Restructuring MLB Payrolls from 2025

[alw80]

Is it "fair" if a team spends $250M and another team only spends $125M?

Considering that the difference between the top and the bottom is ~a factor of four in spending, reducing that to just a factor of two would seem to be a huge step forward in trying to ensure better competitiveness across MLB.

With the historic differences in local revenue, there is just no way that MLB is going to jump to some cap/floor system which has the floor - in its first iteration - as being much more than 50% of the cap, IMO. And even that would require a sea change in how the teams agree to revenue sharing.

I just think you will have the same teams who refuse to spend money only spend to the floor and we still have the same disparities. And I'll never understand why we're trying to make the owners more money.

10 teams had payrolls under $130 million in 2025. Setting the floor at $130 million would be forcing 1/3 of the league to spend between $1 million and $53 million more than they did in 2025. That's not insignificant.

Sure but they would still be outspent by over $100M. Why is that "fair"?

Again - it is unrealistic to think you are going to completely rectify the revenue/payroll differences between the Dodgers, Yankees, Mets, Phillies and the Marlins, Rays, Athletics, Pirates in one fell swoop. That is just never going to happen.

I get that and Im not being critical of your proposal. Its just that the pro-cap crowd wants the game to be "fair" and I don't see how they could consider such a big gap in payrolls as "fair". I guess I want to hear from the pro-cappers as to how such a discrepancy would be "fair". The Pirates would still spend right to the floor and pocket the rest of the money. How is that better?

The actual difference in 2025 payroll was from the Dodgers at about $345 million to the Marlins at about $70 million.

Would not the Dodgers at $250-$270 million and the Marlins at $125-$135 million not be a significant improvement towards competitiveness or "fairness"?

If the Marlins had to spend $125-$135 million on payroll, depending on how much revenue sharing changed, I'm not sure how much their owners would be "pocketing."

I just think we'll have the same issues on a smaller scale. The Pirates could pay Skenes what he's worth but then not sign anyone else and they're still the sh*tty Pirates. But why would Skenes want to stay there, he'd probably go and sign with a better team anyways. And again, the only people who benefit from this are the owners who make more money. F*ck them.

Fight the good fight. And good luck. Looking back, it’s always been this way in every industry.

Salary caps are unAmerican, it's sports communism which is funny. How many people who are pro-cap would argue for a cap on how much they could make at their own job?

[sikeston bulldog2]

Is it "fair" if a team spends $250M and another team only spends $125M?

Considering that the difference between the top and the bottom is ~a factor of four in spending, reducing that to just a factor of two would seem to be a huge step forward in trying to ensure better competitiveness across MLB.

With the historic differences in local revenue, there is just no way that MLB is going to jump to some cap/floor system which has the floor - in its first iteration - as being much more than 50% of the cap, IMO. And even that would require a sea change in how the teams agree to revenue sharing.

I just think you will have the same teams who refuse to spend money only spend to the floor and we still have the same disparities. And I'll never understand why we're trying to make the owners more money.

10 teams had payrolls under $130 million in 2025. Setting the floor at $130 million would be forcing 1/3 of the league to spend between $1 million and $53 million more than they did in 2025. That's not insignificant.

Sure but they would still be outspent by over $100M. Why is that "fair"?

Again - it is unrealistic to think you are going to completely rectify the revenue/payroll differences between the Dodgers, Yankees, Mets, Phillies and the Marlins, Rays, Athletics, Pirates in one fell swoop. That is just never going to happen.

I get that and Im not being critical of your proposal. Its just that the pro-cap crowd wants the game to be "fair" and I don't see how they could consider such a big gap in payrolls as "fair". I guess I want to hear from the pro-cappers as to how such a discrepancy would be "fair". The Pirates would still spend right to the floor and pocket the rest of the money. How is that better?

The actual difference in 2025 payroll was from the Dodgers at about $345 million to the Marlins at about $70 million.

Would not the Dodgers at $250-$270 million and the Marlins at $125-$135 million not be a significant improvement towards competitiveness or "fairness"?

If the Marlins had to spend $125-$135 million on payroll, depending on how much revenue sharing changed, I'm not sure how much their owners would be "pocketing."

I just think we'll have the same issues on a smaller scale. The Pirates could pay Skenes what he's worth but then not sign anyone else and they're still the sh*tty Pirates. But why would Skenes want to stay there, he'd probably go and sign with a better team anyways. And again, the only people who benefit from this are the owners who make more money. F*ck them.

Fight the good fight. And good luck. Looking back, it’s always been this way in every industry.

Salary caps are unAmerican, it's sports communism which is funny. How many people who are pro-cap would argue for a cap on how much they could make at their own job?

And BOOM out go the lights. Good work sir, you got it.

[alw80]

Is it "fair" if a team spends $250M and another team only spends $125M?

Considering that the difference between the top and the bottom is ~a factor of four in spending, reducing that to just a factor of two would seem to be a huge step forward in trying to ensure better competitiveness across MLB.

With the historic differences in local revenue, there is just no way that MLB is going to jump to some cap/floor system which has the floor - in its first iteration - as being much more than 50% of the cap, IMO. And even that would require a sea change in how the teams agree to revenue sharing.

I just think you will have the same teams who refuse to spend money only spend to the floor and we still have the same disparities. And I'll never understand why we're trying to make the owners more money.

10 teams had payrolls under $130 million in 2025. Setting the floor at $130 million would be forcing 1/3 of the league to spend between $1 million and $53 million more than they did in 2025. That's not insignificant.

Sure but they would still be outspent by over $100M. Why is that "fair"?

I don't think Matt is talking "fair", he's talking realistic solution. alw80, I don't like the big differences either but there's fair and then there's realistic. They don't always go together.

Matt are you talking a hard floor and ceiling? I think they need to be pretty strict. The cap they have now is pretty much worthless, a few teams ignore it (Dodgers) a few play game of getting under the cap every so often, while most are so far below it doesn't matter. So assuming it's a hard ceiling, how do the Dodgers get down to the $270 mill?

Also, do you believe there needs to be a change in deferred pay setup?

He's not talking about"fair" and I'm not trying to attack him or his proposal. It's more the pro-cappers who want it to be more "fair". Owners want as little competition as possible and don't want to feel forced into spending more in order to keep up. F*ck them, don't own a team if you don't want to compete.

[sikeston bulldog2]

Is it "fair" if a team spends $250M and another team only spends $125M?

Considering that the difference between the top and the bottom is ~a factor of four in spending, reducing that to just a factor of two would seem to be a huge step forward in trying to ensure better competitiveness across MLB.

With the historic differences in local revenue, there is just no way that MLB is going to jump to some cap/floor system which has the floor - in its first iteration - as being much more than 50% of the cap, IMO. And even that would require a sea change in how the teams agree to revenue sharing.

I just think you will have the same teams who refuse to spend money only spend to the floor and we still have the same disparities. And I'll never understand why we're trying to make the owners more money.

10 teams had payrolls under $130 million in 2025. Setting the floor at $130 million would be forcing 1/3 of the league to spend between $1 million and $53 million more than they did in 2025. That's not insignificant.

Sure but they would still be outspent by over $100M. Why is that "fair"?

I don't think Matt is talking "fair", he's talking realistic solution. alw80, I don't like the big differences either but there's fair and then there's realistic. They don't always go together.

Matt are you talking a hard floor and ceiling? I think they need to be pretty strict. The cap they have now is pretty much worthless, a few teams ignore it (Dodgers) a few play game of getting under the cap every so often, while most are so far below it doesn't matter. So assuming it's a hard ceiling, how do the Dodgers get down to the $270 mill?

Also, do you believe there needs to be a change in deferred pay setup?

He's not talking about"fair" and I'm not trying to attack him or his proposal. It's more the pro-cappers who want it to be more "fair". Owners want as little competition as possible and don't want to feel forced into spending more in order to keep up. F*ck them, don't own a team if you don't want to compete.

Or.

You could go European football- soccer style- relegation.

92 teams. 20 in Premier League. One division.

European football league- 72 teams. Three divisions. 24 teams each.

Top teams in lower groups move up, losers in higher spots move down.

[mattmitchl44]

Is it "fair" if a team spends $250M and another team only spends $125M?

Considering that the difference between the top and the bottom is ~a factor of four in spending, reducing that to just a factor of two would seem to be a huge step forward in trying to ensure better competitiveness across MLB.

With the historic differences in local revenue, there is just no way that MLB is going to jump to some cap/floor system which has the floor - in its first iteration - as being much more than 50% of the cap, IMO. And even that would require a sea change in how the teams agree to revenue sharing.

I just think you will have the same teams who refuse to spend money only spend to the floor and we still have the same disparities. And I'll never understand why we're trying to make the owners more money.

10 teams had payrolls under $130 million in 2025. Setting the floor at $130 million would be forcing 1/3 of the league to spend between $1 million and $53 million more than they did in 2025. That's not insignificant.

Sure but they would still be outspent by over $100M. Why is that "fair"?

Matt are you talking a hard floor and ceiling? I think they need to be pretty strict. The cap they have now is pretty much worthless, a few teams ignore it (Dodgers) a few play game of getting under the cap every so often, while most are so far below it doesn't matter. So assuming it's a hard ceiling, how do the Dodgers get down to the $270 mill?

Also, do you believe there needs to be a change in deferred pay setup?

Yes, I think it would be a hard floor and a hard ceiling to be effective.

There would need to be some detail work on how to get the Dodgers, Yankees, etc. to transition to being below the cap.

Realistically, their current contracts would probably have to be grandfathered (they'd be allowed to be over the cap temporarily) until enough of them expire to get below the cap. The teams wouldn't be allowed to sign any players until they get below the cap. Per Cot's the Dodgers would under $270 million in 2028 if Freeman, Trienen, etc. walk.

And the deferred money has to be reined in somehow.

[mattmitchl44]

Is it "fair" if a team spends $250M and another team only spends $125M?

Considering that the difference between the top and the bottom is ~a factor of four in spending, reducing that to just a factor of two would seem to be a huge step forward in trying to ensure better competitiveness across MLB.

With the historic differences in local revenue, there is just no way that MLB is going to jump to some cap/floor system which has the floor - in its first iteration - as being much more than 50% of the cap, IMO. And even that would require a sea change in how the teams agree to revenue sharing.

I just think you will have the same teams who refuse to spend money only spend to the floor and we still have the same disparities. And I'll never understand why we're trying to make the owners more money.

10 teams had payrolls under $130 million in 2025. Setting the floor at $130 million would be forcing 1/3 of the league to spend between $1 million and $53 million more than they did in 2025. That's not insignificant.

Sure but they would still be outspent by over $100M. Why is that "fair"?

Again - it is unrealistic to think you are going to completely rectify the revenue/payroll differences between the Dodgers, Yankees, Mets, Phillies and the Marlins, Rays, Athletics, Pirates in one fell swoop. That is just never going to happen.

I get that and Im not being critical of your proposal. Its just that the pro-cap crowd wants the game to be "fair" and I don't see how they could consider such a big gap in payrolls as "fair". I guess I want to hear from the pro-cappers as to how such a discrepancy would be "fair". The Pirates would still spend right to the floor and pocket the rest of the money. How is that better?

The actual difference in 2025 payroll was from the Dodgers at about $345 million to the Marlins at about $70 million.

Would not the Dodgers at $250-$270 million and the Marlins at $125-$135 million not be a significant improvement towards competitiveness or "fairness"?

If the Marlins had to spend $125-$135 million on payroll, depending on how much revenue sharing changed, I'm not sure how much their owners would be "pocketing."

I just think we'll have the same issues on a smaller scale. The Pirates could pay Skenes what he's worth but then not sign anyone else and they're still the sh*tty Pirates. But why would Skenes want to stay there, he'd probably go and sign with a better team anyways. And again, the only people who benefit from this are the owners who make more money. F*ck them.

Well, having the same issues on a smaller scale is better than having them on the larger scale we do now.

[mattmitchl44]

FWIW - on a more individual level, what some players maybe "should have been" paid:

Gray - $15.5 milion
Winn - $15 million
Donovan - $12.5 million
Contreras - $12 million
Herrera - $12 million
Burleson - $9.25 million
Arenado - $4.5 million
Mikolas - $2 million
Fedde, Gorman, Walker - ML minimum

Judge - $41.5 million
Ohtani - $38.75 million
Raleigh - $37.5 million
Skubal - $27.5 million
Skenes - $27 million

[Talkin' Baseball]

Thing one- We need to get over the fact that baseball teams are owned by billionaires. They are. That's the type of financial situation needed to own a baseball team. They are good at business. They don't hope to make a profit. They don't expect to make a profit. They insist on making a profit. This is not an unreasonable position.

Thing two- When Kyle Tucker or Juan Soto signs a contract- who pays the contract? The billionaire? No, it becomes part of his cost structure and gets passed to the consumer. That's you, Mr. Baseball Fan! Anything that brings cost certainty to the team, in the end, helps to bring cost certainty to the fan.

Thing three- For the long-term good of not just ownership, but fans also, it's important that all franchises do well, not just the one you follow. You want kids growing up to play, follow, love the game. If kids in northern California (or, insert your location here) follow the Warriors or the 49'ers, but don't follow the A's because they aren't interesting (or competitive) then they probably also don't play baseball. We want good players from all over.

Thing four- This idea of "fairness" is a mirage. When was anything fair? We should always be trying to become more fair, but the idea that we will find a system that entirely reaches that status is doomed. If we wanted to focus on "fairness" in a CBA we would not just be talking about a cap and floor- we would also be trying to find a way to get young players paid sooner. The top 10% of contracts make 72% of the money. The average length of a big league career is 5.6 years- meaning on average, most players don't make it to free agency. If they had a cap and got players to free agency sooner, you wouldn't have 32 year old Framber Valdez signing for 38M per season while Paul Skenes make roughly the same amount as Michael McGreevy. They would be forced to allocate the money they spend differently to fit under the cap. The players entering their primes would be paid much better, and those past their primes would be paid less. If we're looking for "fairness", that seems more fair.

[alw80]

Is it "fair" if a team spends $250M and another team only spends $125M?

Considering that the difference between the top and the bottom is ~a factor of four in spending, reducing that to just a factor of two would seem to be a huge step forward in trying to ensure better competitiveness across MLB.

With the historic differences in local revenue, there is just no way that MLB is going to jump to some cap/floor system which has the floor - in its first iteration - as being much more than 50% of the cap, IMO. And even that would require a sea change in how the teams agree to revenue sharing.

I just think you will have the same teams who refuse to spend money only spend to the floor and we still have the same disparities. And I'll never understand why we're trying to make the owners more money.

10 teams had payrolls under $130 million in 2025. Setting the floor at $130 million would be forcing 1/3 of the league to spend between $1 million and $53 million more than they did in 2025. That's not insignificant.

Sure but they would still be outspent by over $100M. Why is that "fair"?

I don't think Matt is talking "fair", he's talking realistic solution. alw80, I don't like the big differences either but there's fair and then there's realistic. They don't always go together.

Matt are you talking a hard floor and ceiling? I think they need to be pretty strict. The cap they have now is pretty much worthless, a few teams ignore it (Dodgers) a few play game of getting under the cap every so often, while most are so far below it doesn't matter. So assuming it's a hard ceiling, how do the Dodgers get down to the $270 mill?

Also, do you believe there needs to be a change in deferred pay setup?

He's not talking about"fair" and I'm not trying to attack him or his proposal. It's more the pro-cappers who want it to be more "fair". Owners want as little competition as possible and don't want to feel forced into spending more in order to keep up. F*ck them, don't own a team if you don't want to compete.

Or.

You could go European football- soccer style- relegation.

92 teams. 20 in Premier League. One division.

European football league- 72 teams. Three divisions. 24 teams each.

Top teams in lower groups move up, losers in higher spots move down.

Relegation would be great but the owners don't want to actually compete.

[alw80]

Is it "fair" if a team spends $250M and another team only spends $125M?

Considering that the difference between the top and the bottom is ~a factor of four in spending, reducing that to just a factor of two would seem to be a huge step forward in trying to ensure better competitiveness across MLB.

With the historic differences in local revenue, there is just no way that MLB is going to jump to some cap/floor system which has the floor - in its first iteration - as being much more than 50% of the cap, IMO. And even that would require a sea change in how the teams agree to revenue sharing.

I just think you will have the same teams who refuse to spend money only spend to the floor and we still have the same disparities. And I'll never understand why we're trying to make the owners more money.

10 teams had payrolls under $130 million in 2025. Setting the floor at $130 million would be forcing 1/3 of the league to spend between $1 million and $53 million more than they did in 2025. That's not insignificant.

Sure but they would still be outspent by over $100M. Why is that "fair"?

Again - it is unrealistic to think you are going to completely rectify the revenue/payroll differences between the Dodgers, Yankees, Mets, Phillies and the Marlins, Rays, Athletics, Pirates in one fell swoop. That is just never going to happen.

I get that and Im not being critical of your proposal. Its just that the pro-cap crowd wants the game to be "fair" and I don't see how they could consider such a big gap in payrolls as "fair". I guess I want to hear from the pro-cappers as to how such a discrepancy would be "fair". The Pirates would still spend right to the floor and pocket the rest of the money. How is that better?

The actual difference in 2025 payroll was from the Dodgers at about $345 million to the Marlins at about $70 million.

Would not the Dodgers at $250-$270 million and the Marlins at $125-$135 million not be a significant improvement towards competitiveness or "fairness"?

If the Marlins had to spend $125-$135 million on payroll, depending on how much revenue sharing changed, I'm not sure how much their owners would be "pocketing."

I just think we'll have the same issues on a smaller scale. The Pirates could pay Skenes what he's worth but then not sign anyone else and they're still the sh*tty Pirates. But why would Skenes want to stay there, he'd probably go and sign with a better team anyways. And again, the only people who benefit from this are the owners who make more money. F*ck them.

Well, having the same issues on a smaller scale is better than having them on the larger scale we do now.

Not really, the same problems still exist but the owners are happy because there is less competition.

[mattmitchl44]

Is it "fair" if a team spends $250M and another team only spends $125M?

Considering that the difference between the top and the bottom is ~a factor of four in spending, reducing that to just a factor of two would seem to be a huge step forward in trying to ensure better competitiveness across MLB.

With the historic differences in local revenue, there is just no way that MLB is going to jump to some cap/floor system which has the floor - in its first iteration - as being much more than 50% of the cap, IMO. And even that would require a sea change in how the teams agree to revenue sharing.

I just think you will have the same teams who refuse to spend money only spend to the floor and we still have the same disparities. And I'll never understand why we're trying to make the owners more money.

10 teams had payrolls under $130 million in 2025. Setting the floor at $130 million would be forcing 1/3 of the league to spend between $1 million and $53 million more than they did in 2025. That's not insignificant.

Sure but they would still be outspent by over $100M. Why is that "fair"?

Again - it is unrealistic to think you are going to completely rectify the revenue/payroll differences between the Dodgers, Yankees, Mets, Phillies and the Marlins, Rays, Athletics, Pirates in one fell swoop. That is just never going to happen.

I get that and Im not being critical of your proposal. Its just that the pro-cap crowd wants the game to be "fair" and I don't see how they could consider such a big gap in payrolls as "fair". I guess I want to hear from the pro-cappers as to how such a discrepancy would be "fair". The Pirates would still spend right to the floor and pocket the rest of the money. How is that better?

The actual difference in 2025 payroll was from the Dodgers at about $345 million to the Marlins at about $70 million.

Would not the Dodgers at $250-$270 million and the Marlins at $125-$135 million not be a significant improvement towards competitiveness or "fairness"?

If the Marlins had to spend $125-$135 million on payroll, depending on how much revenue sharing changed, I'm not sure how much their owners would be "pocketing."

I just think we'll have the same issues on a smaller scale. The Pirates could pay Skenes what he's worth but then not sign anyone else and they're still the sh*tty Pirates. But why would Skenes want to stay there, he'd probably go and sign with a better team anyways. And again, the only people who benefit from this are the owners who make more money. F*ck them.

Well, having the same issues on a smaller scale is better than having them on the larger scale we do now.

Not really, the same problems still exist but the owners are happy because there is less competition.

If you had a $250-$270 million ceiling and a $125-$135 million floor, I think you would definitely have more competition.

I think you'd end up with about 1/3 of the league at or near the ceiling, 1/3 of the league at or near the floor, and the other 1/3 scattered between the two.

[sikeston bulldog2]

Is it "fair" if a team spends $250M and another team only spends $125M?

Considering that the difference between the top and the bottom is ~a factor of four in spending, reducing that to just a factor of two would seem to be a huge step forward in trying to ensure better competitiveness across MLB.

With the historic differences in local revenue, there is just no way that MLB is going to jump to some cap/floor system which has the floor - in its first iteration - as being much more than 50% of the cap, IMO. And even that would require a sea change in how the teams agree to revenue sharing.

I just think you will have the same teams who refuse to spend money only spend to the floor and we still have the same disparities. And I'll never understand why we're trying to make the owners more money.

10 teams had payrolls under $130 million in 2025. Setting the floor at $130 million would be forcing 1/3 of the league to spend between $1 million and $53 million more than they did in 2025. That's not insignificant.

Sure but they would still be outspent by over $100M. Why is that "fair"?

Again - it is unrealistic to think you are going to completely rectify the revenue/payroll differences between the Dodgers, Yankees, Mets, Phillies and the Marlins, Rays, Athletics, Pirates in one fell swoop. That is just never going to happen.

I get that and Im not being critical of your proposal. Its just that the pro-cap crowd wants the game to be "fair" and I don't see how they could consider such a big gap in payrolls as "fair". I guess I want to hear from the pro-cappers as to how such a discrepancy would be "fair". The Pirates would still spend right to the floor and pocket the rest of the money. How is that better?

The actual difference in 2025 payroll was from the Dodgers at about $345 million to the Marlins at about $70 million.

Would not the Dodgers at $250-$270 million and the Marlins at $125-$135 million not be a significant improvement towards competitiveness or "fairness"?

If the Marlins had to spend $125-$135 million on payroll, depending on how much revenue sharing changed, I'm not sure how much their owners would be "pocketing."

I just think we'll have the same issues on a smaller scale. The Pirates could pay Skenes what he's worth but then not sign anyone else and they're still the sh*tty Pirates. But why would Skenes want to stay there, he'd probably go and sign with a better team anyways. And again, the only people who benefit from this are the owners who make more money. F*ck them.

Well, having the same issues on a smaller scale is better than having them on the larger scale we do now.

Not really, the same problems still exist but the owners are happy because there is less competition.

If you had a $250-$270 million ceiling and a $125-$135 million floor, I think you would definitely have more competition.

I think you'd end up with about 1/3 of the league at or near the ceiling, 1/3 of the league at or near the floor, and the other 1/3 scattered between the two.

As opposed to today- 5 at the ceiling, 10 in the middle, 15 at the bottom.

[Jeff Goldblum]

I like how there is this new constituency of people who think they are so much smarter than everybody else by calling for a salary floor and acting like not having a salary cap isn't creating an unfair advantage.

[sikeston bulldog2]

I like how there is this new constituency of people who think they are so much smarter than everybody else by calling for a salary floor and acting like not having a salary cap isn't creating an unfair advantage.

Your last two mines were full of data- calling for salary floor, yet no cap, good to go. Strong.

[mattmitchl44]

Considering that the difference between the top and the bottom is ~a factor of four in spending, reducing that to just a factor of two would seem to be a huge step forward in trying to ensure better competitiveness across MLB.

With the historic differences in local revenue, there is just no way that MLB is going to jump to some cap/floor system which has the floor - in its first iteration - as being much more than 50% of the cap, IMO. And even that would require a sea change in how the teams agree to revenue sharing.

I just think you will have the same teams who refuse to spend money only spend to the floor and we still have the same disparities. And I'll never understand why we're trying to make the owners more money.

10 teams had payrolls under $130 million in 2025. Setting the floor at $130 million would be forcing 1/3 of the league to spend between $1 million and $53 million more than they did in 2025. That's not insignificant.

Sure but they would still be outspent by over $100M. Why is that "fair"?

Again - it is unrealistic to think you are going to completely rectify the revenue/payroll differences between the Dodgers, Yankees, Mets, Phillies and the Marlins, Rays, Athletics, Pirates in one fell swoop. That is just never going to happen.

I get that and Im not being critical of your proposal. Its just that the pro-cap crowd wants the game to be "fair" and I don't see how they could consider such a big gap in payrolls as "fair". I guess I want to hear from the pro-cappers as to how such a discrepancy would be "fair". The Pirates would still spend right to the floor and pocket the rest of the money. How is that better?

The actual difference in 2025 payroll was from the Dodgers at about $345 million to the Marlins at about $70 million.

Would not the Dodgers at $250-$270 million and the Marlins at $125-$135 million not be a significant improvement towards competitiveness or "fairness"?

If the Marlins had to spend $125-$135 million on payroll, depending on how much revenue sharing changed, I'm not sure how much their owners would be "pocketing."

I just think we'll have the same issues on a smaller scale. The Pirates could pay Skenes what he's worth but then not sign anyone else and they're still the sh*tty Pirates. But why would Skenes want to stay there, he'd probably go and sign with a better team anyways. And again, the only people who benefit from this are the owners who make more money. F*ck them.

Well, having the same issues on a smaller scale is better than having them on the larger scale we do now.

Not really, the same problems still exist but the owners are happy because there is less competition.

If you had a $250-$270 million ceiling and a $125-$135 million floor, I think you would definitely have more competition.

I think you'd end up with about 1/3 of the league at or near the ceiling, 1/3 of the league at or near the floor, and the other 1/3 scattered between the two.

As opposed to today- 5 at the ceiling, 10 in the middle, 15 at the bottom.

And even the 10 at the floor - spending $125-$135 million - should be a lot more competitive against the ceiling teams spending $250-$270 million than the teams now spending under $100 million are against the few teams spending over $300 million.

[sikeston bulldog2]

I just think you will have the same teams who refuse to spend money only spend to the floor and we still have the same disparities. And I'll never understand why we're trying to make the owners more money.

10 teams had payrolls under $130 million in 2025. Setting the floor at $130 million would be forcing 1/3 of the league to spend between $1 million and $53 million more than they did in 2025. That's not insignificant.

Sure but they would still be outspent by over $100M. Why is that "fair"?

Again - it is unrealistic to think you are going to completely rectify the revenue/payroll differences between the Dodgers, Yankees, Mets, Phillies and the Marlins, Rays, Athletics, Pirates in one fell swoop. That is just never going to happen.

I get that and Im not being critical of your proposal. Its just that the pro-cap crowd wants the game to be "fair" and I don't see how they could consider such a big gap in payrolls as "fair". I guess I want to hear from the pro-cappers as to how such a discrepancy would be "fair". The Pirates would still spend right to the floor and pocket the rest of the money. How is that better?

The actual difference in 2025 payroll was from the Dodgers at about $345 million to the Marlins at about $70 million.

Would not the Dodgers at $250-$270 million and the Marlins at $125-$135 million not be a significant improvement towards competitiveness or "fairness"?

If the Marlins had to spend $125-$135 million on payroll, depending on how much revenue sharing changed, I'm not sure how much their owners would be "pocketing."

I just think we'll have the same issues on a smaller scale. The Pirates could pay Skenes what he's worth but then not sign anyone else and they're still the sh*tty Pirates. But why would Skenes want to stay there, he'd probably go and sign with a better team anyways. And again, the only people who benefit from this are the owners who make more money. F*ck them.

Well, having the same issues on a smaller scale is better than having them on the larger scale we do now.

Not really, the same problems still exist but the owners are happy because there is less competition.

If you had a $250-$270 million ceiling and a $125-$135 million floor, I think you would definitely have more competition.

I think you'd end up with about 1/3 of the league at or near the ceiling, 1/3 of the league at or near the floor, and the other 1/3 scattered between the two.

As opposed to today- 5 at the ceiling, 10 in the middle, 15 at the bottom.

And even the 10 at the floor - spending $125-$135 million - should be a lot more competitive against the ceiling teams spending $250-$270 million than the teams now spending under $100 million are against the few teams spending over $300 million.

You have made a well understood point. Why does it not happen this way- greed, out of control industry, and, how much of your issue is an issue at CBA. Bunches?