STLtoday.com

bretto12 wrote: ↑07 Feb 2026 09:28 am Keep in mind that MLB is talking about adding two teams and realigning the divisions. Adding two teams removes a lot of the decision making from the 40 man. I have not heard any rumors about manning the new teams, but I "think" each team got to protect, something like 15 to 18 players, and then the new teams draft from the MLB rosters. I think when they lost a player they got to protect 2 more.

If anyone has any better info, I would appreciate any corrections, because there as been a few years since the last expansion.

Manfred wanted the As and Rays stadiums settled before expansion, and the As are there. The Rays think they have a stadium site but selling it to Hillsborough County is another matter. Tampa has so many infrastructure needs and flooding prevention to be done public funding of at least 1.5 billion will be a tough sell. Maybe MLB gets tired of that situation and expands anyway, easing the 40 man concern by 2032.

Dicktar2023 wrote: ↑06 Feb 2026 20:25 pm Next winter, we will be saying that 2027 is a make-or-break season for Walker and Gorman.

I doubt Gorman is here in 27 if he doesn’t show improvement. People bailed on Walker far too quickly. He should have a longer window to turn his game around.

Banner29 wrote: ↑07 Feb 2026 08:28 am

Mort Gage wrote: ↑07 Feb 2026 08:04 am The Cardinals' salary commitments for '27 are a whopping 500K on a May option buyout. Stanek has a 6mm team option but no buyout. Everyone else is a FA after this season or Arb/Pre-Arb. If nothing else the Cardinals should have MLB's cleanest books after the next CBA.

Imagine for a second if the new CBA has a salary floor in it…..

That next offseason would be WILD

If I had my way it would have a cap and an extremely aggressive floor to push bad owners to sell.

rockondlouie wrote: ↑07 Feb 2026 09:06 am

Ace wrote: ↑07 Feb 2026 07:55 am I don't think it's as complicated as it appears (unless I'm missing something here).e There's still a large amount of dead weight on the 40 man roster -

Guys who likely won't see 2027 - Ryan Fernandez, Justin Bruihl, Andre Pallante, Matt Pushard, Nick Raquet, JoJo Romero, Dustin May, Chris Roycroft, Yohel Pozo, Jose Fermin, Cesar Prieto, Bryan Ramos, Bryan Torres.

Ryne Stanek has an option for 2027, so they may or may not pick this up.

Also, guys like who may or may not be in long terms plans - Church, Walker, Saggese, Gorman, Crooks, Svanson, Roby, O'Brien, Leahy, Graceffo.

And than you add in some of the "names" they added that will allow for these "tougher" decisions...rule 5 guys, reliever prospects, etc:

Skylar Hales, Tyler Bradt, Mason Burns, Michael Watson, Zack Thompson, Scott Blewitt.


It actually appears the Cardinals have the exact opposite of what the article indicates. They have a large amount of flexibility, largely due to the lack of current MLB contracts, to decide which key pieces they want to include in the 40 man roster in the 2026.

Spot on Ace

The only L-T guys I see on that list who are for sure here in 2027:

-Svanson
-O'Brien
-Leahy


Possibly if they perform in 2026 only because they make no money:

-Fermin
-Saggese

On their last leg:

-Gorman
-Walker
-Pallante
-Pages/Crooks (due to the logjam of better talent behind them)

The rest are a bunch of "meh" players no one would miss.

Agreed. I don’t see a 40-man crunch or a huge risk of losing any top talent any time soon.

Stlcardsblues wrote: ↑07 Feb 2026 15:00 pm
If I had my way it would have a cap and an extremely aggressive floor to push bad owners to sell.

Both the ceiling and floor will more than likely be phased in over a 3 to 5 year period.

Ace wrote: ↑07 Feb 2026 07:55 am I don't think it's as complicated as it appears (unless I'm missing something here).e There's still a large amount of dead weight on the 40 man roster -

Guys who likely won't see 2027 - Ryan Fernandez, Justin Bruihl, Andre Pallante, Matt Pushard, Nick Raquet, JoJo Romero, Dustin May, Chris Roycroft, Yohel Pozo, Jose Fermin, Cesar Prieto, Bryan Ramos, Bryan Torres.

Ryne Stanek has an option for 2027, so they may or may not pick this up.

Also, guys like who may or may not be in long terms plans - Church, Walker, Saggese, Gorman, Crooks, Svanson, Roby, O'Brien, Leahy, Graceffo.

And than you add in some of the "names" they added that will allow for these "tougher" decisions...rule 5 guys, reliever prospects, etc:

Skylar Hales, Tyler Bradt, Mason Burns, Michael Watson, Zack Thompson, Scott Blewitt.


It actually appears the Cardinals have the exact opposite of what the article indicates. They have a large amount of flexibility, largely due to the lack of current MLB contracts, to decide which key pieces they want to include in the 40 man roster in the 2026.

Good points Ace. I kind of glanced at the article without really thinking hard about it. The way you break it down makes perfect sense. No salary commitments to speak of either.

Dicktar2023 wrote: ↑06 Feb 2026 20:25 pm Next winter, we will be saying that 2027 is a make-or-break season for Walker and Gorman.

+10

BrockFloodMaris wrote: ↑07 Feb 2026 15:36 pm

rockondlouie wrote: ↑07 Feb 2026 09:06 am

Ace wrote: ↑07 Feb 2026 07:55 am I don't think it's as complicated as it appears (unless I'm missing something here).e There's still a large amount of dead weight on the 40 man roster -

Guys who likely won't see 2027 - Ryan Fernandez, Justin Bruihl, Andre Pallante, Matt Pushard, Nick Raquet, JoJo Romero, Dustin May, Chris Roycroft, Yohel Pozo, Jose Fermin, Cesar Prieto, Bryan Ramos, Bryan Torres.

Ryne Stanek has an option for 2027, so they may or may not pick this up.

Also, guys like who may or may not be in long terms plans - Church, Walker, Saggese, Gorman, Crooks, Svanson, Roby, O'Brien, Leahy, Graceffo.

And than you add in some of the "names" they added that will allow for these "tougher" decisions...rule 5 guys, reliever prospects, etc:

Skylar Hales, Tyler Bradt, Mason Burns, Michael Watson, Zack Thompson, Scott Blewitt.


It actually appears the Cardinals have the exact opposite of what the article indicates. They have a large amount of flexibility, largely due to the lack of current MLB contracts, to decide which key pieces they want to include in the 40 man roster in the 2026.

Spot on Ace

The only L-T guys I see on that list who are for sure here in 2027:

-Svanson
-O'Brien
-Leahy


Possibly if they perform in 2026 only because they make no money:

-Fermin
-Saggese

On their last leg:

-Gorman
-Walker
-Pallante
-Pages/Crooks (due to the logjam of better talent behind them)

The rest are a bunch of "meh" players no one would miss.

Agreed. I don’t see a 40-man crunch or a huge risk of losing any top talent any time soon.

DwaininAztec wrote: ↑07 Feb 2026 16:45 pm

Stlcardsblues wrote: ↑07 Feb 2026 15:00 pm
If I had my way it would have a cap and an extremely aggressive floor to push bad owners to sell.

Both the ceiling and floor will more than likely be phased in over a 3 to 5 year period.

IMHO, the problem is revenue sharing and not a salary cap or floor. Huge city = huge revenue even if ownership is incompetent. Tiny city = tiny revenue even if ownership is very competent. We can't expect all of the large markets to just blow their huge advantage through incompetence in order to give some competent small markets a chance.

If all the teams had similar revenue, then there is no problem with rich/poor teams and therefore no problem with payroll sizes. If Steve Cohen wants to lose money to win, let him. Fortunately, he's not shown many signs of competence so far. The Dodgers are winning now by simply not being as incompetent as they were before.

If you have a cap/floor system but uneven revenue, then some teams will be wildly profitable and others will be unprofitable. This solves nothing.

If you penalize the Dodgers draft but allow them to be the highest bidder on all international free agents and all free agents, then you have not achieved parity in player acquisition. Part of this problem is that several other large markets are not bidding against them. The Yankees, Cubs are pocketing huge profits and the Mets, Angels are just incompetent.

It is a revenue sharing problem, not a salary cap problem. Forcing the Dodgers to pocket $400M in profit rather than spend it on free agents solves nothing. Players are right to fight against this.

Just my opinion.

I believe they will attempt to radically re-make the system and that doing so will cost the entire 2027 season. On the agenda:

Salary cap/floor
Revenue sharing
International draft
Expansion
Get players to arb sooner
Get players to free agency sooner
Deferrals

The only way players could get to free agency or arb sooner would be if revenue was equalized.

Otherwise the current imbalance would become even greater.

Talkin' Baseball wrote: ↑08 Feb 2026 16:24 pm I believe they will attempt to radically re-make the system and that doing so will cost the entire 2027 season. On the agenda:

Salary cap/floor
Revenue sharing
International draft
Expansion
Get players to arb sooner
Get players to free agency sooner
Deferrals

add: freedom to trade draft picks, not just comp picks.

82birds wrote: ↑08 Feb 2026 20:21 pm

Talkin' Baseball wrote: ↑08 Feb 2026 16:24 pm I believe they will attempt to radically re-make the system and that doing so will cost the entire 2027 season. On the agenda:

Salary cap/floor
Revenue sharing
International draft
Expansion
Get players to arb sooner
Get players to free agency sooner
Deferrals

add: freedom to trade draft picks, not just comp picks.

They might do that if the rest of the stuff gets done. If they get to trade draft picks and the rest of the stuff doesn't get done, the Dodgers will end up with the draft picks too!