Salary Cap

[mattmitchl44]

Until they change their stance that's been in place since 1966 it won't matter since the MLBPA won't accept a salary cap.

(But like most in here I wish they would too)

What the owners have to do is straightforward, if not easy.

Ignore the superstar players and their superstar agents. Ignore the MLBPA leadership if they continue to be in the pockets of the superstar players and agents.

Speak directly to the 500-600 players who would directly benefit from a transformation in the way ML players are paid in their first six years.

That matt would violate collective bargaining rules and open them up to massive lawsuits.

I don't think he means actually speaking to them, but gearing a message directly for their benefit.

He did say:
"Speak directly to the 500-600 players...."

TB took what I meant correctly.

[rockondlouie]

Until they change their stance that's been in place since 1966 it won't matter since the MLBPA won't accept a salary cap.

(But like most in here I wish they would too)

What the owners have to do is straightforward, if not easy.

Ignore the superstar players and their superstar agents. Ignore the MLBPA leadership if they continue to be in the pockets of the superstar players and agents.

Speak directly to the 500-600 players who would directly benefit from a transformation in the way ML players are paid in their first six years.

That matt would violate collective bargaining rules and open them up to massive lawsuits.

No, I mean the owners need to develop and make a transformative proposal public. They need to show concrete examples of where (in proposals I've sketched) productive players could make maybe double what they are making under current system over their first 5-6 years.

Put that message out to put pressure on the MLBPA to address it with the players.

The Public would do nothing since the "public" has no say in management/union negotiations.

Not sure Billionaire owners, not the most popular class of people in todays society, are going to win any public opinion polls.

And it's a bad strategy (IMO) to try an negotiate thru the media.

You're not going to put nay pressure on the MLBPA's or the players by doing that, in fact you would likely just strengthen their resolve.

Best negotiations are done behind closed doors.

If the MLBPA refuses to present a proposal to the players that is objectively better for 500 or 600 of them, then do what you have to do.

As soon as a rookie hits MLB matt their immediately indoctrinated into the MLBPA and become union members.

Veteran players let them know the "game plan" when it comes to contact negotiations and not accepting a salary cap has always been RULE #1 set down by their founder Marvin Miller.

I know this as a fact matt.

[mattmitchl44]

Until they change their stance that's been in place since 1966 it won't matter since the MLBPA won't accept a salary cap.

(But like most in here I wish they would too)

What the owners have to do is straightforward, if not easy.

Ignore the superstar players and their superstar agents. Ignore the MLBPA leadership if they continue to be in the pockets of the superstar players and agents.

Speak directly to the 500-600 players who would directly benefit from a transformation in the way ML players are paid in their first six years.

That matt would violate collective bargaining rules and open them up to massive lawsuits.

No, I mean the owners need to develop and make a transformative proposal public. They need to show concrete examples of where (in proposals I've sketched) productive players could make maybe double what they are making under current system over their first 5-6 years.

Put that message out to put pressure on the MLBPA to address it with the players.

The Public would do nothing since the "public" has no say in management/union negotiations.

Not sure Billionaire owners, not the most popular class of people in todays society, are going to win any public opinion polls.

And it's a bad strategy (IMO) to try an negotiate thru the media.

You're not going to put nay pressure on the MLBPA's or the players by doing that, in fact you would likely just strengthen their resolve.

Best negotiations are done behind closed doors.

If the MLBPA refuses to present a proposal to the players that is objectively better for 500 or 600 of them, then do what you have to do.

As soon as a rookie hits MLB matt their immediately indoctrinated into the MLBPA and become union members.

Veteran players let them know the "game plan" when it comes to contact negotiations and not accepting a salary cap has always been RULE #1 set down by their founder Marvin Miller.

I know this as a fact matt.

I get that.

That is why is it essential that the players hear - however is has to happen - that the owners should be putting a proposal on the table which is significantly better for many of them and how it is better, even with a salary cap.

500-600 players need to be shown how: (1) a $1.25 million ML minimum; (2) a new ARB system starting after 1 year of ML experience; (3) FA after five years is much, much more significant than any salary cap which really will not affect them much.

The owners have to give them an obvious, significant "win" to break the indoctrination.

[45s]

“Heyman: Early estimates suggest proposed salary cap might be set around $260M-280M and floor around $140M-160M.

Thoughts if this became a reality?”

It would make no sense for the Cardinals to spend $150M this year.

Nah, who wants to compete?

Paying mediocre players more will not make them better, or the team more competitive…

The goal, ultimately, it to pay productive players - mediocre/good, young/old, or otherwise - much more in line with what their production is actually worth.

A worthy goal…..so what is the plan to cut the salaries of so many overpaid stiffs?

When the big market teams are faced with salary caps and having to pay their own young players much better, they will not be able to be as profligate at driving up the market for expensive FAs. That will bring the entire FA market down over the course of a few years to where there will be fewer vastly overpaid players.

Contracts currently on the books will just have to expire over time

So over some period of time, a bad roster like the cardinals will be paid more just to meet an arbitrary number…

Yeah….good plan…

Again, if young players are NOT productive, they are not going to get more money for being not productive. That's not the goal.

To put it succinctly, a roster with even 73 win talent is "worthy" of $130 million if that is the salary floor.

So….you you want a governing body to dictate what the cardinals pay their employees whether the market warrants it?

Sounds a little facist comrade…

I can hear dewitt announce the ticket increase now..

“We understand the pressure this will put on our fans, but the dictates of MLB relative to our salary structure forces us to raise ticket prices. We are grateful for the support of our fans and hope it continues.”

[mattmitchl44]

“Heyman: Early estimates suggest proposed salary cap might be set around $260M-280M and floor around $140M-160M.

Thoughts if this became a reality?”

It would make no sense for the Cardinals to spend $150M this year.

Nah, who wants to compete?

Paying mediocre players more will not make them better, or the team more competitive…

The goal, ultimately, it to pay productive players - mediocre/good, young/old, or otherwise - much more in line with what their production is actually worth.

A worthy goal…..so what is the plan to cut the salaries of so many overpaid stiffs?

When the big market teams are faced with salary caps and having to pay their own young players much better, they will not be able to be as profligate at driving up the market for expensive FAs. That will bring the entire FA market down over the course of a few years to where there will be fewer vastly overpaid players.

Contracts currently on the books will just have to expire over time

So over some period of time, a bad roster like the cardinals will be paid more just to meet an arbitrary number…

Yeah….good plan…

Again, if young players are NOT productive, they are not going to get more money for being not productive. That's not the goal.

To put it succinctly, a roster with even 73 win talent is "worthy" of $130 million if that is the salary floor.

So….you you want a governing body to dictate what the cardinals pay their employees whether the market warrants it?

Sounds a little facist comrade…

I can hear dewitt announce the ticket increase now..

“We understand the pressure this will put on our fans, but the dictates of MLB relative to our salary structure forces us to raise ticket prices. We are grateful for the support of our fans and hope it continues.”

I don't know what weirdness you're trying to spin off into.

Many professional sports have salary caps and floors for their teams. They have structures which dictate how players entering they leagues are paid. Etc. None of that is "Fascist" or "Communist" or whatever.

I'm only talking about MLB having caps and floors like other sports and having a different, better structure which will pay productive players - mediocre/good, young/old, or otherwise - much more in line with what their production is actually worth.

None of that is a bad thing, in particular for fans.

[rockondlouie]

Until they change their stance that's been in place since 1966 it won't matter since the MLBPA won't accept a salary cap.

(But like most in here I wish they would too)

What the owners have to do is straightforward, if not easy.

Ignore the superstar players and their superstar agents. Ignore the MLBPA leadership if they continue to be in the pockets of the superstar players and agents.

Speak directly to the 500-600 players who would directly benefit from a transformation in the way ML players are paid in their first six years.

That matt would violate collective bargaining rules and open them up to massive lawsuits.

No, I mean the owners need to develop and make a transformative proposal public. They need to show concrete examples of where (in proposals I've sketched) productive players could make maybe double what they are making under current system over their first 5-6 years.

Put that message out to put pressure on the MLBPA to address it with the players.

The Public would do nothing since the "public" has no say in management/union negotiations.

Not sure Billionaire owners, not the most popular class of people in todays society, are going to win any public opinion polls.

And it's a bad strategy (IMO) to try an negotiate thru the media.

You're not going to put nay pressure on the MLBPA's or the players by doing that, in fact you would likely just strengthen their resolve.

Best negotiations are done behind closed doors.

If the MLBPA refuses to present a proposal to the players that is objectively better for 500 or 600 of them, then do what you have to do.

As soon as a rookie hits MLB matt their immediately indoctrinated into the MLBPA and become union members.

Veteran players let them know the "game plan" when it comes to contact negotiations and not accepting a salary cap has always been RULE #1 set down by their founder Marvin Miller.

I know this as a fact matt.

I get that.

That is why is it essential that the players hear - however is has to happen - that the owners should be putting a proposal on the table which is significantly better for many of them and how it is better, even with a salary cap.

500-600 players need to be shown how: (1) a $1.25 million ML minimum; (2) a new ARB system starting after 1 year of ML experience; (3) FA after five years is much, much more significant than any salary cap which really will not affect them much.

The owners have to give them an obvious, significant "win" to break the indoctrination.

And they would hear it as well as any offer from their player reps who would either be in the negotiating room or informed by the union.

But the owners would NOT be allowed to speak directly to any players about a potential deal, that would be in violation of the collective bargain agreement.

Even w/your suggested "proposal" the vote would still be for no salary cap.

While that $1.25M ML minimum would be attractive to a young rookie, that same player would be costing himself multi-millions if he goes on to become the next J. Soto or G. Cole should the MLBPA accept a salary cap.

Much better to "suffer " making only $780,000 than it would be to potentially lose $100,000,000 if the player becomes the next great superstar but his earnings are held down by a salary cap.

The union and players know this, why they'll never accept a salary cap.

[mattmitchl44]

Until they change their stance that's been in place since 1966 it won't matter since the MLBPA won't accept a salary cap.

(But like most in here I wish they would too)

What the owners have to do is straightforward, if not easy.

Ignore the superstar players and their superstar agents. Ignore the MLBPA leadership if they continue to be in the pockets of the superstar players and agents.

Speak directly to the 500-600 players who would directly benefit from a transformation in the way ML players are paid in their first six years.

That matt would violate collective bargaining rules and open them up to massive lawsuits.

No, I mean the owners need to develop and make a transformative proposal public. They need to show concrete examples of where (in proposals I've sketched) productive players could make maybe double what they are making under current system over their first 5-6 years.

Put that message out to put pressure on the MLBPA to address it with the players.

The Public would do nothing since the "public" has no say in management/union negotiations.

Not sure Billionaire owners, not the most popular class of people in todays society, are going to win any public opinion polls.

And it's a bad strategy (IMO) to try an negotiate thru the media.

You're not going to put nay pressure on the MLBPA's or the players by doing that, in fact you would likely just strengthen their resolve.

Best negotiations are done behind closed doors.

If the MLBPA refuses to present a proposal to the players that is objectively better for 500 or 600 of them, then do what you have to do.

As soon as a rookie hits MLB matt their immediately indoctrinated into the MLBPA and become union members.

Veteran players let them know the "game plan" when it comes to contact negotiations and not accepting a salary cap has always been RULE #1 set down by their founder Marvin Miller.

I know this as a fact matt.

I get that.

That is why is it essential that the players hear - however is has to happen - that the owners should be putting a proposal on the table which is significantly better for many of them and how it is better, even with a salary cap.

500-600 players need to be shown how: (1) a $1.25 million ML minimum; (2) a new ARB system starting after 1 year of ML experience; (3) FA after five years is much, much more significant than any salary cap which really will not affect them much.

The owners have to give them an obvious, significant "win" to break the indoctrination.

And they would hear it as well as any offer from their player reps who would either be in the negotiating room or informed by the union.

But the owners would NOT be allowed to speak directly to any players about a potential deal, that would be in violation of the collective bargain agreement.

Even w/your suggested "proposal" the vote would still be for no salary cap.

While that $1.25M ML minimum would be attractive to a young rookie, that same player would be costing himself multi-millions if he goes on to become the next J. Soto or G. Cole should the MLBPA accept a salary cap.

Much better to "suffer " making only $780,000 than it would be to potentially lose $100,000,000 if the player becomes the next great superstar but his earnings are held down by a salary cap.

The union and players know this, why they'll never accept a salary cap.

But rational players know that only a few percent of them ever turn into Soto or Cole.

Again, the owners need to make it OBVIOUS how big a win this would be for most players.

And superstars are still going to get paid, they just might get 2/3 or 3/4 of what they might get now. But that would be more in line with the actual value of their production.

You can think that anything that hasn't happened is impossible, until it happens.

[rockondlouie]

Until they change their stance that's been in place since 1966 it won't matter since the MLBPA won't accept a salary cap.

(But like most in here I wish they would too)

What the owners have to do is straightforward, if not easy.

Ignore the superstar players and their superstar agents. Ignore the MLBPA leadership if they continue to be in the pockets of the superstar players and agents.

Speak directly to the 500-600 players who would directly benefit from a transformation in the way ML players are paid in their first six years.

That matt would violate collective bargaining rules and open them up to massive lawsuits.

No, I mean the owners need to develop and make a transformative proposal public. They need to show concrete examples of where (in proposals I've sketched) productive players could make maybe double what they are making under current system over their first 5-6 years.

Put that message out to put pressure on the MLBPA to address it with the players.

The Public would do nothing since the "public" has no say in management/union negotiations.

Not sure Billionaire owners, not the most popular class of people in todays society, are going to win any public opinion polls.

And it's a bad strategy (IMO) to try an negotiate thru the media.

You're not going to put nay pressure on the MLBPA's or the players by doing that, in fact you would likely just strengthen their resolve.

Best negotiations are done behind closed doors.

If the MLBPA refuses to present a proposal to the players that is objectively better for 500 or 600 of them, then do what you have to do.

As soon as a rookie hits MLB matt their immediately indoctrinated into the MLBPA and become union members.

Veteran players let them know the "game plan" when it comes to contact negotiations and not accepting a salary cap has always been RULE #1 set down by their founder Marvin Miller.

I know this as a fact matt.

I get that.

That is why is it essential that the players hear - however is has to happen - that the owners should be putting a proposal on the table which is significantly better for many of them and how it is better, even with a salary cap.

500-600 players need to be shown how: (1) a $1.25 million ML minimum; (2) a new ARB system starting after 1 year of ML experience; (3) FA after five years is much, much more significant than any salary cap which really will not affect them much.

The owners have to give them an obvious, significant "win" to break the indoctrination.

And they would hear it as well as any offer from their player reps who would either be in the negotiating room or informed by the union.

But the owners would NOT be allowed to speak directly to any players about a potential deal, that would be in violation of the collective bargain agreement.

Even w/your suggested "proposal" the vote would still be for no salary cap.

While that $1.25M ML minimum would be attractive to a young rookie, that same player would be costing himself multi-millions if he goes on to become the next J. Soto or G. Cole should the MLBPA accept a salary cap.

Much better to "suffer " making only $780,000 than it would be to potentially lose $100,000,000 if the player becomes the next great superstar but his earnings are held down by a salary cap.

The union and players know this, why they'll never accept a salary cap.

But rational players know that only a few percent of them ever turn into Soto or Cole.

Again, the owners need to make it OBVIOUS how big a win this would be for most players.

And superstars are still going to get paid, they just might get 2/3 or 3/4 of what they might get now. But that would be more in line with the actual value of their production.

You can think that anything that hasn't happened is impossible, until it happens.

Of course, but hasn't happened for 60 years so why would it change this time?

BUT

Even just a very good player (not Hall of Fame material but multiple time all-star) can now make $100-200-300+M!

RE:
Corey Seager, $325 million
Xander Bogaerts, $280 million
Giancarlo Stanton, $325,000,000
Rafael Devers, $313,500,000
Stephen Strasburg, $245,000,000
Anthony Rendon, $245,000,000

and the list goes on and on of players who won't be in the Hall of Fame but who have made fortunes, fortunes that shrink dramatically under a salary cap and players know it.

Here's the mountain you're climbing matt and the MLBPA is well aware of it:

2025 MLB REVENUES-----------$12,100,000,000

The MONEY IS THERE

[Galatians221jb1]

the key point its, is what are the penalties for going over? Under? Will the league nullify contracts that put the team over? Will they demand a cash payment to the league for the amount under the floor? Will the over limit teams actually trade top talent to comply, or will they just pay the penalty, which is what they are doing now. How to enforce the limits is the key.

Enforcing a cap would be as you describe- a contract that does not comply with the rules is nullified. It's much the same as they do with roster management now- you have a limit at 26 and 40 players that you don't get to exceed. If you want to do something different, you have to make a corresponding move. You don't get a 41 man roster no matter who you are.

As for the floor, I suppose they just pay the difference (plus, perhaps a penalty?) for the shortcoming?

If these ceiling and floor numbers are adopted, what would a team like the Dodgers have to do to comply? Could they just defer more of Ohtani’s salary until after his career is over? Hopefully they will disallow deferred money.

[Talkin' Baseball]

the key point its, is what are the penalties for going over? Under? Will the league nullify contracts that put the team over? Will they demand a cash payment to the league for the amount under the floor? Will the over limit teams actually trade top talent to comply, or will they just pay the penalty, which is what they are doing now. How to enforce the limits is the key.

Enforcing a cap would be as you describe- a contract that does not comply with the rules is nullified. It's much the same as they do with roster management now- you have a limit at 26 and 40 players that you don't get to exceed. If you want to do something different, you have to make a corresponding move. You don't get a 41 man roster no matter who you are.

As for the floor, I suppose they just pay the difference (plus, perhaps a penalty?) for the shortcoming?

If these ceiling and floor numbers are adopted, what would a team like the Dodgers have to do to comply? Could they just defer more of Ohtani’s salary until after his career is over? Hopefully they will disallow deferred money.

Right, deferrals are out. Just guessing, teams might be given 2-3 seasons to get into compliance, ramping down to lower threshholds each offseason.

[mattmitchl44]

Of course, but hasn't happened for 60 years so why would it change this time?

Because I believe the owners - in particular now the mid-market owners - are wholly committed to leaving this CBA negotiation with a salary cap/floor. What is different is that a critical mass of teams know that their competitiveness - and likely their revenues and value of their organizations - rest on getting a salary cap/floor.

BUT

Even just a very good player (not Hall of Fame material but multiple time all-star) can now make $100-200-300+M!

RE:
Corey Seager, $325 million
Xander Bogaerts, $280 million
Giancarlo Stanton, $325,000,000
Rafael Devers, $313,500,000
Stephen Strasburg, $245,000,000
Anthony Rendon, $245,000,000

and the list goes on and on of players who won't be in the Hall of Fame but who have made fortunes, fortunes that shrink dramatically under a salary cap and players know it.

That's still just few percent of all players. And players that good will still make a fortune, by any measure, just somewhat less of one (by maybe 2/3 or 3/4).

Here's the mountain you're climbing matt and the MLBPA is well aware of it:

2025 MLB REVENUES-----------$12,100,000,000

The MONEY IS THERE

That number doesn't matter. What matters is what the owners are willing to pay toward MLB player salaries - and that was $5.28 billion in 2025. Whether that was $5.28 billion of $10 billion, $12 billion, $15 billion, or whatever, is moot.

And the owners, along with a cap/floor, change to the pay structure for younger players, etc. are going to have to guarantee that $5.28 billion will grow even with a cap/floor in place.

[Cardinals4Life]

“Heyman: Early estimates suggest proposed salary cap might be set around $260M-280M and floor around $140M-160M.

Thoughts if this became a reality?”

It would make no sense for the Cardinals to spend $150M this year.

Nah, who wants to compete?

Paying mediocre players more will not make them better, or the team more competitive…

You missed the point 45, per usual.

[alw80]

“Heyman: Early estimates suggest proposed salary cap might be set around $260M-280M and floor around $140M-160M.

Thoughts if this became a reality?”

It would make no sense for the Cardinals to spend $150M this year.

Nah, who wants to compete?

The Cardinals aren't in a position to compete right now, spending bad money doesn't change that.

[Punkk6]

Maybe if its a Hard cap with no deferred money

[alw80]

“Heyman: Early estimates suggest proposed salary cap might be set around $260M-280M and floor around $140M-160M.

Thoughts if this became a reality?”

It would make no sense for the Cardinals to spend $150M this year.

Nah, who wants to compete?

Paying mediocre players more will not make them better, or the team more competitive…

The goal, ultimately, it to pay productive players - mediocre/good, young/old, or otherwise - much more in line with what their production is actually worth.

A worthy goal…..so what is the plan to cut the salaries of so many overpaid stiffs?

When the big market teams are faced with salary caps and having to pay their own young players much better, they will not be able to be as profligate at driving up the market for expensive FAs. That will bring the entire FA market down over the course of a few years to where there will be fewer vastly overpaid players.

Contracts currently on the books will just have to expire over time

So over some period of time, a bad roster like the cardinals will be paid more just to meet an arbitrary number…

Yeah….good plan…

Again, if young players are NOT productive, they are not going to get more money for being not productive. That's not the goal.

To put it succinctly, a roster with even 73 win talent is "worthy" of $130 million if that is the salary floor.

Speaking as a Bulls fan, Patrick Williams getting paid $90M isn't real fun.

[rightthinker4]

“Heyman: Early estimates suggest proposed salary cap might be set around $260M-280M and floor around $140M-160M.

Thoughts if this became a reality?”

It’s a negotiation starting point. Have to see what the king of agents, Scott Boras has to say.