end team’s fraudulent claims when they sell their surplus cap space and two, it will force baseball into a revenue sharing mode they’ve never experienced before. By being able to sell their surplus cap space, they’ll make enough money to spend to the cap. Again, don’t be fooled by the competitive balance [nonsense]. It’s a money grab by the owners.

It's much easier to fix that.

The owners just guarantee in the CBA that the total amount of payroll going to the players will increase by X% (say 3%) per year for the duration of the CBA.

As noted, total pay rose from $5.16 billion to $5.28 billion (2.3%) from 2024 to 2025.

Assuming it goes to about $5.4 billion in 2026, then guarantee:

2027 - $5.56 billion
2028 - $5.73 billion
2029 - $5.90 billion
2030 - $6.08 billion
etc.

Along with a simple salary cap ($250-$275 million) and floor ($125-$137.5 million).

[Red7]

First, eliminate the CBT. Cap ceiling $400 million. Cap floor $200 million. Teams can sell whatever cap space they have to teams wanting to exceed the cap. Example: Reds have met the $200 million floor. They can sell the remaining $200 million. There would be no limit to the amount a team could purchase or how many teams they can buy cap space from. That should make everyone happy.

Union would love that but it wouldn't fix anything.

Sure it would. It would get the cap/floor you all want and be a great way for the revenue to be shared. You think this is about competitive balance. It’s about revenue distribution. Owners want less of it distributed to the players. As Steve Mizerany used to say: DON’T BE CONFUUUSSSEEED!!!!

[Red7]

The problem is, most of you have fallen for the owners smokescreen of competitive balance, when in actuality, they just want to keep more of the almost $13 billion in revenue baseball rakes in. The beauty of my proposal is two-fold: one, it will expose the lower end team’s fraudulent claims when they sell their surplus cap space and two, it will force baseball into a revenue sharing mode they’ve never experienced before. By being able to sell their surplus cap space, they’ll make enough money to spend to the cap. Again, don’t be fooled by the competitive balance [nonsense]. It’s a money grab by the owners.

It's much easier to fix that.

The owners just guarantee in the CBA that the total amount of payroll going to the players will increase by X% (say 3%) per year for the duration of the CBA.

As noted, total pay rose from $5.16 billion to $5.28 billion (2.3%) from 2024 to 2025.

Assuming it goes to about $5.4 billion in 2026, then guarantee:

2027 - $5.56 billion
2028 - $5.73 billion
2029 - $5.90 billion
2030 - $6.08 billion
etc.

Along with a simple salary cap ($250-$275 million) and floor ($125-$137.5 million).

See, you’re doing the owners bidding. This has nothing to do with competitive balance. It’s about revenue distribution. Owners want to limit how much revenue goes to players. I, and the union, am against that. This allows teams to continue to spend while making financial restitutions to the lower spending teams. Btw, when you have teams with payrolls well north of your cap, how do you propose they get there? And a floor of $137.5 million is a joke. The $400 cap will make the big spenders happy, the $200 million floor will make the players happy, and the ability to sell their surplus cap space will make the smaller markets happy.

[mattmitchl44]

First, eliminate the CBT. Cap ceiling $400 million. Cap floor $200 million. Teams can sell whatever cap space they have to teams wanting to exceed the cap. Example: Reds have met the $200 million floor. They can sell the remaining $200 million. There would be no limit to the amount a team could purchase or how many teams they can buy cap space from. That should make everyone happy.

Union would love that but it wouldn't fix anything.

Sure it would. It would get the cap/floor you all want and be a great way for the revenue to be shared. You think this is about competitive balance. It’s about revenue distribution. Owners want less of it distributed to the players. As Steve Mizerany used to say: DON’T BE CONFUUUSSSEEED!!!!

It should be about all of the above: competitive balance, better revenue sharing, a fairer/better distribution of money going to the most productive players, etc.

Have a cap/floor and better revenue sharing and then all the small and mid market teams can afford to pay their food young players more appropriately.

[mattmitchl44]

The problem is, most of you have fallen for the owners smokescreen of competitive balance, when in actuality, they just want to keep more of the almost $13 billion in revenue baseball rakes in. The beauty of my proposal is two-fold: one, it will expose the lower end team’s fraudulent claims when they sell their surplus cap space and two, it will force baseball into a revenue sharing mode they’ve never experienced before. By being able to sell their surplus cap space, they’ll make enough money to spend to the cap. Again, don’t be fooled by the competitive balance [nonsense]. It’s a money grab by the owners.

It's much easier to fix that.

The owners just guarantee in the CBA that the total amount of payroll going to the players will increase by X% (say 3%) per year for the duration of the CBA.

As noted, total pay rose from $5.16 billion to $5.28 billion (2.3%) from 2024 to 2025.

Assuming it goes to about $5.4 billion in 2026, then guarantee:

2027 - $5.56 billion
2028 - $5.73 billion
2029 - $5.90 billion
2030 - $6.08 billion
etc.

Along with a simple salary cap ($250-$275 million) and floor ($125-$137.5 million).

See, you’re doing the owners bidding. This has nothing to do with competitive balance. It’s about revenue distribution. Owners want to limit how much revenue goes to players. I, and the union, am against that. This allows teams to continue to spend while making financial restitutions to the lower spending teams. Btw, when you have teams with payrolls well north of your cap, how do you propose they get there? And a floor of $137.5 million is a joke. The $400 cap will make the big spenders happy, the $200 million floor will make the players happy, and the ability to sell their surplus cap space will make the smaller markets happy.

I'm guaranteeing that more money goes to the players year after year.

Again, your $200 million floor is simply insane. That would jump player salaries to at least $6 billion overnight.

Player salaries were $5.28 million in 2025.

And you'll have to grandfather a cap in. Teams over the cap based on existing commitments won't be able to sign or add any players which increases their payroll for any future season until they get below the cap for one year.

Per Cot's, the Dodgers commitments for 2028 are $263 million, the Mets commitments for 2027 are $254 million, etc. so they all should get under the cap by 2028.

[mattmitchl44]

The problem is, most of you have fallen for the owners smokescreen of competitive balance, when in actuality, they just want to keep more of the almost $13 billion in revenue baseball rakes in. The beauty of my proposal is two-fold: one, it will expose the lower end team’s fraudulent claims when they sell their surplus cap space and two, it will force baseball into a revenue sharing mode they’ve never experienced before. By being able to sell their surplus cap space, they’ll make enough money to spend to the cap. Again, don’t be fooled by the competitive balance [nonsense]. It’s a money grab by the owners.

It's much easier to fix that.

The owners just guarantee in the CBA that the total amount of payroll going to the players will increase by X% (say 3%) per year for the duration of the CBA.

As noted, total pay rose from $5.16 billion to $5.28 billion (2.3%) from 2024 to 2025.

Assuming it goes to about $5.4 billion in 2026, then guarantee:

2027 - $5.56 billion
2028 - $5.73 billion
2029 - $5.90 billion
2030 - $6.08 billion
etc.

Along with a simple salary cap ($250-$275 million) and floor ($125-$137.5 million).

See, you’re doing the owners bidding. This has nothing to do with competitive balance. It’s about revenue distribution. Owners want to limit how much revenue goes to players. I, and the union, am against that. This allows teams to continue to spend while making financial restitutions to the lower spending teams. Btw, when you have teams with payrolls well north of your cap, how do you propose they get there? And a floor of $137.5 million is a joke. The $400 cap will make the big spenders happy, the $200 million floor will make the players happy, and the ability to sell their surplus cap space will make the smaller markets happy.

I'm guaranteeing that more money goes to the players year after year.

Again, your $200 million floor is simply insane. That would jump player salaries to at least $6 billion overnight.

Player salaries were $5.28 million in 2025.

And you'll have to grandfather a cap in. Teams over the cap based on existing commitments won't be able to sign or add any players which increases their payroll for any future season until they get below the cap for one year.

Per Cot's, the Dodgers commitments for 2028 are $263 million, the Mets commitments for 2027 are $254 million, etc. so they all should get under the cap by 2028.

$5.28 billion in 2025, and "good", not "food", young players. (bleep) typing on my phone.

The cap/ floor would, of course, rise incrementally from a 2027 level by 2, 3, etc. percent per year.

[makesnosense]

First, eliminate the CBT. Cap ceiling $400 million. Cap floor $200 million. Teams can sell whatever cap space they have to teams wanting to exceed the cap. Example: Reds have met the $200 million floor. They can sell the remaining $200 million. There would be no limit to the amount a team could purchase or how many teams they can buy cap space from. That should make everyone happy.

how does that solve anything? You are forcing teams to a floor they can't afford then allowing them to sell cap space so teams can exceed it?

No that's not how any of this work.

The whole idea of the floor is for it to be an amount a team should easily meet, 200 million isn't it.

If 200 is decided on as the floor and you can't meet it, sell the team.

What? Even if a Steve Cohen were to come in and purchase the team he would maybe be able to go crazy for a few years but that's it. Market share, economics, and size are what they are, they can't magically charge 200 dollars more a seat, 30 dollars more for a beer, 60 dollars more for parking and sign a 200 million dollar a year tv contract. They also can't magically get 10 million more fans and larger marketing dollars and increase tv market share. They are limited by their market, they can't pump hundreds of millions into a team that they can never recoup, that's completely idiotic.

Then move the team to a market that can. All i'm saying if the floor is agreed on then you need to meet these requirements.

[mattmitchl44]

Not every provision of any deal is going to suit everybody.

However, if the cap were $260 million, only six teams are projected over that for 2026, and only one (LA) for 2027.

If the floor were $130 million, only ten teams are projected under that for 2026.

So solid majorities of owners should be able to get behind each of those provisions.

And a $130 million floor and $260 million cap leaves room for the owners to guarantee a 2, 3, 4 percent increase in money going to the players in salaries.

[Rollin' on the River]

First, eliminate the CBT. Cap ceiling $400 million. Cap floor $200 million. Teams can sell whatever cap space they have to teams wanting to exceed the cap. Example: Reds have met the $200 million floor. They can sell the remaining $200 million. There would be no limit to the amount a team could purchase or how many teams they can buy cap space from. That should make everyone happy.

That helps nothing.

[ScotchMIrish]

First, eliminate the CBT. Cap ceiling $400 million. Cap floor $200 million. Teams can sell whatever cap space they have to teams wanting to exceed the cap. Example: Reds have met the $200 million floor. They can sell the remaining $200 million. There would be no limit to the amount a team could purchase or how many teams they can buy cap space from. That should make everyone happy.

Union would love that but it wouldn't fix anything.

Sure it would. It would get the cap/floor you all want and be a great way for the revenue to be shared. You think this is about competitive balance. It’s about revenue distribution. Owners want less of it distributed to the players. As Steve Mizerany used to say: DON’T BE CONFUUUSSSEEED!!!!

Cap ceiling at $190 million. If you want to exceed it you buy cap space from other teams. That might do something. Cap ceiling at $400 million does nothing.