Salary Cap

[kyace]

It’s a complicated matter that is going to take smart open minded people on both sides. Don’t see that on either side at this point.

[TheJackBurton]

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.

a year of service then arbitration? naaa that's way too quick.

What you can change though is how long the entry level contract is, and when service time starts.

The moment they sign their contract, their service time begins, so a drafted 18 year old who signs their entry level contract and let's say it's 4 years for every single player, then has 4 years whether it is served in MLB or MiLB, to get to RFA. From there they would essentially get two arbitration eligible years, then UFA.

The owners still get control of players for 6 years, but the players can potentially be a UFA by the age of 24-25 so they can max out their earnings.

Also, there needs to be a max contract length and the cap hit is AAV not actual dollars paid. Also need a de-escalation clause where the final year can't be more than a certain % lower than the first year. The NHL learned that one the hard way.

The other 3 leagues have laid out how this all works, all MLB has to do is adopt it.

[TheJackBurton]

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.

For the players the worst thing that could have happened was Covid. The owners found that if they don't play games for a year they can actually still make money so if they miss an entire season to get what they want in place they likely won't even blink an eye.

Rocko is correct in that the MLBPA has never wanted, or would ever agree to a salary cap, and the owners have always caved because they saw how things got in 95 after the 94 strike. The difference between then and now is that the majority of owners are extremely wealthy from outside interests, not from owning a sports franchise and they can afford to miss a season and the few seasons of low attendance to get salaries and costs under control.

The MLBPA is in trouble due to the fact that many (the 500-600 you have mentioned) can't go an entire season without a paycheck just because Bryce Harper wants to make 65 million a year. This will likely be the mutiny year and you absolutely let the majority know they can become wealthier younger than going along with the status quo and hoping for a few 3 million dollar contracts while someone else is making 70 million.

[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.

a year of service then arbitration? naaa that's way too quick.

What you can change though is how long the entry level contract is, and when service time starts.

The moment they sign their contract, their service time begins, so a drafted 18 year old who signs their entry level contract and let's say it's 4 years for every single player, then has 4 years whether it is served in MLB or MiLB, to get to RFA. From there they would essentially get two arbitration eligible years, then UFA.

The owners still get control of players for 6 years, but the players can potentially be a UFA by the age of 24-25 so they can max out their earnings.

Also, there needs to be a max contract length and the cap hit is AAV not actual dollars paid. Also need a de-escalation clause where the final year can't be more than a certain % lower than the first year. The NHL learned that one the hard way.

The other 3 leagues have laid out how this all works, all MLB has to do is adopt it.

To be clear, my idea of this new "arbitration" structure which would start after one year is different from the current ARB which almost invariably increases player salaries from ARB-1 to ARB-2 to ARB-3.

I'm looking at a new "arbitration" which just assigns your salary for the following season based on how productive you were the prior season. It would be essentially paying young players close to (~66% to ~75% of) what their production was worth, just one year later.

But that would mean that if their production dropped off - like Gorman and Walker last season (both negative fWAR players, for example) - their pay could drop back to the ML minimum for the following season.

For example, Burleson's production in 2025 was actually "worth" about $9 million. So I'd adjust his salary in 2026 to $6-$7 million. If he completely falls off, he might go back down to $1.25 million in 2027, but it he keeps producing he gets $X millions again for 2027.

[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.

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."

In Major League Baseball, a three-quarters majority (75%) of team owners—specifically 24 out of the 30 owners—is required to approve or significantly change revenue-sharing policies, not 23 as you suggested.

The NY Mets (-$351M) were the reason that "operating" income level being so low given S. Cohen could care less about making any profit, the Dodgers paid a $169 million luxury tax reducing the MLB total operating income level as well.

2025 MASSIVE PROFITS:

Padres/$79M EBITDA
Red Sox/$71M EBITDA
Giants/$65M EBITDA
Pirates/$58M EBITDA
M's/$56M EBITDA
Tigers/$51M EBITDA
ect.......ect.............ect........

Contingent on a Floor:
Steinbrenner has stated he would only support a cap if it includes a "reasonable" salary floor to improve competitive balance.

His father, BIG GEORGE would've never supported a salary cap.

[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."

In Major League Baseball, a three-quarters majority (75%) of team owners—specifically 24 out of the 30 owners—is required to approve or significantly change revenue-sharing policies, not 23 as you suggested.

If it is 24, then it should be stated as 80%, not 75%.

75% of 30 is 22.5, which rounds up to 23.

The NY Mets (-$351M) were the reason that "operating" income level being so low given S. Cohen could care less about making any profit, the Dodgers paid a $169 million luxury tax reducing the MLB total operating income level as well.

2025 MASSIVE PROFITS:

Padres/$79M EBITDA
Red Sox/$71M EBITDA
Giants/$65M EBITDA
Pirates/$58M EBITDA
M's/$56M EBITDA
Tigers/$51M EBITDA
ect.......ect.............ect........

Going back to Forbes' numbers, if I subtract the Mets it is:

$327.5 million EBITDA and 11.45 billion in revenue over 29 teams.

That averages to:

$11.3 million EBITDA per team on $395 million in revenue

Do you consider EBITDA of 2.9% of revenue to be "massive"?

Contingent on a Floor:
Steinbrenner has stated he would only support a cap if it includes a "reasonable" salary floor to improve competitive balance.

His father, BIG GEORGE would've never supported a salary cap.

Baseball is very different in 2026.

[Cardinals1964]

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.

a year of service then arbitration? naaa that's way too quick.

What you can change though is how long the entry level contract is, and when service time starts.

The moment they sign their contract, their service time begins, so a drafted 18 year old who signs their entry level contract and let's say it's 4 years for every single player, then has 4 years whether it is served in MLB or MiLB, to get to RFA. From there they would essentially get two arbitration eligible years, then UFA.

The owners still get control of players for 6 years, but the players can potentially be a UFA by the age of 24-25 so they can max out their earnings.

Also, there needs to be a max contract length and the cap hit is AAV not actual dollars paid. Also need a de-escalation clause where the final year can't be more than a certain % lower than the first year. The NHL learned that one the hard way.

The other 3 leagues have laid out how this all works, all MLB has to do is adopt it.

To be clear, my idea of this new "arbitration" structure which would start after one year is different from the current ARB which almost invariably increases player salaries from ARB-1 to ARB-2 to ARB-3.

I'm looking at a new "arbitration" which just assigns your salary for the following season based on how productive you were the prior season. It would be essentially paying young players close to (~66% to ~75% of) what their production was worth, just one year later.

But that would mean that if their production dropped off - like Gorman and Walker last season (both negative fWAR players, for example) - their pay could drop back to the ML minimum for the following season.

For example, Burleson's production in 2025 was actually "worth" about $9 million. So I'd adjust his salary in 2026 to $6-$7 million. If he completely falls off, he might go back down to $1.25 million in 2027, but it he keeps producing he gets $X millions again for 2027.

The problem with paying by production is, how do you figure out the true value of a player to a team?
Ozzie Smith drew fans. He didn’t have the greatest stats always. But he put people in the seats. They will never have contracts based on performance. Never going to happen.

[PacNWCardsfan2]

There is no way the owners would pay an 18-20 year old a million plus to play in the minors, and have their service time start in the minors.
What's the average time a player spends in the minors before getting to the show? Several years on a stage I suspect.
Bumping up player salaries to meet a floor is also not business smart. They are not going to pay millions to a guy that is barely average or less.
I do agree to shorter time to ARB and FA. That's one of items the players will want. Probably see an international draft, perhaps the allowance to trade draft picks.
Doubtful you will ever get majority of the owners to agree to a cap, much less the players. As has been stated, the system is profitable to both sides, if not entirely balanced from star to JAG.
I am of the opinion there will be no work stoppage as neither side wants that.
There will be other changes to attempt to give it more balance, no deferred monies. Increased penalties, things along those lines. You're not gonna see sweeping changes. Just not gonna happen.

[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.

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."

In Major League Baseball, a three-quarters majority (75%) of team owners—specifically 24 out of the 30 owners—is required to approve or significantly change revenue-sharing policies, not 23 as you suggested.

If it is 24, then it should be stated as 80%, not 75%.

75% of 30 is 22.5, which rounds up to 23.

The NY Mets (-$351M) were the reason that "operating" income level being so low given S. Cohen could care less about making any profit, the Dodgers paid a $169 million luxury tax reducing the MLB total operating income level as well.

2025 MASSIVE PROFITS:

Padres/$79M EBITDA
Red Sox/$71M EBITDA
Giants/$65M EBITDA
Pirates/$58M EBITDA
M's/$56M EBITDA
Tigers/$51M EBITDA
ect.......ect.............ect........

Going back to Forbes' numbers, if I subtract the Mets it is:

$327.5 million EBITDA and 11.45 billion in revenue over 29 teams.

That averages to:

$11.3 million EBITDA per team on $395 million in revenue

Do you consider EBITDA of 2.9% of revenue to be "massive"?

Contingent on a Floor:
Steinbrenner has stated he would only support a cap if it includes a "reasonable" salary floor to improve competitive balance.

His father, BIG GEORGE would've never supported a salary cap.

Baseball is very different in 2026.

I do when based off $12,100,000,000 in revenues!

To-may-to ---- To-mah-to, no matter how you slice it you aren't easily getting 24 owners to agree to increase revenue sharing AND a salary floor.

(And let's not be naive multi-millions of dollars is a MASSIVE profit, the even bigger payoff comes from capital gains.........MASSIVE CAPITAL GAINS)

BTW, Big George would slap his kid upside the head for saying he could support a salary cap.

[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."

In Major League Baseball, a three-quarters majority (75%) of team owners—specifically 24 out of the 30 owners—is required to approve or significantly change revenue-sharing policies, not 23 as you suggested.

If it is 24, then it should be stated as 80%, not 75%.

75% of 30 is 22.5, which rounds up to 23.

The NY Mets (-$351M) were the reason that "operating" income level being so low given S. Cohen could care less about making any profit, the Dodgers paid a $169 million luxury tax reducing the MLB total operating income level as well.

2025 MASSIVE PROFITS:

Padres/$79M EBITDA
Red Sox/$71M EBITDA
Giants/$65M EBITDA
Pirates/$58M EBITDA
M's/$56M EBITDA
Tigers/$51M EBITDA
ect.......ect.............ect........

Going back to Forbes' numbers, if I subtract the Mets it is:

$327.5 million EBITDA and 11.45 billion in revenue over 29 teams.

That averages to:

$11.3 million EBITDA per team on $395 million in revenue

Do you consider EBITDA of 2.9% of revenue to be "massive"?

Contingent on a Floor:
Steinbrenner has stated he would only support a cap if it includes a "reasonable" salary floor to improve competitive balance.

His father, BIG GEORGE would've never supported a salary cap.

Baseball is very different in 2026.

I do when based off $12,100,000,000 in revenues!

To-may-to ---- To-mah-to, no matter how you slice it you aren't easily getting 24 owners to agree to increase revenue sharing AND a salary floor.

(And let's not be naive multi-millions of dollars is a MASSIVE profit, the even bigger payoff comes from capital gains.........MASSIVE CAPITAL GAINS)

BTW, Big George would slap his kid upside the head for saying he could support a salary cap.

So the source, Forbes, which you said:

...does a fantastic job estimating franchise revenues/profits/valuation...

says 29 teams, other than the Mets, averaged just $11.3 million in EBITDA and that is "massive" profits?

[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.

a year of service then arbitration? naaa that's way too quick.

What you can change though is how long the entry level contract is, and when service time starts.

The moment they sign their contract, their service time begins, so a drafted 18 year old who signs their entry level contract and let's say it's 4 years for every single player, then has 4 years whether it is served in MLB or MiLB, to get to RFA. From there they would essentially get two arbitration eligible years, then UFA.

The owners still get control of players for 6 years, but the players can potentially be a UFA by the age of 24-25 so they can max out their earnings.

Also, there needs to be a max contract length and the cap hit is AAV not actual dollars paid. Also need a de-escalation clause where the final year can't be more than a certain % lower than the first year. The NHL learned that one the hard way.

The other 3 leagues have laid out how this all works, all MLB has to do is adopt it.

To be clear, my idea of this new "arbitration" structure which would start after one year is different from the current ARB which almost invariably increases player salaries from ARB-1 to ARB-2 to ARB-3.

I'm looking at a new "arbitration" which just assigns your salary for the following season based on how productive you were the prior season. It would be essentially paying young players close to (~66% to ~75% of) what their production was worth, just one year later.

But that would mean that if their production dropped off - like Gorman and Walker last season (both negative fWAR players, for example) - their pay could drop back to the ML minimum for the following season.

For example, Burleson's production in 2025 was actually "worth" about $9 million. So I'd adjust his salary in 2026 to $6-$7 million. If he completely falls off, he might go back down to $1.25 million in 2027, but it he keeps producing he gets $X millions again for 2027.

The problem with paying by production is, how do you figure out the true value of a player to a team?
Ozzie Smith drew fans. He didn’t have the greatest stats always. But he put people in the seats. They will never have contracts based on performance. Never going to happen.

The arbitration system, as it is, relates demonstrated player performance to salary. Juan Soto goes through ARB and gets huge annual salaries, but mediocre Player X doesn't. Soto, going through ARB, doesn't get a salary for "drawing fans", he gets it based on what his representation can demonstrate he should get based on his production and how it compares to others.

I'm not talking about paying FA this way - just players in their first five years, one year of ML minimum and then "arbitration" salaries for four years.

[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.

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."

In Major League Baseball, a three-quarters majority (75%) of team owners—specifically 24 out of the 30 owners—is required to approve or significantly change revenue-sharing policies, not 23 as you suggested.

If it is 24, then it should be stated as 80%, not 75%.

75% of 30 is 22.5, which rounds up to 23.

The NY Mets (-$351M) were the reason that "operating" income level being so low given S. Cohen could care less about making any profit, the Dodgers paid a $169 million luxury tax reducing the MLB total operating income level as well.

2025 MASSIVE PROFITS:

Padres/$79M EBITDA
Red Sox/$71M EBITDA
Giants/$65M EBITDA
Pirates/$58M EBITDA
M's/$56M EBITDA
Tigers/$51M EBITDA
ect.......ect.............ect........

Going back to Forbes' numbers, if I subtract the Mets it is:

$327.5 million EBITDA and 11.45 billion in revenue over 29 teams.

That averages to:

$11.3 million EBITDA per team on $395 million in revenue

Do you consider EBITDA of 2.9% of revenue to be "massive"?

Contingent on a Floor:
Steinbrenner has stated he would only support a cap if it includes a "reasonable" salary floor to improve competitive balance.

His father, BIG GEORGE would've never supported a salary cap.

Baseball is very different in 2026.

I do when based off $12,100,000,000 in revenues!

To-may-to ---- To-mah-to, no matter how you slice it you aren't easily getting 24 owners to agree to increase revenue sharing AND a salary floor.

(And let's not be naive multi-millions of dollars is a MASSIVE profit, the even bigger payoff comes from capital gains.........MASSIVE CAPITAL GAINS)

BTW, Big George would slap his kid upside the head for saying he could support a salary cap.

So the source, Forbes, which you said:

...does a fantastic job estimating franchise revenues/profits/valuation...

says 29 teams, other than the Mets, averaged just $11.3 million in EBITDA and that is "massive" profits?

$11.3M or $333+M for all of MLB is massive profits for any family business which most MLB, sans the Braves, are.

Unless your Matt Musk, Elon's little brother, then it is to you too.

[earp]

— Bill DeWitt Jr. has repeatedly talked about the challenges of being a “small‑market” team, though he doesn’t always use that exact phrase. His comments often revolve around limited revenue, industry profitability, and self‑imposed financial constraints, which are the same themes small‑market clubs cite.

He has publicly claimed MLB ownership “isn’t very profitable”
During the 2020 MLB lockout, DeWitt said:

“The industry isn’t very profitable, to be honest.”

highlights “self‑imposed limitations”
A recent analysis notes that the DeWitts are restricting the Cardinals with internal financial limits, preventing them from spending like big‑market clubs.

This is widely interpreted as the Cardinals operating like a small‑market team by choice, despite strong attendance and franchise value.
shapes the perception that the Cardinals operate more like a mid‑to‑small‑market club, even though their franchise value has grown from $150M to $2.55B under DeWitt.
This makes the Cardinals one of MLB’s most predictable spenders: never cheap, never aggressive, always cautious.

[TheJackBurton]

There is no way the owners would pay an 18-20 year old a million plus to play in the minors, and have their service time start in the minors.
What's the average time a player spends in the minors before getting to the show? Several years on a stage I suspect.
Bumping up player salaries to meet a floor is also not business smart. They are not going to pay millions to a guy that is barely average or less.
I do agree to shorter time to ARB and FA. That's one of items the players will want. Probably see an international draft, perhaps the allowance to trade draft picks.
Doubtful you will ever get majority of the owners to agree to a cap, much less the players. As has been stated, the system is profitable to both sides, if not entirely balanced from star to JAG.
I am of the opinion there will be no work stoppage as neither side wants that.
There will be other changes to attempt to give it more balance, no deferred monies. Increased penalties, things along those lines. You're not gonna see sweeping changes. Just not gonna happen.

No they wouldn't that's why each contract has a minor league/major league salary like it currently does in the NHL, aka the 2 way contract. We aren't re-inventing the wheel here, the other leagues have the blueprint, all MLB has to do is tweak it for a 26 man roster.

[Cardinals1964]

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.

a year of service then arbitration? naaa that's way too quick.

What you can change though is how long the entry level contract is, and when service time starts.

The moment they sign their contract, their service time begins, so a drafted 18 year old who signs their entry level contract and let's say it's 4 years for every single player, then has 4 years whether it is served in MLB or MiLB, to get to RFA. From there they would essentially get two arbitration eligible years, then UFA.

The owners still get control of players for 6 years, but the players can potentially be a UFA by the age of 24-25 so they can max out their earnings.

Also, there needs to be a max contract length and the cap hit is AAV not actual dollars paid. Also need a de-escalation clause where the final year can't be more than a certain % lower than the first year. The NHL learned that one the hard way.

The other 3 leagues have laid out how this all works, all MLB has to do is adopt it.

To be clear, my idea of this new "arbitration" structure which would start after one year is different from the current ARB which almost invariably increases player salaries from ARB-1 to ARB-2 to ARB-3.

I'm looking at a new "arbitration" which just assigns your salary for the following season based on how productive you were the prior season. It would be essentially paying young players close to (~66% to ~75% of) what their production was worth, just one year later.

But that would mean that if their production dropped off - like Gorman and Walker last season (both negative fWAR players, for example) - their pay could drop back to the ML minimum for the following season.

For example, Burleson's production in 2025 was actually "worth" about $9 million. So I'd adjust his salary in 2026 to $6-$7 million. If he completely falls off, he might go back down to $1.25 million in 2027, but it he keeps producing he gets $X millions again for 2027.

The problem with paying by production is, how do you figure out the true value of a player to a team?
Ozzie Smith drew fans. He didn’t have the greatest stats always. But he put people in the seats. They will never have contracts based on performance. Never going to happen.

The arbitration system, as it is, relates demonstrated player performance to salary. Juan Soto goes through ARB and gets huge annual salaries, but mediocre Player X doesn't. Soto, going through ARB, doesn't get a salary for "drawing fans", he gets it based on what his representation can demonstrate he should get based on his production and how it compares to others.

I'm not talking about paying FA this way - just players in their first five years, one year of ML minimum and then "arbitration" salaries for four years.

Arbitration is a horrible system.
There’s no set parameters.
If the players want to be like the NFL with defined contracts, fine.
I can’t imagine a scenario where they go performance relates to salary.
Maybe they can have tiers. First year x amount. Second year x amount. I believe they have that now but not much of an increase.

What if a stud 2nd year player gets hurt? Do you decrease his pay for getting hurt?

Your opinion is as relevant as mine. I just never see that happening.

[mattmitchl44]

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.

a year of service then arbitration? naaa that's way too quick.

What you can change though is how long the entry level contract is, and when service time starts.

The moment they sign their contract, their service time begins, so a drafted 18 year old who signs their entry level contract and let's say it's 4 years for every single player, then has 4 years whether it is served in MLB or MiLB, to get to RFA. From there they would essentially get two arbitration eligible years, then UFA.

The owners still get control of players for 6 years, but the players can potentially be a UFA by the age of 24-25 so they can max out their earnings.

Also, there needs to be a max contract length and the cap hit is AAV not actual dollars paid. Also need a de-escalation clause where the final year can't be more than a certain % lower than the first year. The NHL learned that one the hard way.

The other 3 leagues have laid out how this all works, all MLB has to do is adopt it.

To be clear, my idea of this new "arbitration" structure which would start after one year is different from the current ARB which almost invariably increases player salaries from ARB-1 to ARB-2 to ARB-3.

I'm looking at a new "arbitration" which just assigns your salary for the following season based on how productive you were the prior season. It would be essentially paying young players close to (~66% to ~75% of) what their production was worth, just one year later.

But that would mean that if their production dropped off - like Gorman and Walker last season (both negative fWAR players, for example) - their pay could drop back to the ML minimum for the following season.

For example, Burleson's production in 2025 was actually "worth" about $9 million. So I'd adjust his salary in 2026 to $6-$7 million. If he completely falls off, he might go back down to $1.25 million in 2027, but it he keeps producing he gets $X millions again for 2027.

The problem with paying by production is, how do you figure out the true value of a player to a team?
Ozzie Smith drew fans. He didn’t have the greatest stats always. But he put people in the seats. They will never have contracts based on performance. Never going to happen.

The arbitration system, as it is, relates demonstrated player performance to salary. Juan Soto goes through ARB and gets huge annual salaries, but mediocre Player X doesn't. Soto, going through ARB, doesn't get a salary for "drawing fans", he gets it based on what his representation can demonstrate he should get based on his production and how it compares to others.

I'm not talking about paying FA this way - just players in their first five years, one year of ML minimum and then "arbitration" salaries for four years.

Arbitration is a horrible system.
There’s no set parameters.
If the players want to be like the NFL with defined contracts, fine.
I can’t imagine a scenario where they go performance relates to salary.
Maybe they can have tiers. First year x amount. Second year x amount. I believe they have that now but not much of an increase.

What if a stud 2nd year player gets hurt? Do you decrease his pay for getting hurt?

Your opinion is as relevant as mine. I just never see that happening.

I agree that the current ARB system is bad.

I just want to change it to make it more objectively based.

Let's take an example. Acuna with the Braves had a tremendous rookie season. You could measure it any number of ways, but I'll measure it with fWAR. He was 4.4 fWAR that season, and he made the ML minimum.

My system would just acknowledge that he provided tremendous service to the Braves in his rookie year and should be rewarded for that in his 2nd year to "make up" for the fact that he was only paid the ML minimum for his first season. I'd award him a 2nd year contract of something like $12-$13 million.

Basically, everybody as rookies being assigned the ML minimum for that season becomes a down payment, or advance, on subsequently getting a "make up" payment in Year 2.

And you keep going: Year 2 dictates Year 3 salary; Year 3 dictates Year 4 salary; Year 4 dictates Year 5 salary; and Year 5 then sets you up for entering the FA market.

But, yes, if the player has a non-productive year in there somewhere, their next season salary could do back down a lot. Maybe you could put a floor in that says it can't decrease more than 50% from the prior season.

Michael Harris with the Braves (had he not signed a long term deal) would have gone something like:

2022 - ML minimum; 4.7 fWAR
2023 - $14 million; 3.9 fWAR
2024 - $12 million; 2.0 fWAR
2025 - $7 million; 1.4 fWAR
2026 - $5 million

So he would have made almost $40 million over five years, and he'd be setting himself up for FA after this season - maybe double what he would have made under the current system of ML min, ML min, ML min, ARB-1, ARB-2. Is than an "unjust" compensation for a guy who has given the Braves 12 fWAR + whatever he does this season?

Ultimately, players who are healthy and productive - the ones who SHOULD be getting paid for what they do for their teams - would end up getting paid much better, much more "justly," in the system I propose.