STLtoday.com

makesnosense wrote: ↑24 Feb 2026 06:31 am

TheJackBurton wrote: ↑23 Feb 2026 21:08 pm

makesnosense wrote: ↑23 Feb 2026 18:06 pm

TheJackBurton wrote: ↑23 Feb 2026 15:15 pm

Red7 wrote: ↑23 Feb 2026 12:25 pm First, eliminate the CBT. Cap ceiling $400 million. Cap floor $200 million. Teams can sell whatever cap space they have to teams wanting to exceed the cap. Example: Reds have met the $200 million floor. They can sell the remaining $200 million. There would be no limit to the amount a team could purchase or how many teams they can buy cap space from. That should make everyone happy.

how does that solve anything? You are forcing teams to a floor they can't afford then allowing them to sell cap space so teams can exceed it?

No that's not how any of this work.

The whole idea of the floor is for it to be an amount a team should easily meet, 200 million isn't it.

If 200 is decided on as the floor and you can't meet it, sell the team.

What? Even if a Steve Cohen were to come in and purchase the team he would maybe be able to go crazy for a few years but that's it. Market share, economics, and size are what they are, they can't magically charge 200 dollars more a seat, 30 dollars more for a beer, 60 dollars more for parking and sign a 200 million dollar a year tv contract. They also can't magically get 10 million more fans and larger marketing dollars and increase tv market share. They are limited by their market, they can't pump hundreds of millions into a team that they can never recoup, that's completely idiotic.

Then move the team to a market that can. All i'm saying if the floor is agreed on then you need to meet these requirements.

Cardinals1964 wrote: ↑23 Feb 2026 23:30 pm

TheJackBurton wrote: ↑23 Feb 2026 21:10 pm

Melville wrote: ↑23 Feb 2026 19:54 pm

TheJackBurton wrote: ↑23 Feb 2026 15:15 pm

Red7 wrote: ↑23 Feb 2026 12:25 pm First, eliminate the CBT. Cap ceiling $400 million. Cap floor $200 million. Teams can sell whatever cap space they have to teams wanting to exceed the cap. Example: Reds have met the $200 million floor. They can sell the remaining $200 million. There would be no limit to the amount a team could purchase or how many teams they can buy cap space from. That should make everyone happy.

how does that solve anything? You are forcing teams to a floor they can't afford then allowing them to sell cap space so teams can exceed it?

No that's not how any of this work.

The whole idea of the floor is for it to be an amount a team should easily meet, 200 million isn't it.

And exactly how would the next owner do so, if the revenue and operating costs make the math unchanged and equally impossible?

By setting a floor that every team can meet. Teams will have to open their books and give up the magical accounting and be honest with their revenue. Revenue sharing would have to be spread out equally its as simple as that.

True. Owners have to open books, shorten rule 5 time, shorten arbitration years and lower free agency time served.

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑24 Feb 2026 03:33 am

Red7 wrote: ↑24 Feb 2026 00:13 am The problem is, most of you have fallen for the owners smokescreen of competitive balance, when in actuality, they just want to keep more of the almost $13 billion in revenue baseball rakes in. The beauty of my proposal is two-fold: one, it will expose the lower end team’s fraudulent claims when they sell their surplus cap space and two, it will force baseball into a revenue sharing mode they’ve never experienced before. By being able to sell their surplus cap space, they’ll make enough money to spend to the cap. Again, don’t be fooled by the competitive balance [nonsense]. It’s a money grab by the owners.

It's much easier to fix that.

The owners just guarantee in the CBA that the total amount of payroll going to the players will increase by X% (say 3%) per year for the duration of the CBA.

As noted, total pay rose from $5.16 billion to $5.28 billion (2.3%) from 2024 to 2025.

Assuming it goes to about $5.4 billion in 2026, then guarantee:

2027 - $5.56 billion
2028 - $5.73 billion
2029 - $5.90 billion
2030 - $6.08 billion
etc.

Along with a simple salary cap ($250-$275 million) and floor ($125-$137.5 million).

makesnosense wrote: ↑24 Feb 2026 06:31 am

TheJackBurton wrote: ↑23 Feb 2026 21:08 pm

makesnosense wrote: ↑23 Feb 2026 18:06 pm

TheJackBurton wrote: ↑23 Feb 2026 15:15 pm

Red7 wrote: ↑23 Feb 2026 12:25 pm First, eliminate the CBT. Cap ceiling $400 million. Cap floor $200 million. Teams can sell whatever cap space they have to teams wanting to exceed the cap. Example: Reds have met the $200 million floor. They can sell the remaining $200 million. There would be no limit to the amount a team could purchase or how many teams they can buy cap space from. That should make everyone happy.

how does that solve anything? You are forcing teams to a floor they can't afford then allowing them to sell cap space so teams can exceed it?

No that's not how any of this work.

The whole idea of the floor is for it to be an amount a team should easily meet, 200 million isn't it.

If 200 is decided on as the floor and you can't meet it, sell the team.

What? Even if a Steve Cohen were to come in and purchase the team he would maybe be able to go crazy for a few years but that's it. Market share, economics, and size are what they are, they can't magically charge 200 dollars more a seat, 30 dollars more for a beer, 60 dollars more for parking and sign a 200 million dollar a year tv contract. They also can't magically get 10 million more fans and larger marketing dollars and increase tv market share. They are limited by their market, they can't pump hundreds of millions into a team that they can never recoup, that's completely idiotic.

Then move the team to a market that can. All i'm saying if the floor is agreed on then you need to meet these requirements.

TheJackBurton wrote: ↑24 Feb 2026 09:23 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑24 Feb 2026 03:33 am

Red7 wrote: ↑24 Feb 2026 00:13 am The problem is, most of you have fallen for the owners smokescreen of competitive balance, when in actuality, they just want to keep more of the almost $13 billion in revenue baseball rakes in. The beauty of my proposal is two-fold: one, it will expose the lower end team’s fraudulent claims when they sell their surplus cap space and two, it will force baseball into a revenue sharing mode they’ve never experienced before. By being able to sell their surplus cap space, they’ll make enough money to spend to the cap. Again, don’t be fooled by the competitive balance [nonsense]. It’s a money grab by the owners.

It's much easier to fix that.

The owners just guarantee in the CBA that the total amount of payroll going to the players will increase by X% (say 3%) per year for the duration of the CBA.

As noted, total pay rose from $5.16 billion to $5.28 billion (2.3%) from 2024 to 2025.

Assuming it goes to about $5.4 billion in 2026, then guarantee:

2027 - $5.56 billion
2028 - $5.73 billion
2029 - $5.90 billion
2030 - $6.08 billion
etc.

Along with a simple salary cap ($250-$275 million) and floor ($125-$137.5 million).

It doesn't have to be a guaranteed amount. In the other leagues the cap and floor rise along with revenues. When one succeeds the other does as well.

Red7 wrote: ↑23 Feb 2026 12:25 pm First, eliminate the CBT. Cap ceiling $400 million. Cap floor $200 million. Teams can sell whatever cap space they have to teams wanting to exceed the cap. Example: Reds have met the $200 million floor. They can sell the remaining $200 million. There would be no limit to the amount a team could purchase or how many teams they can buy cap space from. That should make everyone happy.

PacNWCardsfan2 wrote: ↑24 Feb 2026 10:00 am The delusion is that some think the owners worry over being competitive.
This is a business first and foremost. The owner want to make a profit, that what businesses do.

makesnosense wrote: ↑24 Feb 2026 06:31 am

TheJackBurton wrote: ↑23 Feb 2026 21:08 pm

makesnosense wrote: ↑23 Feb 2026 18:06 pm

TheJackBurton wrote: ↑23 Feb 2026 15:15 pm

Red7 wrote: ↑23 Feb 2026 12:25 pm First, eliminate the CBT. Cap ceiling $400 million. Cap floor $200 million. Teams can sell whatever cap space they have to teams wanting to exceed the cap. Example: Reds have met the $200 million floor. They can sell the remaining $200 million. There would be no limit to the amount a team could purchase or how many teams they can buy cap space from. That should make everyone happy.

how does that solve anything? You are forcing teams to a floor they can't afford then allowing them to sell cap space so teams can exceed it?

No that's not how any of this work.

The whole idea of the floor is for it to be an amount a team should easily meet, 200 million isn't it.

If 200 is decided on as the floor and you can't meet it, sell the team.

What? Even if a Steve Cohen were to come in and purchase the team he would maybe be able to go crazy for a few years but that's it. Market share, economics, and size are what they are, they can't magically charge 200 dollars more a seat, 30 dollars more for a beer, 60 dollars more for parking and sign a 200 million dollar a year tv contract. They also can't magically get 10 million more fans and larger marketing dollars and increase tv market share. They are limited by their market, they can't pump hundreds of millions into a team that they can never recoup, that's completely idiotic.

Then move the team to a market that can. All i'm saying if the floor is agreed on then you need to meet these requirements.

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑24 Feb 2026 09:29 am

TheJackBurton wrote: ↑24 Feb 2026 09:23 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑24 Feb 2026 03:33 am

Red7 wrote: ↑24 Feb 2026 00:13 am The problem is, most of you have fallen for the owners smokescreen of competitive balance, when in actuality, they just want to keep more of the almost $13 billion in revenue baseball rakes in. The beauty of my proposal is two-fold: one, it will expose the lower end team’s fraudulent claims when they sell their surplus cap space and two, it will force baseball into a revenue sharing mode they’ve never experienced before. By being able to sell their surplus cap space, they’ll make enough money to spend to the cap. Again, don’t be fooled by the competitive balance [nonsense]. It’s a money grab by the owners.

It's much easier to fix that.

The owners just guarantee in the CBA that the total amount of payroll going to the players will increase by X% (say 3%) per year for the duration of the CBA.

As noted, total pay rose from $5.16 billion to $5.28 billion (2.3%) from 2024 to 2025.

Assuming it goes to about $5.4 billion in 2026, then guarantee:

2027 - $5.56 billion
2028 - $5.73 billion
2029 - $5.90 billion
2030 - $6.08 billion
etc.

Along with a simple salary cap ($250-$275 million) and floor ($125-$137.5 million).

It doesn't have to be a guaranteed amount. In the other leagues the cap and floor rise along with revenues. When one succeeds the other does as well.

I think a simple guaranteed amount is more direct. The owners and players could argue endlessly over "opening the books" and what constitutes "revenue" and what does not.

RamFan08NY wrote: ↑24 Feb 2026 10:36 am

makesnosense wrote: ↑24 Feb 2026 06:31 am

TheJackBurton wrote: ↑23 Feb 2026 21:08 pm

makesnosense wrote: ↑23 Feb 2026 18:06 pm

TheJackBurton wrote: ↑23 Feb 2026 15:15 pm

Red7 wrote: ↑23 Feb 2026 12:25 pm First, eliminate the CBT. Cap ceiling $400 million. Cap floor $200 million. Teams can sell whatever cap space they have to teams wanting to exceed the cap. Example: Reds have met the $200 million floor. They can sell the remaining $200 million. There would be no limit to the amount a team could purchase or how many teams they can buy cap space from. That should make everyone happy.

how does that solve anything? You are forcing teams to a floor they can't afford then allowing them to sell cap space so teams can exceed it?

No that's not how any of this work.

The whole idea of the floor is for it to be an amount a team should easily meet, 200 million isn't it.

If 200 is decided on as the floor and you can't meet it, sell the team.

What? Even if a Steve Cohen were to come in and purchase the team he would maybe be able to go crazy for a few years but that's it. Market share, economics, and size are what they are, they can't magically charge 200 dollars more a seat, 30 dollars more for a beer, 60 dollars more for parking and sign a 200 million dollar a year tv contract. They also can't magically get 10 million more fans and larger marketing dollars and increase tv market share. They are limited by their market, they can't pump hundreds of millions into a team that they can never recoup, that's completely idiotic.

Then move the team to a market that can. All i'm saying if the floor is agreed on then you need to meet these requirements.

People think that moving a team is as easy as moving to a new house. Do you understand the cost of building a new stadium?
Let say the Rays are "forced" to move to Nashville. Nashville spends 2 years building a stadium. After 2 more years they're not drawing enough to support a team. Are they told they have to pack up and try a different city?

There is always going to be small market, under achieving teams. Telling them to "find a new city" is ridiculous. They need to find a way to implement a more level playing field.

As it has been pointed out, it starts with revenue sharing and then that more supports a path for a floor, and cieling cap.

Bubble4427 wrote: ↑23 Feb 2026 13:30 pm I've posted this before but a few ideas to get things started....
Ok, here goes my proposed fixes

1. Hard cap and Hard floor. Contract deferrals are counted against the cap during the contract length (you can’t use deferrals to get around the cap)
2. I suggest 280-300 million cap and a 150 million floor. I think the floor should raise twice as much as the cap does until the disparity between the two is much less
3. EVERY Sport uses a salary cap….baseball is the only sport not to have one and baseball is the sport that is not growing as quickly as the other major sports. When I say growing, I am saying team worth evaluations….
4. Revenue sharing is an absolute must.
5 if a team is in the bottom 3 of payroll 3 years in a row…they should lose premium draft picks as well as a large percentage of their revenue share until they are no longer in the “bottom 3”
6. Every player drafted gets a three year entry level deal. After that, they get 2 years of arbitration and then they become a FA. In my model, the 3 year deals start whether they are in the minors or not. Sounds radical…but the other sports do it that way.

For those that feel that salary caps are un-American…..give me a break. Baseball is not like regular business. It never has been. There is no one that has worked at IBM for 15 years and then can use the money they made and buy IBM. Arod made 750 million dollars during his playing career. When he retired, he could have bought 40-50% ownership in at least 5 of the franchises.

Baseball is broken. It has been for years.
Every sport has a variation of a hard cap except baseball….and every sport is healthier than baseball….hmmmm.

Strummer Jones wrote: ↑24 Feb 2026 11:58 am

Bubble4427 wrote: ↑23 Feb 2026 13:30 pm I've posted this before but a few ideas to get things started....
Ok, here goes my proposed fixes

1. Hard cap and Hard floor. Contract deferrals are counted against the cap during the contract length (you can’t use deferrals to get around the cap)
2. I suggest 280-300 million cap and a 150 million floor. I think the floor should raise twice as much as the cap does until the disparity between the two is much less
3. EVERY Sport uses a salary cap….baseball is the only sport not to have one and baseball is the sport that is not growing as quickly as the other major sports. When I say growing, I am saying team worth evaluations….
4. Revenue sharing is an absolute must.
5 if a team is in the bottom 3 of payroll 3 years in a row…they should lose premium draft picks as well as a large percentage of their revenue share until they are no longer in the “bottom 3”
6. Every player drafted gets a three year entry level deal. After that, they get 2 years of arbitration and then they become a FA. In my model, the 3 year deals start whether they are in the minors or not. Sounds radical…but the other sports do it that way.

For those that feel that salary caps are un-American…..give me a break. Baseball is not like regular business. It never has been. There is no one that has worked at IBM for 15 years and then can use the money they made and buy IBM. Arod made 750 million dollars during his playing career. When he retired, he could have bought 40-50% ownership in at least 5 of the franchises.

Baseball is broken. It has been for years.
Every sport has a variation of a hard cap except baseball….and every sport is healthier than baseball….hmmmm.

My thoughts:

-I like #1. Wouldn't change a thing.
-I like the idea behind #2, but I don't like the numbers. I think if you see a disparity that big, then you're not really fixing anything. I think the numbers shouldn't be that far apart. Let's say...180 million and 240 million?
-I like #3 & #4 as is listed here. Though I think I would like some stipulations on revenue sharing. I'm not quite bright enough on the economics to give you specifics, though. If I had to put it simply, I wonder if revenue sharing working the same as unemployment would work? "Hey, we'll share the wealth, but only for so long."
-Also like #5...but I think I want it to be more constrictive. Let's say bottom 5.
6. Can't get on board this one. I know basketball and football *technically* have developmental leagues, but not like baseball does. When was the last time any top talent in the league spent time in the G-League or on some team's practice squad? That's not to say it doesn't happen, but it's pretty uncommon. Now apply that to MLB. When was the last time any top talent did some time in A/AA/AAA? See what I mean? I think a rule like that would kill the minor leagues, and that's going to cost player's jobs, as well as everyday folks' jobs.

I like a lot of this, but #6 is a hard no for me. I would support that basic structure if it only started once in the majors. I would play around with it. Honest question, do guys on the 40-man, but not on the 26-man make league minimum? Because I do have some ideas around the rookie contracts, etc.