Lip Man 1 Posted October 20 Share Posted October 20 Interesting and detailed story on the salary cap argument for MLB: https://www.southsidesox.com/chicago-white-sox-commentary-and-analysis/117449/a-rebuttal-to-salary-cap-enthusiasts-money-cant-buy-everything Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WBWSF Posted October 20 Share Posted October 20 I read where 4 of the Cubs players ( Happ, Suzuki, Hoerner and Tallion) have contracts that run thru 2026. The Cubs have no intentions of extending them. It looks to me like Cubs ownership is expecting a lockout for the 2027 season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squirmin' for Yermin Posted October 20 Share Posted October 20 I think a Salary Floor is far more attainable and actually makes more sense. 100 million floor. Older veterans will still get reasonable contracts and bad teams wont just "throw away" money on bad players so they'd theoretically be forced to at least sign some guys. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Sacamano Posted October 20 Share Posted October 20 2 hours ago, Squirmin' for Yermin said: I think a Salary Floor is far more attainable and actually makes more sense. 100 million floor. Older veterans will still get reasonable contracts and bad teams wont just "throw away" money on bad players so they'd theoretically be forced to at least sign some guys. With a salary floor, comes a salary cap as well though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lip Man 1 Posted October 20 Author Share Posted October 20 3 hours ago, WBWSF said: I read where 4 of the Cubs players ( Happ, Suzuki, Hoerner and Tallion) have contracts that run thru 2026. The Cubs have no intentions of extending them. It looks to me like Cubs ownership is expecting a lockout for the 2027 season. Literally every MLB national reporter/media member and many front office individuals have stated a lockout of the players by the owners is coming shortly after the 2026 season has ended. Manfred has gone on record promoting the salary cap idea and the owners of the Orioles and Yankees have done the same. Once again owners are going to try to get a salary cap like they have fruitless tried before, multiple times, which is why the 2027 season is in jeopardy. We'll see how far they are willing to go to try to get this implemented. From a White Sox fan perspective at least we'll have the satisfaction of knowing that unlike in 1981 and 1994 the team won't be good so postseason chances won't be impacted by a shortened season or no season at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestEddy Posted October 20 Share Posted October 20 4 hours ago, Squirmin' for Yermin said: I think a Salary Floor is far more attainable and actually makes more sense. 100 million floor. Older veterans will still get reasonable contracts and bad teams wont just "throw away" money on bad players so they'd theoretically be forced to at least sign some guys. And therein lies the problem with Capitalism. When a great idea appeals to "both sides", they both try to figure out which would benefit slightly more from that, and they dig in on both sides of that idea. MLB will not agree to a salary floor (even though many owners are disgusted by the likes of Pittsburgh and Sacramento), because it's the bargaining chip for a hard cap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WBWSF Posted October 20 Share Posted October 20 If the MLB owners lockout the players for the entire 2027 season, I wonder what the Players Union would do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeC Posted October 20 Share Posted October 20 7 minutes ago, WBWSF said: If the MLB owners lockout the players for the entire 2027 season, I wonder what the Players Union would do? Banana Ball for everyone!!! 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lip Man 1 Posted October 20 Author Share Posted October 20 21 minutes ago, WBWSF said: If the MLB owners lockout the players for the entire 2027 season, I wonder what the Players Union would do? My guess is that the MLBPA has been warning the players about what is coming and that they need to start saving their money. The MLPA also probably has a reserve fund (they have in the past) where they'll be able to pay the players something to get them by. The owners also probably will have a strike insurance fund (they have in the past) that will pay them a certain amount of money in the event games aren't being played. But under no circumstances can I see the MLBPA agreeing to a salary cap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestEddy Posted October 20 Share Posted October 20 Does every single penny earned from a baseball village go towards the team's bottom line? Like, when people go ice skating at Wrigley in the winter, then stop off at the Budweiser Brickhouse for beers, do the players want their 60% of that money? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h. jones Posted October 20 Share Posted October 20 1 hour ago, WestEddy said: Like, when people go ice skating at Wrigley in the winter, then stop off at the Budweiser Brickhouse for beers, do the players want their 60% of that money? They should (because the ballpark village wouldn’t exist in the first place if not for the baseball games at the ballpark) but I’d bet they’d settle for the owners of said profit centers to stop simultaneously pulling out their pants pockets to show how empty they are. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spiderman Posted October 21 Share Posted October 21 On 10/20/2025 at 8:24 AM, Squirmin' for Yermin said: I think a Salary Floor is far more attainable and actually makes more sense. 100 million floor. Older veterans will still get reasonable contracts and bad teams wont just "throw away" money on bad players so they'd theoretically be forced to at least sign some guys. Are owners against a salary floor? If they were to agree to that, would there be any chance of a salary cap agreed to by the players? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spiderman Posted October 21 Share Posted October 21 20 hours ago, WestEddy said: Does every single penny earned from a baseball village go towards the team's bottom line? Like, when people go ice skating at Wrigley in the winter, then stop off at the Budweiser Brickhouse for beers, do the players want their 60% of that money? I don't think any of that counts as baseball income. A lot of teams have built up entertainment around the stadiums and I thought (could be wrong) that this is not counted as baseball income. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spiderman Posted October 21 Share Posted October 21 21 hours ago, Lip Man 1 said: My guess is that the MLBPA has been warning the players about what is coming and that they need to start saving their money. The MLPA also probably has a reserve fund (they have in the past) where they'll be able to pay the players something to get them by. The owners also probably will have a strike insurance fund (they have in the past) that will pay them a certain amount of money in the event games aren't being played. But under no circumstances can I see the MLBPA agreeing to a salary cap. That seems to be the case - a lockout for 2027 and players being against a salary cap. I thought they have also been against a salary floor also, but could be mistaking. Owners have never been able to stay together - they have their own battles with large vs small market teams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spiderman Posted October 21 Share Posted October 21 On 10/20/2025 at 8:24 AM, Squirmin' for Yermin said: I think a Salary Floor is far more attainable and actually makes more sense. 100 million floor. Older veterans will still get reasonable contracts and bad teams wont just "throw away" money on bad players so they'd theoretically be forced to at least sign some guys. I think the NFL has some average of $$ spent on some rolling average so it allows for a team to reset/rebuild. I'm ok with that too. Establish a salary cap floor, tie it to revenues, etc. I think that can be an instant game changer if teams that currently don't spend much (say under $100M) are now spending more. There are 5 teams spending under $100M currently. and 10 under $120M. Realistically, I think you would want the salary floors to be at least $150M as a starting point. If owners offered something like that, I think that would be a huge concession to players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Sacamano Posted October 21 Share Posted October 21 10 minutes ago, spiderman said: Are owners against a salary floor? If they were to agree to that, would there be any chance of a salary cap agreed to by the players? Yeah, both would have to exist. No floor without a ceiling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spiderman Posted October 21 Share Posted October 21 2 minutes ago, Bob Sacamano said: Yeah, both would have to exist. No floor without a ceiling. Agreed. Just not sure either side would be willing to budge or, even if they conceded, will the floor be high enough? Interested in how a cap would be phased in also with some teams spending probably way higher than what the owners would want. There are currently 9 teams over $200M and a few (Dodgers/Mets) over $300M. Would think a cap would need to allow some level of spending over for a period of time (similar to a floor), but I'd be ok with a salary cap of $250M and a floor of $150M as a starting point - that would require 15 teams to spend more than they currently are and only 4 teams to cut back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pettie4sox Posted October 21 Share Posted October 21 15 minutes ago, spiderman said: Agreed. Just not sure either side would be willing to budge or, even if they conceded, will the floor be high enough? Interested in how a cap would be phased in also with some teams spending probably way higher than what the owners would want. There are currently 9 teams over $200M and a few (Dodgers/Mets) over $300M. Would think a cap would need to allow some level of spending over for a period of time (similar to a floor), but I'd be ok with a salary cap of $250M and a floor of $150M as a starting point - that would require 15 teams to spend more than they currently are and only 4 teams to cut back. So a 100 million in between buffer is suffice? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spiderman Posted October 21 Share Posted October 21 6 minutes ago, pettie4sox said: So a 100 million in between buffer is suffice? I'm not sure if that's too much. Just thinking as a starting point. I think a floor of $150M forces around half the league to increase spending. You're going to need a higher cap for players to get those larger deals in big markets. Maybe the idea of franchise players (players in the NFL don't like being tagged although they do get paid in the top 5 or 10 based on tag for 1 year) could be part of this also...Maybe you start with the 150/250 but both are raised up, but you have levers built into allow the floors to rise faster (not sure what those would be). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 21 Share Posted October 21 8 minutes ago, spiderman said: I'm not sure if that's too much. Just thinking as a starting point. I think a floor of $150M forces around half the league to increase spending. You're going to need a higher cap for players to get those larger deals in big markets. Maybe the idea of franchise players (players in the NFL don't like being tagged although they do get paid in the top 5 or 10 based on tag for 1 year) could be part of this also...Maybe you start with the 150/250 but both are raised up, but you have levers built into allow the floors to rise faster (not sure what those would be). I would have to think that no matter what could be done, they would have to introduce an amount of buffer time for teams to adjust to a new reality. If you forced the Mets and Dodgers to be at $250 million next season (or 2027 from 2026 negotiations, it would be nearly impossible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spiderman Posted October 21 Share Posted October 21 3 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said: I would have to think that no matter what could be done, they would have to introduce an amount of buffer time for teams to adjust to a new reality. If you forced the Mets and Dodgers to be at $250 million next season (or 2027 from 2026 negotiations, it would be nearly impossible. Yep, that's going to be tricky. I don't think players would be interested in a scenario where the big markets (LA/NY) would have to cut significant payroll to get under a cap, even over a period of time. I don't know if these specific teams would want to cut back either. If you do have some mechanism to grow the cap each year (similar to how the NFL does it), you can probably find some creative way to allow these teams to still keep spending, but allow for the rest of the league to "catch up" to a degree. Unfortunately, if neither side is willing to budge, none of this matters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joejoesox Posted October 21 Share Posted October 21 zero chance of salary cap, would be stupid to miss the start of a season for something that the players union will never agree to 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Sacamano Posted October 21 Share Posted October 21 3 minutes ago, joejoesox said: zero chance of salary cap, would be stupid to miss the start of a season for something that the players union will never agree to I think we're risking the full thing here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spiderman Posted October 21 Share Posted October 21 21 minutes ago, Bob Sacamano said: I think we're risking the full thing here. That's the risk, I would think the owners would begin to fold if the players hold together. If the players want a cap, they may need to shut down the league for a long time. Doing that would set the sport back by years, maybe forever. Usually, the owners fold in MLB so would expect them to cave again. Not sure what they would settle for if it's not a cap. Maybe more revenue sharing amongst owners? At that point though, it's a fight amongst owners. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
champagne030 Posted October 21 Share Posted October 21 1 hour ago, spiderman said: I don't think any of that counts as baseball income. A lot of teams have built up entertainment around the stadiums and I thought (could be wrong) that this is not counted as baseball income. That's not considered revenue for baseball operations. See the Braves Q/K. Leagues where this is a cap and split revenues with the players don't count that as income. NFL, for example, is split roughly 52/48 owners/players. That revenue split does not count concessions/parking/local broadcasting rights and a large portion of ticket sales. It's mostly the national contracts (which is THE revenue source for NFL). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.