1 hour ago, pcintelligence said:

They both are at risk of over stating fan interest in a game where seven guys stand around waiting to touch the ball. I would call the player's bluff and lock up the ballparks for a week or three. Life will go on.

Indeed it will. And based on everything that I've read or heard ballparks are going to be locked up for a lot longer than three weeks.

In past is prologue the owners will crack eventually.

4 hours ago, Lip Man 1 said:

60 million divided by how many MLB players is literally peanuts.

Players are not going to agree to have their earning potential capped, you wouldn't in your profession...why should they be any different?

And as the Athletic pointed out this isn't about competitive balance it's about owners wanting the value of their franchises to increase to the level of the NBA and NFL.

Isn’t it more about the revenue share percentage. That way as long as league succeeds players continue to succeed? Put something in if money isn’t spent a broad check goes out to cover. Feels like at least they are having these talks now on the extreme. Baseball is doing so well right now which is great to see.

3 minutes ago, Chisoxfn said:

Isn’t it more about the revenue share percentage. That way as long as league succeeds players continue to succeed? Put something in if money isn’t spent a broad check goes out to cover. Feels like at least they are having these talks now on the extreme. Baseball is doing so well right now which is great to see.

I do get the owner valuation angle too

White Sox making it into every article these days lol

"The league’s proposal, if accepted, would reportedly go into effect beginning in 2027. It reportedly includes a salary floor of $171.2 million, meaning teams such as the Athletics, Chicago White Sox, Cleveland Guardians and Miami Marlins, among others, would have to drastically increase payroll ahead of next season.

The proposed salary cap is reportedly $245.3 million, meaning teams such as the Los Angeles Dodgers, New York Mets and New York Yankees, among others, would have to cut payroll ahead of next year.

The league’s proposal also reportedly includes a 50-50 revenue split between the league and its players, per Rogers, who reported that the salary cap would increase in future years based on league revenue."

yahoo sports

Ken Rosenthal’s article on this from the Athletic today:

“The league wants both a hard cap and floor, insisting in a statement that ‘fans in too many markets have too little hope their team has a fair chance to win.’ That’s what this is all about, the league keeps telling us. Bowing to the wishes of fans who ‘overwhelmingly’ support a cap, out of the goodness of the owners’ hearts.

“Please.

“I’m sure fans want lower ticket prices and lower beer prices, too, but the owners aren’t about to introduce those, are they? No, the owners act only when it’s in their financial interests.

“A cap that fixes costs and enhances franchise values is most definitely in the owners’ interests. Missing games, the possible cost of all this, is not. How about asking fans if they want that?”

Awful Announcing

Ken Rosenthal comes out against MLB salary cap: 'This dri...

Ken Rosenthal is firmly against an MLB salary cap, especially if it comes with the prospect of missing games in 2027.

Ken should go back to staring down a camera man that tripped. Fucking clown.

I just find it interesting a group that claims revenue losses is also suggesting to bump min spending by 100% for a half dozen or so clubs. Math not adding up there.

Personally I don't want a hard cap or floor but I don't have any strong reasons why. I just "don't mind" how MLB is as a whole now I guess.

Edited Sunday at 05:41 PM2 days by chitownsportsfan

4 hours ago, PaleAleSox said:

Ken should go back to staring down a camera man that tripped. Fucking clown.

He apologized personally to the guy for the incident.

s%*# happens.

As a baseball reporter, he's one of the best in the country in my opinion.

3 hours ago, chitownsportsfan said:

I just find it interesting a group that claims revenue losses is also suggesting to bump min spending by 100% for a half dozen or so clubs. Math not adding up there.

Personally I don't want a hard cap or floor but I don't have any strong reasons why. I just "don't mind" how MLB is as a whole now I guess.

Doesn't make sense does it?

And the fact that Cleveland, Tampa Bay, Milwaukee, the Athletics are doing well (in some cases those teams have been doing it for years) explodes their reason as far as competitive balance.

As the Athletic wrote they want a cap for one reason and one reason only, so their franchises can increase in value exponentially a la in the NBA and NFL.

Instead of their team worth two billion they want it to be worth four billion.

My hears bleeds for the poor owners. 😆

7 minutes ago, Lip Man 1 said:

Doesn't make sense does it?

And the fact that Cleveland, Tampa Bay, Milwaukee, the Athletics are doing well (in some cases those teams have been doing it for years) explodes their reason as far as competitive balance.

As the Athletic wrote they want a cap for one reason and one reason only, so their franchises can increase in value exponentially a la in the NBA and NFL.

Instead of their team worth two billion they want it to be worth four billion.

My hears bleeds for the poor owners. 😆

Are they proposing to get rid of the revenue sharing completely for small markets?

And the aggregating of media rights for RSN's across all thirty teams with an equal split versus the Dodgers being hundreds of millions ahead of the field on an individual basis?

That was supposed to be a 2-3 year timeframe to wind down where all the teams could be bundled together through ESPN.

16 minutes ago, Lip Man 1 said:

He apologized personally to the guy for the incident.

s%*# happens.

As a baseball reporter, he's one of the best in the country in my opinion.

After getting absolutely destroyed in the court of public opinion.

What have those 12 small/mid market team owners said so far publicly about projected payroll raises?

https://www.cleveland.com/guardians/2026/05/guardians-payroll-structure-could-be-drastically-reshaped-by-labor-negotiations-paul-hoynes.html

Found an article that explains it well from Guardians' perspective.

"Meyer, the union’s acting executive director and lead negotiator, responded to the owners’ salary cap proposal by saying, “For generations, our members have fought against cap systems because they harm players at all levels, erode or eliminate contractual guarantees, pit player against player, lead to more work stoppages, not less, and get worse for players over time.”

He added, “Caps don’t lower ticket prices for fans, eliminate tanking or ensure teams are run with equal competence. They suffocate competition by offering owners an all-purpose excuse for inaction and mediocrity.”

Edited Sunday at 10:06 PM2 days by caulfield12

47 minutes ago, Lip Man 1 said:

Doesn't make sense does it?

And the fact that Cleveland, Tampa Bay, Milwaukee, the Athletics are doing well (in some cases those teams have been doing it for years) explodes their reason as far as competitive balance.

As the Athletic wrote they want a cap for one reason and one reason only, so their franchises can increase in value exponentially a la in the NBA and NFL.

Instead of their team worth two billion they want it to be worth four billion.

My hears bleeds for the poor owners. 😆

The propaganda is already pissing me off. Crying about how uncompetitive things are, oh give me a fucking break. You've got basically two clubs that spend and 28 other that adjust year to year. And when is the last time the Yankees won a WS? Dodgers do EVERYTHING well not just spend money. They scout well, draft well, develop well and so on.

47 minutes ago, PaleAleSox said:

After getting absolutely destroyed in the court of public opinion.

With respect I don't think that matters as much as you think. He's still employed, still very good at what he does and he apologized.

He's human, he screwed up...deal with it.

I'm sure there were plenty of times you f'd up as well.

A hard cap and floor is the dream…shocked the owners actually offer this. I don’t think the players union will take it though. Both sides are way too greedy.

1 hour ago, Lip Man 1 said:

.

As the Athletic wrote they want a cap for one reason and one reason only, so their franchises can increase in value exponentially a la in the NBA and NFL.

One reason?

The deferred money charade is clouding a lot of folks’ vision. The Dodgers are spending $415,000,000 on this season’s payroll. The Mets are spending $381,000,000. Yankees, Phils, Jays are paying 337, 313, 309, respectively.

“oh, but the Mets suck so money doesn’t matter!”

“Oh, the Rays are only spending $108M and they’re consistently one of the best teams in the league!”

These are weak arguments, at best. Any team can catch lightning in a bottle, it happens. But for someone to tell me with a straight face in March of 2026 that the Dodgers and White Sox have competitive balance? f*** outta here. The whole idea spits in the face of the adage that you get what you pay for. Of course there are exceptions, but baseball is no different than any other product.

The owners offered an incredibly high floor. It’s inarguably true that there would be greatly improved competitive balance when league-wide payrolls fall within a defined, relatively skinny band. It would put a lot more emphasis on homegrown talent, leading to more investments in farm systems and scouting, improving the product in the future.

1 hour ago, Lip Man 1 said:

Doesn't make sense does it?

And the fact that Cleveland, Tampa Bay, Milwaukee, the Athletics are doing well (in some cases those teams have been doing it for years) explodes their reason as far as competitive balance.

As the Athletic wrote they want a cap for one reason and one reason only, so their franchises can increase in value exponentially a la in the NBA and NFL.

Instead of their team worth two billion they want it to be worth four billion.

My hears bleeds for the poor owners. 😆

Not that I agree with the owners about the need for a hard cap, but winning May championships hardly "explodes" the competitive balance issue. Those May 31 championship flags don't fly forever. Big market teams have won 17 of the last 20 WS titles. Really it's only been 1 small market team (KC) in the last 20 years. I'd argue that the 2x that the Cardinals won it all 15 and 20 years ago, the economics of the game weren't so broken and they were really a mid-market team at the time with their big fan base and (if I'm not mistaken) $1B local RSN deal.

If you agree with Ken Rosenthal, even he acknowledges that there's an obvious competitive balance problem in MLB while calling BS on the push for a hard cap. Again, two things can be true - the owners are greedy, disingenuous bastards AND the economics of the game have gotten too far out of whack. IMO, it's the owners that need to get their own house in order with things like more TV revenue-based revenue sharing - perhaps with strings attached such as the shared money has to go back into payroll. They're just using revenue disparity reality as an excuse to push their hard salary cap dream because that'll further boost franchise valuation.

5 minutes ago, mmmmmbeeer said:

One reason?

The deferred money charade is clouding a lot of folks’ vision. The Dodgers are spending $415,000,000 on this season’s payroll. The Mets are spending $381,000,000. Yankees, Phils, Jays are paying 337, 313, 309, respectively.

“oh, but the Mets suck so money doesn’t matter!”

“Oh, the Rays are only spending $108M and they’re consistently one of the best teams in the league!”

These are weak arguments, at best. Any team can catch lightning in a bottle, it happens. But for someone to tell me with a straight face in March of 2026 that the Dodgers and White Sox have competitive balance? f*** outta here. The whole idea spits in the face of the adage that you get what you pay for. Of course there are exceptions, but baseball is no different than any other product.

The owners offered an incredibly high floor. It’s inarguably true that there would be greatly improved competitive balance when league-wide payrolls fall within a defined, relatively skinny band. It would put a lot more emphasis on homegrown talent, leading to more investments in farm systems and scouting, improving the product in the future.

Yeah, that's something I'd like to see addressed in the next CBA.

1 hour ago, Lip Man 1 said:

With respect I don't think that matters as much as you think. He's still employed, still very good at what he does and he apologized.

He's human, he screwed up...deal with it.

I'm sure there were plenty of times you f'd up as well.

I've never stared down someone who obviously tripped and could have used some help getting up, no. Also what do you want me to "deal with?" Thinking a guy is an asshole for being an asshole?

Ken is insufferable. He is good at his job, sure. He is still insufferable. A lot of people who are good at their job are.

Some deluded Guardians fans believe that Taylor Swift will financially assist new minority owner Travis Kelce extend DeLauter, Messick and Bazzana.

That's cute.

Welcome to Wrexham II...?

Major League IV?

Edited Monday at 02:31 PM1 day by caulfield12