STLtoday.com

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?

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 12:28 pm

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?

If, in addition to a salary cap and floor, the owners guarantee that total player salaries will increase by X% per year over the period of the CBA, why would the players need to know more than that?

Total player salaries were $5.28 billion in 2025 (per Cot's).

If we start from that number and the owners agree to guaranteed, let's say, a 4% increase per year for 5 years:

2027 - $5.49 billion ($260 million cap/$130 million floor)
2028 - $5.71 billion ($270 million cap/$135 million floor)
2029 - $5.94 billion ($280 million cap/$140 million floor)
2030 - $6.18 billion ($290 million cap/$145 million floor)
2031 - $6.42 billion ($300 million cap/$150 million floor)

Why would any more information be necessary?

alw80 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 12:32 pm

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 12:28 pm

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?

If, in addition to a salary cap and floor, the owners guarantee that total player salaries will increase by X% per year over the period of the CBA, why would the players need to know more than that?

Total player salaries were $5.28 billion in 2025 (per Cot's).

If we start from that number and the owners agree to guaranteed, let's say, a 4% increase per year for 5 years:

2027 - $5.49 billion ($260 million cap/$130 million floor)
2028 - $5.71 billion ($270 million cap/$135 million floor)
2029 - $5.94 billion ($280 million cap/$140 million floor)
2030 - $6.18 billion ($290 million cap/$145 million floor)
2031 - $6.42 billion ($300 million cap/$150 million floor)

Why would any more information be necessary?

Because owners are crying poor and want to limit what the players can make but they aren't willing to prove how poor they are, the players are just supposed to take their word for it. How are you supposed to negotiate in good faith when one side isn't willing to be honest?

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 12:39 pm

alw80 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 12:32 pm

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 12:28 pm

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?

If, in addition to a salary cap and floor, the owners guarantee that total player salaries will increase by X% per year over the period of the CBA, why would the players need to know more than that?

Total player salaries were $5.28 billion in 2025 (per Cot's).

If we start from that number and the owners agree to guaranteed, let's say, a 4% increase per year for 5 years:

2027 - $5.49 billion ($260 million cap/$130 million floor)
2028 - $5.71 billion ($270 million cap/$135 million floor)
2029 - $5.94 billion ($280 million cap/$140 million floor)
2030 - $6.18 billion ($290 million cap/$145 million floor)
2031 - $6.42 billion ($300 million cap/$150 million floor)

Why would any more information be necessary?

Because owners are crying poor and want to limit what the players can make but they aren't willing to prove how poor they are, the players are just supposed to take their word for it. How are you supposed to negotiate in good faith when one side isn't willing to be honest?

In my proposal, the players are guaranteed that they are going to get a defined increase in pay going to the players. That's what should matter to them.

Even if the owners "opened their books" the players wouldn't believe them unless they told them what the players wanted to hear. So that whole idea is just a dead end.

alw80 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 12:44 pm

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 12:39 pm

alw80 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 12:32 pm

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 12:28 pm

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?

If, in addition to a salary cap and floor, the owners guarantee that total player salaries will increase by X% per year over the period of the CBA, why would the players need to know more than that?

Total player salaries were $5.28 billion in 2025 (per Cot's).

If we start from that number and the owners agree to guaranteed, let's say, a 4% increase per year for 5 years:

2027 - $5.49 billion ($260 million cap/$130 million floor)
2028 - $5.71 billion ($270 million cap/$135 million floor)
2029 - $5.94 billion ($280 million cap/$140 million floor)
2030 - $6.18 billion ($290 million cap/$145 million floor)
2031 - $6.42 billion ($300 million cap/$150 million floor)

Why would any more information be necessary?

Because owners are crying poor and want to limit what the players can make but they aren't willing to prove how poor they are, the players are just supposed to take their word for it. How are you supposed to negotiate in good faith when one side isn't willing to be honest?

In my proposal, the players are guaranteed that they are going to get a defined increase in pay going to the players. That's what should matter to them.

Even if the owners "opened their books" the players wouldn't believe them unless they told them what the players wanted to hear. So that whole idea is just a dead end.

Theres no reason for the players to agree to that. The owners need to be better at running their business.

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.

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 12:49 pm

alw80 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 12:44 pm

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 12:39 pm

alw80 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 12:32 pm

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 12:28 pm

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

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?

If, in addition to a salary cap and floor, the owners guarantee that total player salaries will increase by X% per year over the period of the CBA, why would the players need to know more than that?

Total player salaries were $5.28 billion in 2025 (per Cot's).

If we start from that number and the owners agree to guaranteed, let's say, a 4% increase per year for 5 years:

2027 - $5.49 billion ($260 million cap/$130 million floor)
2028 - $5.71 billion ($270 million cap/$135 million floor)
2029 - $5.94 billion ($280 million cap/$140 million floor)
2030 - $6.18 billion ($290 million cap/$145 million floor)
2031 - $6.42 billion ($300 million cap/$150 million floor)

Why would any more information be necessary?

Because owners are crying poor and want to limit what the players can make but they aren't willing to prove how poor they are, the players are just supposed to take their word for it. How are you supposed to negotiate in good faith when one side isn't willing to be honest?

In my proposal, the players are guaranteed that they are going to get a defined increase in pay going to the players. That's what should matter to them.

Even if the owners "opened their books" the players wouldn't believe them unless they told them what the players wanted to hear. So that whole idea is just a dead end.

Theres no reason for the players to agree to that. The owners need to be better at running their business.

Why should/would the players NOT agree to a framework that guarantees them more money - and in particular more money likely going to the majority of players who are not superstars?

The owners could include a significant increase in the ML minimum, a framework that enables more money to go to players earlier in their careers, etc.

If the owners are going to get a cap/floor system, they are going to have to win over the majority of the MLBPA to it, and to do so they need to target their proposal to benefit those players who aren't at the top of the pyramid now.

alw80 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 13:06 pm

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 12:49 pm

alw80 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 12:44 pm

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 12:39 pm

alw80 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 12:32 pm

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 12:28 pm

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

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?

If, in addition to a salary cap and floor, the owners guarantee that total player salaries will increase by X% per year over the period of the CBA, why would the players need to know more than that?

Total player salaries were $5.28 billion in 2025 (per Cot's).

If we start from that number and the owners agree to guaranteed, let's say, a 4% increase per year for 5 years:

2027 - $5.49 billion ($260 million cap/$130 million floor)
2028 - $5.71 billion ($270 million cap/$135 million floor)
2029 - $5.94 billion ($280 million cap/$140 million floor)
2030 - $6.18 billion ($290 million cap/$145 million floor)
2031 - $6.42 billion ($300 million cap/$150 million floor)

Why would any more information be necessary?

Because owners are crying poor and want to limit what the players can make but they aren't willing to prove how poor they are, the players are just supposed to take their word for it. How are you supposed to negotiate in good faith when one side isn't willing to be honest?

In my proposal, the players are guaranteed that they are going to get a defined increase in pay going to the players. That's what should matter to them.

Even if the owners "opened their books" the players wouldn't believe them unless they told them what the players wanted to hear. So that whole idea is just a dead end.

Theres no reason for the players to agree to that. The owners need to be better at running their business.

Why should/would the players NOT agree to a framework that guarantees them more money - and in particular more money likely going to the majority of players who are not superstars?

The owners could include a significant increase in the ML minimum, a framework that enables more money to go to players earlier in their careers, etc.

If the owners are going to get a cap/floor system, they are going to have to win over the majority of the MLBPA to it, and to do so they need to target their proposal to benefit those players who aren't at the top of the pyramid now.

The players don't need a cap, agreeing to one is bailing out the owners. The owners should have done some due diligence before making such a bad investment. Caveat emptor.

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 13:16 pm

alw80 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 13:06 pm

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 12:49 pm

alw80 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 12:44 pm

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 12:39 pm

alw80 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 12:32 pm

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 12:28 pm

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

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?

If, in addition to a salary cap and floor, the owners guarantee that total player salaries will increase by X% per year over the period of the CBA, why would the players need to know more than that?

Total player salaries were $5.28 billion in 2025 (per Cot's).

If we start from that number and the owners agree to guaranteed, let's say, a 4% increase per year for 5 years:

2027 - $5.49 billion ($260 million cap/$130 million floor)
2028 - $5.71 billion ($270 million cap/$135 million floor)
2029 - $5.94 billion ($280 million cap/$140 million floor)
2030 - $6.18 billion ($290 million cap/$145 million floor)
2031 - $6.42 billion ($300 million cap/$150 million floor)

Why would any more information be necessary?

Because owners are crying poor and want to limit what the players can make but they aren't willing to prove how poor they are, the players are just supposed to take their word for it. How are you supposed to negotiate in good faith when one side isn't willing to be honest?

In my proposal, the players are guaranteed that they are going to get a defined increase in pay going to the players. That's what should matter to them.

Even if the owners "opened their books" the players wouldn't believe them unless they told them what the players wanted to hear. So that whole idea is just a dead end.

Theres no reason for the players to agree to that. The owners need to be better at running their business.

Why should/would the players NOT agree to a framework that guarantees them more money - and in particular more money likely going to the majority of players who are not superstars?

The owners could include a significant increase in the ML minimum, a framework that enables more money to go to players earlier in their careers, etc.

If the owners are going to get a cap/floor system, they are going to have to win over the majority of the MLBPA to it, and to do so they need to target their proposal to benefit those players who aren't at the top of the pyramid now.

The players don't need a cap, agreeing to one is bailing out the owners. The owners should have done some due diligence before making such a bad investment. Caveat emptor.

But the players do need a healthy MLB environment. And that would be one in which all teams could be relevant more often. That's what a cap and floor system should do, in this case without hurting the players' bottom line.

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.

Jatalk wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 09:09 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 08:30 am

Jatalk wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 08:06 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 07:22 am

Jatalk wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 06:57 am Secondly if they are that strapped on the revenue side then it’s clear the Cleveland market can’t support a team. Sell or move the franchise.

There aren't 30 markets, or 30 owners in those markets, who can/will compete monetarily with the likes of the Dodgers, Yankees, etc. without imposed restraints.

True but that’s not my main point. If Cleveland can only afford a $95 million payroll that market can’t support never support a franchise. Time to face facts some of these markets cannot support teams. Either that are owners a not being honest. Understand this only applies to the bottom few teams.

Again I am for salary restraints but not for propping up losing markets.

Then what? Contract MLB down to 24, 20, etc. teams that can exist in large enough markets (if you eliminate Cleveland or Cincinnati, does all of Ohio consolidate around one team? if you eliminate one of Miami or Tampa Bay, does all of Florida consolidate around the other?) in order to support larger payrolls?

Is it good for the players to eliminate 1/6 or 1/3 of the MLB roster positions?

You move or sell them to better markets. You don’t have to reduce the number of teams. We are probably talking about 3-5 franchises. Simple to find better markets. I have no concerns about Ohio or Florida. You don’t just deserve a team.

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.

TheJackBurton wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 15:55 pm

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.

a floor ensures they spend it.

PacNWCardsfan2 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 10:56 am 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.

45s wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 15:58 pm

TheJackBurton wrote: ↑21 Feb 2026 15:55 pm

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.

a floor ensures they spend it.

Whether it is wisely or not…

Great plan..