STLtoday.com

rockondlouie wrote: ↑27 Feb 2026 11:03 am 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.

But the owners can offer such a transformative proposal IF there is more revenue sharing so that the small market teams, who are more dependent on cheaper players in their first six years can afford to pay them much better. But there has to be more revenue sharing to make a cap/floor work anyway, so the plan holds together.

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑27 Feb 2026 11:07 am

rockondlouie wrote: ↑27 Feb 2026 11:03 am 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.

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑27 Feb 2026 11:07 am

rockondlouie wrote: ↑27 Feb 2026 11:03 am 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.

Bingo

rockondlouie wrote: ↑27 Feb 2026 11:10 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑27 Feb 2026 11:07 am

rockondlouie wrote: ↑27 Feb 2026 11:03 am 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.

rockondlouie wrote: ↑27 Feb 2026 11:10 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑27 Feb 2026 11:07 am

rockondlouie wrote: ↑27 Feb 2026 11:03 am Until they change their stance that's been in place since 1966 it won't matter since the MLBPA won't accept a salary cap.

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

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

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

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

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

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

alw80 wrote: ↑27 Feb 2026 09:14 am

Goldfan wrote: ↑27 Feb 2026 09:12 am “Heyman: Early estimates suggest proposed salary cap might be set around $260M-280M and floor around $140M-160M.

Thoughts if this became a reality?”

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

Nah, who wants to compete?

Galatians221jb1 wrote: ↑27 Feb 2026 10:41 am the key point its, is what are the penalties for going over? Under? Will the league nullify contracts that put the team over? Will they demand a cash payment to the league for the amount under the floor? Will the over limit teams actually trade top talent to comply, or will they just pay the penalty, which is what they are doing now. How to enforce the limits is the key.

If there is a cap and floor, it should be hard. No penalties paid. You simply have to stop there (cap)/get there (floor).

Doubt it'll ever happen, though.

Cardinals4Life wrote: ↑27 Feb 2026 11:24 am

alw80 wrote: ↑27 Feb 2026 09:14 am

Goldfan wrote: ↑27 Feb 2026 09:12 am “Heyman: Early estimates suggest proposed salary cap might be set around $260M-280M and floor around $140M-160M.

Thoughts if this became a reality?”

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

Nah, who wants to compete?

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

45s wrote: ↑27 Feb 2026 11:30 am

Cardinals4Life wrote: ↑27 Feb 2026 11:24 am

alw80 wrote: ↑27 Feb 2026 09:14 am

Goldfan wrote: ↑27 Feb 2026 09:12 am “Heyman: Early estimates suggest proposed salary cap might be set around $260M-280M and floor around $140M-160M.

Thoughts if this became a reality?”

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

Nah, who wants to compete?

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

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

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑27 Feb 2026 11:40 am

45s wrote: ↑27 Feb 2026 11:30 am

Cardinals4Life wrote: ↑27 Feb 2026 11:24 am

alw80 wrote: ↑27 Feb 2026 09:14 am

Goldfan wrote: ↑27 Feb 2026 09:12 am “Heyman: Early estimates suggest proposed salary cap might be set around $260M-280M and floor around $140M-160M.

Thoughts if this became a reality?”

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

Nah, who wants to compete?

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

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

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

45s wrote: ↑27 Feb 2026 11:43 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑27 Feb 2026 11:40 am

45s wrote: ↑27 Feb 2026 11:30 am

Cardinals4Life wrote: ↑27 Feb 2026 11:24 am

alw80 wrote: ↑27 Feb 2026 09:14 am

Goldfan wrote: ↑27 Feb 2026 09:12 am “Heyman: Early estimates suggest proposed salary cap might be set around $260M-280M and floor around $140M-160M.

Thoughts if this became a reality?”

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

Nah, who wants to compete?

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

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

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

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

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

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑27 Feb 2026 11:12 am

rockondlouie wrote: ↑27 Feb 2026 11:10 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑27 Feb 2026 11:07 am

rockondlouie wrote: ↑27 Feb 2026 11:03 am 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.

rockondlouie wrote: ↑27 Feb 2026 11:58 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑27 Feb 2026 11:12 am

rockondlouie wrote: ↑27 Feb 2026 11:10 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑27 Feb 2026 11:07 am

rockondlouie wrote: ↑27 Feb 2026 11:03 am 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.

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑27 Feb 2026 11:58 am

45s wrote: ↑27 Feb 2026 11:43 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑27 Feb 2026 11:40 am

45s wrote: ↑27 Feb 2026 11:30 am

Cardinals4Life wrote: ↑27 Feb 2026 11:24 am

alw80 wrote: ↑27 Feb 2026 09:14 am

Goldfan wrote: ↑27 Feb 2026 09:12 am “Heyman: Early estimates suggest proposed salary cap might be set around $260M-280M and floor around $140M-160M.

Thoughts if this became a reality?”

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

Nah, who wants to compete?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah….good plan…

45s wrote: ↑27 Feb 2026 12:03 pm

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑27 Feb 2026 11:58 am

45s wrote: ↑27 Feb 2026 11:43 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑27 Feb 2026 11:40 am

45s wrote: ↑27 Feb 2026 11:30 am

Cardinals4Life wrote: ↑27 Feb 2026 11:24 am

alw80 wrote: ↑27 Feb 2026 09:14 am

Goldfan wrote: ↑27 Feb 2026 09:12 am “Heyman: Early estimates suggest proposed salary cap might be set around $260M-280M and floor around $140M-160M.

Thoughts if this became a reality?”

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

Nah, who wants to compete?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah….good plan…

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

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

Talkin' Baseball wrote: ↑27 Feb 2026 11:12 am

rockondlouie wrote: ↑27 Feb 2026 11:10 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑27 Feb 2026 11:07 am

rockondlouie wrote: ↑27 Feb 2026 11:03 am Until they change their stance that's been in place since 1966 it won't matter since the MLBPA won't accept a salary cap.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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