STLtoday.com

alw80 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 10:30 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 10:11 am

alw80 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 10:09 am

cardstatman wrote: ↑20 Feb 2026 22:52 pm I don't understand how a salary cap fixes anything for Cleveland.

Their revenue remains the same and they say they can only spend $100M on payroll now.

The answer is more revenue sharing. If the revenue was more equal, then the salary cap would not be necessary.

A salary cap just forces the Yankees/Dodgers/Cubs owners to pocket a lot of money or invest huge dollars in something other than payroll. The Yankees and Cubs owners are already voluntarily doing just that.

Revenue sharing just puts more money in owners pockets.

And a salary floor forces the smaller market owners who receive more revenue sharing to spend it on player salaries.

And they'll spend to the floor and pocket the rest then complain how unfair it is for them.

And that will be fine. Make the floor 50% of the ceiling, with adequate revenue sharing, and you have a much better MLB.

Jatalk wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 10:33 am

alw80 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 10:11 am

peterman'srealitytour wrote: ↑20 Feb 2026 23:51 pm Amen to a cap, a floor and some form of revenue sharing. Whatever it takes to restore competitive balance.

There is already revenue sharing. Be better at running your business and stop asking for handouts.

I think there should be some revenue sharing but not to extent it bails out poorly ran franchises. You make a valid point that some can’t understand.

The owners don't share any of their financials, we don't really know what they're capable of spending we are just supposed to take they're word for it. Until they are open and honest there isn't a need for a cap.

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 10:36 am

alw80 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 10:30 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 10:11 am

alw80 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 10:09 am

cardstatman wrote: ↑20 Feb 2026 22:52 pm I don't understand how a salary cap fixes anything for Cleveland.

Their revenue remains the same and they say they can only spend $100M on payroll now.

The answer is more revenue sharing. If the revenue was more equal, then the salary cap would not be necessary.

A salary cap just forces the Yankees/Dodgers/Cubs owners to pocket a lot of money or invest huge dollars in something other than payroll. The Yankees and Cubs owners are already voluntarily doing just that.

Revenue sharing just puts more money in owners pockets.

And a salary floor forces the smaller market owners who receive more revenue sharing to spend it on player salaries.

And they'll spend to the floor and pocket the rest then complain how unfair it is for them.

And that will be fine. Make the floor 50% of the ceiling, with adequate revenue sharing, and you have a much better MLB.

Giving marginal players huge salaries is a much better MLB?

Ok

45s wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 10:38 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 10:36 am

alw80 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 10:30 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 10:11 am

alw80 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 10:09 am

cardstatman wrote: ↑20 Feb 2026 22:52 pm I don't understand how a salary cap fixes anything for Cleveland.

Their revenue remains the same and they say they can only spend $100M on payroll now.

The answer is more revenue sharing. If the revenue was more equal, then the salary cap would not be necessary.

A salary cap just forces the Yankees/Dodgers/Cubs owners to pocket a lot of money or invest huge dollars in something other than payroll. The Yankees and Cubs owners are already voluntarily doing just that.

Revenue sharing just puts more money in owners pockets.

And a salary floor forces the smaller market owners who receive more revenue sharing to spend it on player salaries.

And they'll spend to the floor and pocket the rest then complain how unfair it is for them.

And that will be fine. Make the floor 50% of the ceiling, with adequate revenue sharing, and you have a much better MLB.

Giving marginal players huge salaries is a much better MLB?

Ok

There are many younger, productive players who should be making more in their early years than they are now. If/when the money goes toward them, that will be a good thing.

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 10:36 am

alw80 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 10:30 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 10:11 am

alw80 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 10:09 am

cardstatman wrote: ↑20 Feb 2026 22:52 pm I don't understand how a salary cap fixes anything for Cleveland.

Their revenue remains the same and they say they can only spend $100M on payroll now.

The answer is more revenue sharing. If the revenue was more equal, then the salary cap would not be necessary.

A salary cap just forces the Yankees/Dodgers/Cubs owners to pocket a lot of money or invest huge dollars in something other than payroll. The Yankees and Cubs owners are already voluntarily doing just that.

Revenue sharing just puts more money in owners pockets.

And a salary floor forces the smaller market owners who receive more revenue sharing to spend it on player salaries.

And they'll spend to the floor and pocket the rest then complain how unfair it is for them.

And that will be fine. Make the floor 50% of the ceiling, with adequate revenue sharing, and you have a much better MLB.

[nonsense]. Any amount of revenue sharing you receive should have to be put into payroll, owners can not be allowed to pocket that money. If they just keep it whats the point?

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 10:41 am

45s wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 10:38 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 10:36 am

alw80 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 10:30 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 10:11 am

alw80 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 10:09 am

cardstatman wrote: ↑20 Feb 2026 22:52 pm I don't understand how a salary cap fixes anything for Cleveland.

Their revenue remains the same and they say they can only spend $100M on payroll now.

The answer is more revenue sharing. If the revenue was more equal, then the salary cap would not be necessary.

A salary cap just forces the Yankees/Dodgers/Cubs owners to pocket a lot of money or invest huge dollars in something other than payroll. The Yankees and Cubs owners are already voluntarily doing just that.

Revenue sharing just puts more money in owners pockets.

And a salary floor forces the smaller market owners who receive more revenue sharing to spend it on player salaries.

And they'll spend to the floor and pocket the rest then complain how unfair it is for them.

And that will be fine. Make the floor 50% of the ceiling, with adequate revenue sharing, and you have a much better MLB.

Giving marginal players huge salaries is a much better MLB?

Ok

There are many younger, productive players who should be making more in their early years than they are now. If/when the money goes toward them, that will be a good thing.

Perhaps……but there are also many very poor players on mlb rosters who will be paid more for the same poor production

You do realize that will inflate the salaries of older, star players….?…..which will inflate ticket prices…

I wonder how many customers will gladly pay more because it’s “good for MLB”

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 10:18 am

rockondlouie wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 10:15 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 10:04 am

rockondlouie wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 08:47 am Guardian owner Paul Dolan inherited the team from his father who bought them for $323M, currently worth over $1B.

His uncle, partial owner, is worth $5.4B and is the founder of Cablevision and HBO.

Sounds like our ownership, crying poor mouth when they're sitting on a family fortune.

(And I don't see any chance we get a salary cap or increased revenue sharing)

And fans continue to try to impose their thoughts on how owners should spend money.

The simple fact is that there aren't 30 Steve Cohens who want to own and operate MLB franchises seemingly independent of any concern regarding annual operating income, expenses, and revenue.

No, we fans continue to point out SUPER WEALTHY BILLIONARE owners who cry poormouth while wanting we fans to shoulder the financial burden and weep for them.

The simple fact is virtually every MLB owner or ownership group has the revenues from their teams to easily spend much more than they're willing to spend.

Given his revenues there's little argument BDWJr etal could easily afford a $180-200M payroll w/o touching a dime of their personal fortune.

It's the same for the majority of MLB team sans a very small handful.

Even the lowly Pirates reported a 2025 Operating Income (Profit before ITDA) of $47 million!

Yet this season we're getting a 26 man payroll under what K. Tucker will make this season w/the Dodgers.

You can keep repeating that, but none of it changes reality - there aren't 30 Steve Cohens who want to own and operate MLB franchises like you claim they could afford to.

We've seen it across almost all MLB teams for decades - owners will operate their teams to generally make at least some annual profit. That's not going to change.

If you are going to find a solution to improve the quality of the MLB product, you have to start from that reality.

Repeating nothing it's the first time I posted that, you're the one who keeps repeating the same stuff month after month after month.

And my "claim" is backed up by FACTS (re: the lowly Pirates I intentionally picked out to show how they could afford a higher payroll).

You're reality (salary cap/floor) has ZERO chance of happen, just as he hasn't happened since the days of Marvin Miller.

The MLBPA will never accept a salary cap, the lowly franchise owners will (likely) never accept a payroll floor.

But keep posting it if it makes you feel better.

I have read some very interesting points here. While I disagree on some, others are similar to how I think.

I personally don't think there will be a lockout, or at least not a substantial one. There will be no cap or floor, but there will be changes to deferred salaries, penalties for overages (which big teams gladly pay), which I feel should be divided amongst the lower teams as additional revenue sharing so to speak.As has been said, the players are not going to allow a lowering of total salaries.
There is currently revenue sharing, there needs to be checks and balances to ensure receiving are using it, not pocketing it as has also been stated many times.
I believe there will be an international draft, and initial contract shortened to 5 years, and arbitration begins at 2. Adjustments to min salary also.

I have believed for a long time that the league is too big. There are too many JAG players playing in the MLB. The minors were contracted, as well as the draft. The same should be done to the MLB.

Thank you for your time, have a great weekend.

alw80 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 10:44 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 10:36 am

alw80 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 10:30 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 10:11 am

alw80 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 10:09 am

cardstatman wrote: ↑20 Feb 2026 22:52 pm I don't understand how a salary cap fixes anything for Cleveland.

Their revenue remains the same and they say they can only spend $100M on payroll now.

The answer is more revenue sharing. If the revenue was more equal, then the salary cap would not be necessary.

A salary cap just forces the Yankees/Dodgers/Cubs owners to pocket a lot of money or invest huge dollars in something other than payroll. The Yankees and Cubs owners are already voluntarily doing just that.

Revenue sharing just puts more money in owners pockets.

And a salary floor forces the smaller market owners who receive more revenue sharing to spend it on player salaries.

And they'll spend to the floor and pocket the rest then complain how unfair it is for them.

And that will be fine. Make the floor 50% of the ceiling, with adequate revenue sharing, and you have a much better MLB.

[nonsense]. Any amount of revenue sharing you receive should have to be put into payroll, owners can not be allowed to pocket that money. If they just keep it whats the point?

And if you have a salary floor, that is what you can essentially force happen. But revenue sharing monies likely also have to be used to support other aspects of some of these teams' overall operations.

Let's just take the Marlins as an example. We have data from Cot's and Forbes for the 2024 season.

Per Cot's, the Marlins' year end payroll in 2024 was $98 million and per Forbes they made $38 million in profit that season. They got some amount, $X million, in revenue sharing for that year.

So impose a floor of, say, $130 million (with a cap of $260 million). Now the Marlins have to spend $32 million more on salaries. Increase their revenue sharing to ~$X + 20 million and then require them to find the additional $12 million out of their $38 million in profit.

rockondlouie wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 10:54 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 10:18 am

rockondlouie wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 10:15 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 10:04 am

rockondlouie wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 08:47 am Guardian owner Paul Dolan inherited the team from his father who bought them for $323M, currently worth over $1B.

His uncle, partial owner, is worth $5.4B and is the founder of Cablevision and HBO.

Sounds like our ownership, crying poor mouth when they're sitting on a family fortune.

(And I don't see any chance we get a salary cap or increased revenue sharing)

And fans continue to try to impose their thoughts on how owners should spend money.

The simple fact is that there aren't 30 Steve Cohens who want to own and operate MLB franchises seemingly independent of any concern regarding annual operating income, expenses, and revenue.

No, we fans continue to point out SUPER WEALTHY BILLIONARE owners who cry poormouth while wanting we fans to shoulder the financial burden and weep for them.

The simple fact is virtually every MLB owner or ownership group has the revenues from their teams to easily spend much more than they're willing to spend.

Given his revenues there's little argument BDWJr etal could easily afford a $180-200M payroll w/o touching a dime of their personal fortune.

It's the same for the majority of MLB team sans a very small handful.

Even the lowly Pirates reported a 2025 Operating Income (Profit before ITDA) of $47 million!

Yet this season we're getting a 26 man payroll under what K. Tucker will make this season w/the Dodgers.

You can keep repeating that, but none of it changes reality - there aren't 30 Steve Cohens who want to own and operate MLB franchises like you claim they could afford to.

We've seen it across almost all MLB teams for decades - owners will operate their teams to generally make at least some annual profit. That's not going to change.

If you are going to find a solution to improve the quality of the MLB product, you have to start from that reality.

Repeating nothing it's the first time I posted that, you're the one who keeps repeating the same stuff month after month after month.

And my "claim" is backed up by FACTS (re: the lowly Pirates I intentionally picked out to show how they could afford a higher payroll).

You're reality (salary cap/floor) has ZERO chance of happen, just as he hasn't happened since the days of Marvin Miller.

The MLBPA will never accept a salary cap, the lowly franchise owners will (likely) never accept a payroll floor.

But keep posting it if it makes you feel better.

Ultimately, as I think every other professional sport has shown, some salary cap/floor has to happen in MLB.

And the players, overall, can win even if the structure means that superstar players and their agents have to lose somewhat.

It should be the rank and file of the MLBPA, who can't afford to lose the money they would stand to make from multiple years of their short playing careers who should decide this in favor of a salary cap/floor system - with the owners guaranteeing that total player salaries increase by X% per year over the period of the CBA - which ends up benefitting them directly.

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 11:05 am

rockondlouie wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 10:54 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 10:18 am

rockondlouie wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 10:15 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 10:04 am

rockondlouie wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 08:47 am Guardian owner Paul Dolan inherited the team from his father who bought them for $323M, currently worth over $1B.

His uncle, partial owner, is worth $5.4B and is the founder of Cablevision and HBO.

Sounds like our ownership, crying poor mouth when they're sitting on a family fortune.

(And I don't see any chance we get a salary cap or increased revenue sharing)

And fans continue to try to impose their thoughts on how owners should spend money.

The simple fact is that there aren't 30 Steve Cohens who want to own and operate MLB franchises seemingly independent of any concern regarding annual operating income, expenses, and revenue.

No, we fans continue to point out SUPER WEALTHY BILLIONARE owners who cry poormouth while wanting we fans to shoulder the financial burden and weep for them.

The simple fact is virtually every MLB owner or ownership group has the revenues from their teams to easily spend much more than they're willing to spend.

Given his revenues there's little argument BDWJr etal could easily afford a $180-200M payroll w/o touching a dime of their personal fortune.

It's the same for the majority of MLB team sans a very small handful.

Even the lowly Pirates reported a 2025 Operating Income (Profit before ITDA) of $47 million!

Yet this season we're getting a 26 man payroll under what K. Tucker will make this season w/the Dodgers.

You can keep repeating that, but none of it changes reality - there aren't 30 Steve Cohens who want to own and operate MLB franchises like you claim they could afford to.

We've seen it across almost all MLB teams for decades - owners will operate their teams to generally make at least some annual profit. That's not going to change.

If you are going to find a solution to improve the quality of the MLB product, you have to start from that reality.

Repeating nothing it's the first time I posted that, you're the one who keeps repeating the same stuff month after month after month.

And my "claim" is backed up by FACTS (re: the lowly Pirates I intentionally picked out to show how they could afford a higher payroll).

You're reality (salary cap/floor) has ZERO chance of happen, just as he hasn't happened since the days of Marvin Miller.

The MLBPA will never accept a salary cap, the lowly franchise owners will (likely) never accept a payroll floor.

But keep posting it if it makes you feel better.

Ultimately, as I think every other professional sport has shown, some salary cap/floor has to happen in MLB.

And the players, overall, can win even if the structure means that superstar players and their agents have to lose somewhat.

It should be the rank and file of the MLBPA, who can't afford to lose the money they would stand to make from multiple years of their short playing careers who should decide this in favor of a salary cap/floor system - with the owners guaranteeing that total player salaries increase by X% per year over the period of the CBA - which ends up benefitting them directly.

Salary cap floor that is X% of the luxury tax line would make sense.

Won’t happen but I’d like to see them put in a max contract length like the NBA.

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 11:05 am

rockondlouie wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 10:54 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 10:18 am

rockondlouie wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 10:15 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 10:04 am

rockondlouie wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 08:47 am Guardian owner Paul Dolan inherited the team from his father who bought them for $323M, currently worth over $1B.

His uncle, partial owner, is worth $5.4B and is the founder of Cablevision and HBO.

Sounds like our ownership, crying poor mouth when they're sitting on a family fortune.

(And I don't see any chance we get a salary cap or increased revenue sharing)

And fans continue to try to impose their thoughts on how owners should spend money.

The simple fact is that there aren't 30 Steve Cohens who want to own and operate MLB franchises seemingly independent of any concern regarding annual operating income, expenses, and revenue.

No, we fans continue to point out SUPER WEALTHY BILLIONARE owners who cry poormouth while wanting we fans to shoulder the financial burden and weep for them.

The simple fact is virtually every MLB owner or ownership group has the revenues from their teams to easily spend much more than they're willing to spend.

Given his revenues there's little argument BDWJr etal could easily afford a $180-200M payroll w/o touching a dime of their personal fortune.

It's the same for the majority of MLB team sans a very small handful.

Even the lowly Pirates reported a 2025 Operating Income (Profit before ITDA) of $47 million!

Yet this season we're getting a 26 man payroll under what K. Tucker will make this season w/the Dodgers.

You can keep repeating that, but none of it changes reality - there aren't 30 Steve Cohens who want to own and operate MLB franchises like you claim they could afford to.

We've seen it across almost all MLB teams for decades - owners will operate their teams to generally make at least some annual profit. That's not going to change.

If you are going to find a solution to improve the quality of the MLB product, you have to start from that reality.

Repeating nothing it's the first time I posted that, you're the one who keeps repeating the same stuff month after month after month.

And my "claim" is backed up by FACTS (re: the lowly Pirates I intentionally picked out to show how they could afford a higher payroll).

You're reality (salary cap/floor) has ZERO chance of happen, just as he hasn't happened since the days of Marvin Miller.

The MLBPA will never accept a salary cap, the lowly franchise owners will (likely) never accept a payroll floor.

But keep posting it if it makes you feel better.

Ultimately, as I think every other professional sport has shown, some salary cap/floor has to happen in MLB.

And the players, overall, can win even if the structure means that superstar players and their agents have to lose somewhat.

It should be the rank and file of the MLBPA, who can't afford to lose the money they would stand to make from multiple years of their short playing careers who should decide this in favor of a salary cap/floor system - with the owners guaranteeing that total player salaries increase by X% per year over the period of the CBA - which ends up benefitting them directly.

You can post that till you're blue in the face matt, people have been saying the same thing for decades.

One of the main things M. Miller installed in players was they should "NEVER, EVER" accept a salary cap.

This mantra has been passed down from veterans to rookies the day they join the union.

That resolve has NEVER been broken.

I'd like it to happen, so you you..............but it won't.

Best I can see is a cap on deferred money plus some smaller issues.

And while you mention players missing out on some earning potential let's not forget the billions (National TV, Tickets sales, local TV, concessions, parking, ect...) owners will be losing out on too.

Both sides have too much to lose, I've been of the opinion the "lockout" won't last too long....I hope I'm right.

rockondlouie wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 11:59 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 11:05 am

rockondlouie wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 10:54 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 10:18 am

rockondlouie wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 10:15 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 10:04 am

rockondlouie wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 08:47 am Guardian owner Paul Dolan inherited the team from his father who bought them for $323M, currently worth over $1B.

His uncle, partial owner, is worth $5.4B and is the founder of Cablevision and HBO.

Sounds like our ownership, crying poor mouth when they're sitting on a family fortune.

(And I don't see any chance we get a salary cap or increased revenue sharing)

And fans continue to try to impose their thoughts on how owners should spend money.

The simple fact is that there aren't 30 Steve Cohens who want to own and operate MLB franchises seemingly independent of any concern regarding annual operating income, expenses, and revenue.

No, we fans continue to point out SUPER WEALTHY BILLIONARE owners who cry poormouth while wanting we fans to shoulder the financial burden and weep for them.

The simple fact is virtually every MLB owner or ownership group has the revenues from their teams to easily spend much more than they're willing to spend.

Given his revenues there's little argument BDWJr etal could easily afford a $180-200M payroll w/o touching a dime of their personal fortune.

It's the same for the majority of MLB team sans a very small handful.

Even the lowly Pirates reported a 2025 Operating Income (Profit before ITDA) of $47 million!

Yet this season we're getting a 26 man payroll under what K. Tucker will make this season w/the Dodgers.

You can keep repeating that, but none of it changes reality - there aren't 30 Steve Cohens who want to own and operate MLB franchises like you claim they could afford to.

We've seen it across almost all MLB teams for decades - owners will operate their teams to generally make at least some annual profit. That's not going to change.

If you are going to find a solution to improve the quality of the MLB product, you have to start from that reality.

Repeating nothing it's the first time I posted that, you're the one who keeps repeating the same stuff month after month after month.

And my "claim" is backed up by FACTS (re: the lowly Pirates I intentionally picked out to show how they could afford a higher payroll).

You're reality (salary cap/floor) has ZERO chance of happen, just as he hasn't happened since the days of Marvin Miller.

The MLBPA will never accept a salary cap, the lowly franchise owners will (likely) never accept a payroll floor.

But keep posting it if it makes you feel better.

Ultimately, as I think every other professional sport has shown, some salary cap/floor has to happen in MLB.

And the players, overall, can win even if the structure means that superstar players and their agents have to lose somewhat.

It should be the rank and file of the MLBPA, who can't afford to lose the money they would stand to make from multiple years of their short playing careers who should decide this in favor of a salary cap/floor system - with the owners guaranteeing that total player salaries increase by X% per year over the period of the CBA - which ends up benefitting them directly.

You can post that till you're blue in the face matt, people have been saying the same thing for decades.

One of the main things M. Miller installed in players was they should "NEVER, EVER" accept a salary cap.

This mantra has been passed down from veterans to rookies the day they join the union.

That resolve has NEVER been broken.

I'd like it to happen, so you you..............but it won't.

Best I can see is a cap on deferred money plus some smaller issues.

And while you mention players missing out on some earning potential let's not forget the billions (National TV, Tickets sales, local TV, concessions, parking, ect...) owners will be losing out on too.

Both sides have too much to lose, I've been of the opinion the "lockout" won't last too long....I hope I'm right.

The players shouldn't agree to a cap until the owners prove a need for one. They aren't willing to do that. I wonder why?

alw80 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 12:04 pm

rockondlouie wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 11:59 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 11:05 am

rockondlouie wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 10:54 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 10:18 am

rockondlouie wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 10:15 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 10:04 am

rockondlouie wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 08:47 am Guardian owner Paul Dolan inherited the team from his father who bought them for $323M, currently worth over $1B.

His uncle, partial owner, is worth $5.4B and is the founder of Cablevision and HBO.

Sounds like our ownership, crying poor mouth when they're sitting on a family fortune.

(And I don't see any chance we get a salary cap or increased revenue sharing)

And fans continue to try to impose their thoughts on how owners should spend money.

The simple fact is that there aren't 30 Steve Cohens who want to own and operate MLB franchises seemingly independent of any concern regarding annual operating income, expenses, and revenue.

No, we fans continue to point out SUPER WEALTHY BILLIONARE owners who cry poormouth while wanting we fans to shoulder the financial burden and weep for them.

The simple fact is virtually every MLB owner or ownership group has the revenues from their teams to easily spend much more than they're willing to spend.

Given his revenues there's little argument BDWJr etal could easily afford a $180-200M payroll w/o touching a dime of their personal fortune.

It's the same for the majority of MLB team sans a very small handful.

Even the lowly Pirates reported a 2025 Operating Income (Profit before ITDA) of $47 million!

Yet this season we're getting a 26 man payroll under what K. Tucker will make this season w/the Dodgers.

You can keep repeating that, but none of it changes reality - there aren't 30 Steve Cohens who want to own and operate MLB franchises like you claim they could afford to.

We've seen it across almost all MLB teams for decades - owners will operate their teams to generally make at least some annual profit. That's not going to change.

If you are going to find a solution to improve the quality of the MLB product, you have to start from that reality.

Repeating nothing it's the first time I posted that, you're the one who keeps repeating the same stuff month after month after month.

And my "claim" is backed up by FACTS (re: the lowly Pirates I intentionally picked out to show how they could afford a higher payroll).

You're reality (salary cap/floor) has ZERO chance of happen, just as he hasn't happened since the days of Marvin Miller.

The MLBPA will never accept a salary cap, the lowly franchise owners will (likely) never accept a payroll floor.

But keep posting it if it makes you feel better.

Ultimately, as I think every other professional sport has shown, some salary cap/floor has to happen in MLB.

And the players, overall, can win even if the structure means that superstar players and their agents have to lose somewhat.

It should be the rank and file of the MLBPA, who can't afford to lose the money they would stand to make from multiple years of their short playing careers who should decide this in favor of a salary cap/floor system - with the owners guaranteeing that total player salaries increase by X% per year over the period of the CBA - which ends up benefitting them directly.

You can post that till you're blue in the face matt, people have been saying the same thing for decades.

One of the main things M. Miller installed in players was they should "NEVER, EVER" accept a salary cap.

This mantra has been passed down from veterans to rookies the day they join the union.

That resolve has NEVER been broken.

I'd like it to happen, so you you..............but it won't.

Best I can see is a cap on deferred money plus some smaller issues.

And while you mention players missing out on some earning potential let's not forget the billions (National TV, Tickets sales, local TV, concessions, parking, ect...) owners will be losing out on too.

Both sides have too much to lose, I've been of the opinion the "lockout" won't last too long....I hope I'm right.

The players shouldn't agree to a cap until the owners prove a need for one. They aren't willing to do that. I wonder why?

It's just business. MLB quit being a game long ago. As is nearly everything in our capitalistic economy, it's all about money, on both sides.
MLB revenues, viewership, salaries continue to grow, year over year. Neither side is going to mess with that in a substantial way.

cardstatman wrote: ↑20 Feb 2026 22:52 pm I don't understand how a salary cap fixes anything for Cleveland.

Their revenue remains the same and they say they can only spend $100M on payroll now.

The answer is more revenue sharing. If the revenue was more equal, then the salary cap would not be necessary.

A salary cap just forces the Yankees/Dodgers/Cubs owners to pocket a lot of money or invest huge dollars in something other than payroll. The Yankees and Cubs owners are already voluntarily doing just that.

It doesn't.
The ONLY solution is for courts (or congress) to rake away MLB's anti-trust exemption - which they have already admitted is blatantly illegal.
That alone fixes baseball.
Nothing else will or can.