STLtoday.com

alw80 wrote: ↑27 Feb 2026 09:14 am

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

Thoughts if this became a reality?”

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

rockondlouie wrote: ↑27 Feb 2026 11:03 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑27 Feb 2026 10:45 am

rockondlouie wrote: ↑27 Feb 2026 10:39 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑27 Feb 2026 10:25 am

rockondlouie wrote: ↑27 Feb 2026 10:16 am

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

Thoughts if this became a reality?”

Dodgers/Mets would have to trade a third of their team w/nothing but prospects coming back!

That'll never fly w/the MLBPA.

Even if they did agree to a cap (they won't), they'd want it at $400M.

Per Cot's, the Dodgers have salary commitments of $340 million for 2027, but only $263 million in 2028.

The Mets are $254 million in 2027 and $170 million in 2028.

The Yankees are $209 million in 2027 and $151 million in 2028.

The Phillies are $189 million in 2027 and $137 million in 2028.

The Blue Jays are $205 million in 2027 and $185 million in 2028.

So at $260 million, you probably only need to "grandfather" the Dodgers in 2027 and bump the cap a bit in 2028.

Yeah, the Mets in 2027 and the Dodgers in 2028 might each have to move one sizeable contract each in order to be able to fill out their rosters with ML minimum players, but it would be doable.

If 27-28 owners want it, the Dodgers, Mets, and maybe Yankees are just going to have to accept it.

Fangraphs is way off (they're not discounting deferred money, something I think w/be bargained way down to stop the Dodgers). tT

They have the Dodgers at $395M, Mets at $364M.

Doesn't matter though.

The MLBPA will never, ever go for a salary cap no matter how badly owners and we fan want to see one.

For 2026, the Dodgers Competitive Balance Payroll number is $411 million (which distributes back in deferred money) vs. an actual payroll of $318 million. The Mets Competitive Balance Payroll number is $378 million vs an actual payroll of $358 million.

I'm talking actual payrolls. The Dodgers will have deal with all of their deferred money in the future vs. whatever the cap is in the 2030s (probably $300+ million by that point).

And make changes which sweeten the pot enough for the "have not" players so they can earn a more justifiable amount of money in their early years (and/or their short careers) and I think the owners could get to 51%.

Until they change their stance that's been in place since 1966 it won't matter since the MLBPA won't accept a salary cap.

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

shebashab wrote: ↑01 Mar 2026 06:21 am

rockondlouie wrote: ↑27 Feb 2026 11:03 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑27 Feb 2026 10:45 am

rockondlouie wrote: ↑27 Feb 2026 10:39 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑27 Feb 2026 10:25 am

rockondlouie wrote: ↑27 Feb 2026 10:16 am

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

Thoughts if this became a reality?”

Dodgers/Mets would have to trade a third of their team w/nothing but prospects coming back!

That'll never fly w/the MLBPA.

Even if they did agree to a cap (they won't), they'd want it at $400M.

Per Cot's, the Dodgers have salary commitments of $340 million for 2027, but only $263 million in 2028.

The Mets are $254 million in 2027 and $170 million in 2028.

The Yankees are $209 million in 2027 and $151 million in 2028.

The Phillies are $189 million in 2027 and $137 million in 2028.

The Blue Jays are $205 million in 2027 and $185 million in 2028.

So at $260 million, you probably only need to "grandfather" the Dodgers in 2027 and bump the cap a bit in 2028.

Yeah, the Mets in 2027 and the Dodgers in 2028 might each have to move one sizeable contract each in order to be able to fill out their rosters with ML minimum players, but it would be doable.

If 27-28 owners want it, the Dodgers, Mets, and maybe Yankees are just going to have to accept it.

Fangraphs is way off (they're not discounting deferred money, something I think w/be bargained way down to stop the Dodgers). tT

They have the Dodgers at $395M, Mets at $364M.

Doesn't matter though.

The MLBPA will never, ever go for a salary cap no matter how badly owners and we fan want to see one.

For 2026, the Dodgers Competitive Balance Payroll number is $411 million (which distributes back in deferred money) vs. an actual payroll of $318 million. The Mets Competitive Balance Payroll number is $378 million vs an actual payroll of $358 million.

I'm talking actual payrolls. The Dodgers will have deal with all of their deferred money in the future vs. whatever the cap is in the 2030s (probably $300+ million by that point).

And make changes which sweeten the pot enough for the "have not" players so they can earn a more justifiable amount of money in their early years (and/or their short careers) and I think the owners could get to 51%.

Until they change their stance that's been in place since 1966 it won't matter since the MLBPA won't accept a salary cap.

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

This is why there will be no baseball in '27. They will accept it but not without a lengthy standoff

Talkin' Baseball wrote: ↑01 Mar 2026 11:02 am

shebashab wrote: ↑01 Mar 2026 06:21 am

rockondlouie wrote: ↑27 Feb 2026 11:03 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑27 Feb 2026 10:45 am

rockondlouie wrote: ↑27 Feb 2026 10:39 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑27 Feb 2026 10:25 am

rockondlouie wrote: ↑27 Feb 2026 10:16 am

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

Thoughts if this became a reality?”

Dodgers/Mets would have to trade a third of their team w/nothing but prospects coming back!

That'll never fly w/the MLBPA.

Even if they did agree to a cap (they won't), they'd want it at $400M.

Per Cot's, the Dodgers have salary commitments of $340 million for 2027, but only $263 million in 2028.

The Mets are $254 million in 2027 and $170 million in 2028.

The Yankees are $209 million in 2027 and $151 million in 2028.

The Phillies are $189 million in 2027 and $137 million in 2028.

The Blue Jays are $205 million in 2027 and $185 million in 2028.

So at $260 million, you probably only need to "grandfather" the Dodgers in 2027 and bump the cap a bit in 2028.

Yeah, the Mets in 2027 and the Dodgers in 2028 might each have to move one sizeable contract each in order to be able to fill out their rosters with ML minimum players, but it would be doable.

If 27-28 owners want it, the Dodgers, Mets, and maybe Yankees are just going to have to accept it.

Fangraphs is way off (they're not discounting deferred money, something I think w/be bargained way down to stop the Dodgers). tT

They have the Dodgers at $395M, Mets at $364M.

Doesn't matter though.

The MLBPA will never, ever go for a salary cap no matter how badly owners and we fan want to see one.

For 2026, the Dodgers Competitive Balance Payroll number is $411 million (which distributes back in deferred money) vs. an actual payroll of $318 million. The Mets Competitive Balance Payroll number is $378 million vs an actual payroll of $358 million.

I'm talking actual payrolls. The Dodgers will have deal with all of their deferred money in the future vs. whatever the cap is in the 2030s (probably $300+ million by that point).

And make changes which sweeten the pot enough for the "have not" players so they can earn a more justifiable amount of money in their early years (and/or their short careers) and I think the owners could get to 51%.

Until they change their stance that's been in place since 1966 it won't matter since the MLBPA won't accept a salary cap.

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

This is why there will be no baseball in '27. They will accept it but not without a lengthy standoff

Yeah, the owners can outlast them (if they choose to). The difference is, the team owners OWN a yacht. The players are making payments on their yacht.

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑28 Feb 2026 12:01 pm

rockondlouie wrote: ↑28 Feb 2026 10:07 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑28 Feb 2026 08:40 am

rockondlouie wrote: ↑28 Feb 2026 08:24 am Oh the "number" (ie: $12,100,000,000) matters because it shows that owners are reaping massive profits to go along w/their obscene capital appreciation.

Well, not necessarily. There are a lot more in terms of expenses that go into running an entire baseball franchise than just MLB player salaries.

Until you pin that unknown down, you don't know how much owners are making in profits.

I think almost all teams operate to make a profit, but I don't know that that profit margin is "massive."

It also shows that they can indeed afford to pay these huge salaries that translate into large payrolls while still making a tidy yearly profit and again, watching their franchise value soar into the multi-billions.

The only thing stopping those owners who want a salary cap is the will to spend the money.

Again, it really doesn't matter what fans, players, etc. want to believe to owners can do, if they just want to.

What matters is what the 30 ownership groups have shown they will do.

And more and more ownership groups into the mid-market teams, including the Cardinals, are showing that they feel that they can only find success by being much smarter and target by how they spend money. The purse strings of the biggest market teams are getting looser, but the purse strings of the 15-20 small to mid market teams are going in the direction of getting tighter.

Again I'd love to see a cap/floor......again it's never happening since neither side wants one (players--no cap; poorer owners--no floor)

With enhanced revenue sharing, which we know has to be part of the overall answer, small market owners will have to be able to spend to the floor.

No kidding matt, there's really more expense that goes into running a franchise than just payroll?

Are you really trying to tell a former commercial banker and a man who has built and run his own successful company for over a decade something he likely knows better than you?

Forbes does a fantastic job estimating franchise revenues/profits/valuation so we do indeed have some idea.

I'm glad you said that. I went to Forbes:

https://www.forbes.com/mlb-valuations/l ... verse:true

and added up all of the "Operating Incomes" (which they define as "earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization") and "Revenues" for all teams from their 2025 list.

The total "Operating Income" for all of MLB was $59.5 million and the total "Revenue" was $11.9 billion.

Do you consider $59.5 million in "Operating Income" over $11.9 billion in "Revenue" to be "massive"?????

It matters not what those "small-mid market owners" you speak of wanting your "enhanced" revenue sharing (funny, I've never heard any owner state that) think, even if they did since the larger market owners haven't shown any interest in doing that and would fight it.

Among the owners, a 3/4 majority is needed to affect revenue sharing (there is a paywall NY Times article dated Feb. 17 where that comes from), so that means only 23 owners have to vote in favor.

As an aside, even Steinbrenner has spoken in favor of a salary cap:

https://www.baseballbiographies.com/hal ... er-agrees/

https://nypost.com/2025/11/28/sports/wh ... alary-cap/

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/470 ... enner-says

He reiterated he would "consider supporting a cap only if it's accompanied by a floor," depending on the number.

"Look, there are groups of fans out there in different areas, including my hometown, here in Tampa, that -- and I've addressed this before -- come to spring training games thinking their team has little chance of making the playoffs," Steinbrenner said. "Or at least little chance of making it deep into the playoffs. And those fans would argue that that's not good for baseball as a whole. And, you know, it's a valid argument. Whether it's true or not, it's a valid argument."

ICCFIM2 wrote: ↑01 Mar 2026 19:36 pm

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑28 Feb 2026 12:01 pm

rockondlouie wrote: ↑28 Feb 2026 10:07 am

mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑28 Feb 2026 08:40 am

rockondlouie wrote: ↑28 Feb 2026 08:24 am Oh the "number" (ie: $12,100,000,000) matters because it shows that owners are reaping massive profits to go along w/their obscene capital appreciation.

Well, not necessarily. There are a lot more in terms of expenses that go into running an entire baseball franchise than just MLB player salaries.

Until you pin that unknown down, you don't know how much owners are making in profits.

I think almost all teams operate to make a profit, but I don't know that that profit margin is "massive."

It also shows that they can indeed afford to pay these huge salaries that translate into large payrolls while still making a tidy yearly profit and again, watching their franchise value soar into the multi-billions.

The only thing stopping those owners who want a salary cap is the will to spend the money.

Again, it really doesn't matter what fans, players, etc. want to believe to owners can do, if they just want to.

What matters is what the 30 ownership groups have shown they will do.

And more and more ownership groups into the mid-market teams, including the Cardinals, are showing that they feel that they can only find success by being much smarter and target by how they spend money. The purse strings of the biggest market teams are getting looser, but the purse strings of the 15-20 small to mid market teams are going in the direction of getting tighter.

Again I'd love to see a cap/floor......again it's never happening since neither side wants one (players--no cap; poorer owners--no floor)

With enhanced revenue sharing, which we know has to be part of the overall answer, small market owners will have to be able to spend to the floor.

No kidding matt, there's really more expense that goes into running a franchise than just payroll?

Are you really trying to tell a former commercial banker and a man who has built and run his own successful company for over a decade something he likely knows better than you?

Forbes does a fantastic job estimating franchise revenues/profits/valuation so we do indeed have some idea.

I'm glad you said that. I went to Forbes:

https://www.forbes.com/mlb-valuations/l ... verse:true

and added up all of the "Operating Incomes" (which they define as "earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization") and "Revenues" for all teams from their 2025 list.

The total "Operating Income" for all of MLB was $59.5 million and the total "Revenue" was $11.9 billion.

Do you consider $59.5 million in "Operating Income" over $11.9 billion in "Revenue" to be "massive"?????

It matters not what those "small-mid market owners" you speak of wanting your "enhanced" revenue sharing (funny, I've never heard any owner state that) think, even if they did since the larger market owners haven't shown any interest in doing that and would fight it.

Among the owners, a 3/4 majority is needed to affect revenue sharing (there is a paywall NY Times article dated Feb. 17 where that comes from), so that means only 23 owners have to vote in favor.

As an aside, even Steinbrenner has spoken in favor of a salary cap:

https://www.baseballbiographies.com/hal ... er-agrees/

https://nypost.com/2025/11/28/sports/wh ... alary-cap/

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/470 ... enner-says

He reiterated he would "consider supporting a cap only if it's accompanied by a floor," depending on the number.

"Look, there are groups of fans out there in different areas, including my hometown, here in Tampa, that -- and I've addressed this before -- come to spring training games thinking their team has little chance of making the playoffs," Steinbrenner said. "Or at least little chance of making it deep into the playoffs. And those fans would argue that that's not good for baseball as a whole. And, you know, it's a valid argument. Whether it's true or not, it's a valid argument."

I am jumping into this conversation a bit late. Very complicated topic. If you look at the NFL, NHL and NBA all of their cap systems are set up such that the players receive 50% of total league revenue. Based on the numbers being floated on here, ML revenue is $12B and total payout is approximatley $5.2B which is $800M short of 50% and total operating profits are around $400M excluding the Mets massive loss. The players have never trusted the total ML revenue being reported. Earlier in the the thread Matt you mentioned the proposed floor of $140-160M being a smigeon too high. I tell you that to have any chance at all to achieve a cap, the system is going to have to guarantee the players that $300-400M more per year of salaries go into the pool than currently is in the pool and there is a mechanism to increase that each year similar to the other capped leagues. So I wouldn't focus on any numbers being a smigeon too low...

To your comment about speaking to the 500-600 players that are not at the elite numbers, that is going to be the talking point right, massive amounts of more player salaries in aggregate even with a cap. $400M more increases average salaries by $500K per year. $300M increases them by $385K per year. I would not get too hung up in the details of how that is allocated with your fancy system of performance etc. That is adding a complication to the negotiation that guarantees its failure. This will succeed or fail based on whether or not baseball is willing to put more overall money to salaries which is a benefit overall to the players to enhance competition which everyone hopes will also enhance future revenues, which will also be shared.

I think to achieve that, the cap will have to actually go above $300M a bit because that extra salary will need to come from the big spenders and the floor will need to be around $150-$175M. The other cap leagues have a floor that is around 90% of the cap to ensure the spend. Since this proposal has such a gap between the floor and the cap and the floor, there will need to be a mechanism in place to fix that. Lets say they go up to $5.5B of salary, that is $184M of salary per team on average. If after all the salaries are set by contract when the season starts and then finishes and total payroll is say $150M under, perhaps MLB via tv contract revenue, fees they charge each team can put the $150M into a pool that is then allocated among the players to get the total pool correct.

A solution like this might be attractive enough to the players to take it because of the total increase. But, if the Forbes numbers are anywhere close to being right, it brings the total operating profits of the owners down to zero and that is before paying interest. That either brings the long term health of the league into question if the owners agree to it or if the owners agree to it, it brings into question what are the right numbers to begin wtih...

Despite the massive player opposition to a cap, I think it is doable if the offset is $300-500M of additional salary going into the game each year. But given some of the weaker ownership positions and weaker markets, that is likely to push 5-6 owners out of the game or even weaker markets out of the game. Those are huge hurdles and issues to get over. MLB doesn't seem interested in allowing streaming rights to be handed out to anyone but MLB.com. Presumably that is part of the strategy to manage the weak owner/market issues. We will see. If the owners and players are ever going to agree to this, now is the time.