Salary Cap

[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.

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

Just as a for example, if I told you that, based on what these guys did last year they were going to get this for 2026:

Herrera - $8.8 million
Pages - $5.7 million
Crooks - $1.25 million
Burleson - $7 million
[Wetherholt] - $1.25 million
Winn - $11 million
[Urias] - $2 million
Fermin - $2.9 million
Gorman - $1.25 million
Nootbaar - $3.5 million (DL)
Saggese - $3 million
Scott - $6 million
Church - $1.8 million
Walker - $1.25 million

[May] - $12.5 million
Liberatore - $6.3 million
Dobbins - $4.0 million
McGreevy - $3.8 million
Fitts - $1.25 million

Leahy - $5.2 million
Svanson - $4.0 million
Romero - $3.8 million
[Stanek] - $3.5 million
Pallante - $3.2 million
Graceffo - $2.6 million
O'Brien - $2.4 million
Raquet - $1.25 million

27 players - $110.5 million

Would that be terrible and unjust?

[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.

Just as a for example, if I told you that, based on what these guys did last year they were going to get this for 2026:

Herrera - $8.8 million
Pages - $5.7 million
Crooks - $1.25 million
Burleson - $7 million
[Wetherholt] - $1.25 million
Winn - $11 million
[Urias] - $2 million
Fermin - $2.9 million
Gorman - $1.25 million
Nootbaar - $3.5 million (DL)
Saggese - $3 million
Scott - $6 million
Church - $1.8 million
Walker - $1.25 million

[May] - $12.5 million
Liberatore - $6.3 million
Dobbins - $4.0 million
McGreevy - $3.8 million
Fitts - $1.25 million

Leahy - $5.2 million
Svanson - $4.0 million
Romero - $3.8 million
[Stanek] - $3.5 million
Pallante - $3.2 million
Graceffo - $2.6 million
O'Brien - $2.4 million
Raquet - $1.25 million

27 players - $110.5 million

Would that be terrible and unjust?

You're $20M short of your floor.

[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.

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

Just as a for example, if I told you that, based on what these guys did last year they were going to get this for 2026:

Herrera - $8.8 million
Pages - $5.7 million
Crooks - $1.25 million
Burleson - $7 million
[Wetherholt] - $1.25 million
Winn - $11 million
[Urias] - $2 million
Fermin - $2.9 million
Gorman - $1.25 million
Nootbaar - $3.5 million (DL)
Saggese - $3 million
Scott - $6 million
Church - $1.8 million
Walker - $1.25 million

[May] - $12.5 million
Liberatore - $6.3 million
Dobbins - $4.0 million
McGreevy - $3.8 million
Fitts - $1.25 million

Leahy - $5.2 million
Svanson - $4.0 million
Romero - $3.8 million
[Stanek] - $3.5 million
Pallante - $3.2 million
Graceffo - $2.6 million
O'Brien - $2.4 million
Raquet - $1.25 million

27 players - $110.5 million

Would that be terrible and unjust?

You're $20M short of your floor.

Yes, the Cardinals would have had to have made some other additions from the FA market - which a lot of CT wanted them to do - to get to the $130 million floor. Maybe they give Sean Newcomb (replacing Raquet) $5 million to sign in St. Louis instead of with the White Sox, sign Bader (replacing Church) away from the Giants for 2 yrs./$22 million and sign another RP.

But, of who they have now, I think those are some reasonable compensation levels. Better than guys like Winn, Herrera, etc. still stuck making the ML minimum.

[Cardinals1964]

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

Thoughts if this became a reality?”

My first thought is, where did you get the information?

[Cardinals1964]

You should sign players for what you can sign them for. Set a floor, but if you don’t reach the floor, the extra money goes to the players association and they could divide it up. Why should one guy get overpaid on a bad team because they have a low payroll and not somebody on a good team deserving it more?

[alw80]

You should sign players for what you can sign them for. Set a floor, but if you don’t reach the floor, the extra money goes to the players association and they could divide it up. Why should one guy get overpaid on a bad team because they have a low payroll and not somebody on a good team deserving it more?

If you have a floor you have to hit the floor. Bad organizations will overpay their own mediocre players to hit the floor because stars still won't go there.

[mattmitchl44]

You should sign players for what you can sign them for. Set a floor, but if you don’t reach the floor, the extra money goes to the players association and they could divide it up. Why should one guy get overpaid on a bad team because they have a low payroll and not somebody on a good team deserving it more?

That would presumably be part of the structure as well.

I would also expect there to be a global accounting as well of total player salaries such that, if it does not increase by X% per year, the owners have to figure out among themselves how to collect enough money to give to the MLBPA for distribution to make up the difference.

[Rollin' on the River]

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

Thoughts if this became a reality?”

That salary cap is too high and doesn’t solve the problem.

[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?”

That salary cap is too high and doesn’t solve the problem.

Whats the problem?

[Rollin' on the River]

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

Thoughts if this became a reality?”

That salary cap is too high and doesn’t solve the problem.

Whats the problem?

2-3 teams hoarding all the talent.

A 240 salary cap doesn’t do anything significant to the Dodgers lineup as it sits.

[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?”

That salary cap is too high and doesn’t solve the problem.

Whats the problem?

2-3 teams hoarding all the talent.

A 240 salary cap doesn’t do anything significant to the Dodgers lineup as it sits.

Since this would start in 2027, the Dodgers are currently on the hook for almost $250 million in salary to just seven players (Tucker, Glasnow, Ohtani, Snell, Betts, Freeman, and Yamamoto) in 2027. They still need another 19 players on the roster.

How does a $250 or $260 million cap NOT significantly alter their roster construction going forward?

[rockondlouie]

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.

Oh the "number" (ie: $12,100,000,000) matters because it shows that owners are reaping massive profits to go along w/their obscene capital appreciation.

It also shows that they can indeed afford to pay these huge salaries that translate into large payrolls while still making a tidy yearly profit and again, watching their franchise value soar into the multi-billions.

The only thing stopping those owners who want a salary cap is the will to spend the money.

Again I'd love to see a cap/floor......again it's never happening since neither side wants one (players--no cap; poorer owners--no floor)

[mattmitchl44]

Oh the "number" (ie: $12,100,000,000) matters because it shows that owners are reaping massive profits to go along w/their obscene capital appreciation.

Well, not necessarily. There are a lot more in terms of expenses that go into running an entire baseball franchise than just MLB player salaries.

Until you pin that unknown down, you don't know how much owners are making in profits.

I think almost all teams operate to make a profit, but I don't know that that profit margin is "massive."

It also shows that they can indeed afford to pay these huge salaries that translate into large payrolls while still making a tidy yearly profit and again, watching their franchise value soar into the multi-billions.

The only thing stopping those owners who want a salary cap is the will to spend the money.

Again, it really doesn't matter what fans, players, etc. want to believe to owners can do, if they just want to.

What matters is what the 30 ownership groups have shown they will do.

And more and more ownership groups into the mid-market teams, including the Cardinals, are showing that they feel that they can only find success by being much smarter and target by how they spend money. The purse strings of the biggest market teams are getting looser, but the purse strings of the 15-20 small to mid market teams are going in the direction of getting tighter.

Again I'd love to see a cap/floor......again it's never happening since neither side wants one (players--no cap; poorer owners--no floor)

With enhanced revenue sharing, which we know has to be part of the overall answer, small market owners will have to be able to spend to the floor.

[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?”

That salary cap is too high and doesn’t solve the problem.

Whats the problem?

2-3 teams hoarding all the talent.

A 240 salary cap doesn’t do anything significant to the Dodgers lineup as it sits.

The good news is thats not really happening.

[rockondlouie]

Oh the "number" (ie: $12,100,000,000) matters because it shows that owners are reaping massive profits to go along w/their obscene capital appreciation.

Well, not necessarily. There are a lot more in terms of expenses that go into running an entire baseball franchise than just MLB player salaries.

Until you pin that unknown down, you don't know how much owners are making in profits.

I think almost all teams operate to make a profit, but I don't know that that profit margin is "massive."

It also shows that they can indeed afford to pay these huge salaries that translate into large payrolls while still making a tidy yearly profit and again, watching their franchise value soar into the multi-billions.

The only thing stopping those owners who want a salary cap is the will to spend the money.

Again, it really doesn't matter what fans, players, etc. want to believe to owners can do, if they just want to.

What matters is what the 30 ownership groups have shown they will do.

And more and more ownership groups into the mid-market teams, including the Cardinals, are showing that they feel that they can only find success by being much smarter and target by how they spend money. The purse strings of the biggest market teams are getting looser, but the purse strings of the 15-20 small to mid market teams are going in the direction of getting tighter.

Again I'd love to see a cap/floor......again it's never happening since neither side wants one (players--no cap; poorer owners--no floor)

With enhanced revenue sharing, which we know has to be part of the overall answer, small market owners will have to be able to spend to the floor.

No kidding matt, there's really more expense that goes into running a franchise than just payroll?

Are you really trying to tell a former commercial banker and a man who has built and run his own successful company for over a decade something he likely knows better than you?

Forbes does a fantastic job estimating franchise revenues/profits/valuation so we do indeed have some idea.

And the Atlanta Braves are a public traded company spun off from Liberty Media (yes, I am also a former stockbroker too) so we know their exact financial picture (and have for years since Liberty purchased them).

Their profits are indeed massive, running into the multi-millions.

It matters not what those "small-mid market owners" you speak of wanting your "enhanced" revenue sharing (funny, I've never heard any owner state that) think, even if they did since the larger market owners haven't shown any interest in doing that and would fight it.

[mattmitchl44]

Oh the "number" (ie: $12,100,000,000) matters because it shows that owners are reaping massive profits to go along w/their obscene capital appreciation.

Well, not necessarily. There are a lot more in terms of expenses that go into running an entire baseball franchise than just MLB player salaries.

Until you pin that unknown down, you don't know how much owners are making in profits.

I think almost all teams operate to make a profit, but I don't know that that profit margin is "massive."

It also shows that they can indeed afford to pay these huge salaries that translate into large payrolls while still making a tidy yearly profit and again, watching their franchise value soar into the multi-billions.

The only thing stopping those owners who want a salary cap is the will to spend the money.

Again, it really doesn't matter what fans, players, etc. want to believe to owners can do, if they just want to.

What matters is what the 30 ownership groups have shown they will do.

And more and more ownership groups into the mid-market teams, including the Cardinals, are showing that they feel that they can only find success by being much smarter and target by how they spend money. The purse strings of the biggest market teams are getting looser, but the purse strings of the 15-20 small to mid market teams are going in the direction of getting tighter.

Again I'd love to see a cap/floor......again it's never happening since neither side wants one (players--no cap; poorer owners--no floor)

With enhanced revenue sharing, which we know has to be part of the overall answer, small market owners will have to be able to spend to the floor.

No kidding matt, there's really more expense that goes into running a franchise than just payroll?

Are you really trying to tell a former commercial banker and a man who has built and run his own successful company for over a decade something he likely knows better than you?

Forbes does a fantastic job estimating franchise revenues/profits/valuation so we do indeed have some idea.

I'm glad you said that. I went to Forbes:

https://www.forbes.com/mlb-valuations/l ... verse:true

and added up all of the "Operating Incomes" (which they define as "earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization") and "Revenues" for all teams from their 2025 list.

The total "Operating Income" for all of MLB was $59.5 million and the total "Revenue" was $11.9 billion.

Do you consider $59.5 million in "Operating Income" over $11.9 billion in "Revenue" to be "massive"?????

It matters not what those "small-mid market owners" you speak of wanting your "enhanced" revenue sharing (funny, I've never heard any owner state that) think, even if they did since the larger market owners haven't shown any interest in doing that and would fight it.

Among the owners, a 3/4 majority is needed to affect revenue sharing (there is a paywall NY Times article dated Feb. 17 where that comes from), so that means only 23 owners have to vote in favor.

As an aside, even Steinbrenner has spoken in favor of a salary cap:

https://www.baseballbiographies.com/hal ... er-agrees/

https://nypost.com/2025/11/28/sports/wh ... alary-cap/

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/470 ... enner-says

He reiterated he would "consider supporting a cap only if it's accompanied by a floor," depending on the number.

"Look, there are groups of fans out there in different areas, including my hometown, here in Tampa, that -- and I've addressed this before -- come to spring training games thinking their team has little chance of making the playoffs," Steinbrenner said. "Or at least little chance of making it deep into the playoffs. And those fans would argue that that's not good for baseball as a whole. And, you know, it's a valid argument. Whether it's true or not, it's a valid argument."