On 10/13/2026 at 8:51 PM, wegner said:

Your Dad was Moistest Alou?

I fixed that for you. Awesome post 😂

42 minutes ago, hogan873 said:

With three of the four teams in the the league championships having lower payrolls doesn't bode well for the owners pushing a salary cap. That being said, I think a lot of fans support the idea of a cap, and especially a floor. Baseball needs to have more teams be competitive and fewer teams being out of it in July. I just don't know if the players will agree to it.

I could see the existing higher payroll teams waiting before signing bigger names, and lower payroll teams jumping early. That probably means the bigger names may wait, too. It's going to be an interesting (and frustrating) winter/spring.

I could see the highest payroll teams with the best talent at declining rates of spending and the lowest payroll teams full of higher paid than today, less talented players with no change to the competitive balance.

35 minutes ago, Texsox said:

I could see the highest payroll teams with the best talent at declining rates of spending and the lowest payroll teams full of higher paid than today, less talented players with no change to the competitive balance.

More higher $$$ journeyman deals for the Leury Garcias, Jake Bauers and Andrew Vaughns of the world

along with the shifting of more and more resources to buy out FA years from younger and younger players like we're already seeing with the Brewers (Chourio/Pratt & Lara before they even debuted)

On 10/13/2026 at 6:01 PM, Texsox said:

Interesting you think the floor will cause a crash. I am thinking it raises the journeymen while the cap hurts the biggest contracts. I can't imagine the 5 year proposal being implemented, but that would be really interesting to contracts. This may be the first contract negotiations I will actually follow. I do not think a floor will help competitive balance, I just see more Leury Garcia contracts. Guys getting 3/$16 mil instead of 2/$6 mil.

You will be correct if history repeats itself. The "Luxury Tax" era showed slower growth. I am certain that is one of the factors the union is considering. Maybe the Sox can steal a free agent or two that they normally would not be competitive with.

I really don't think a floor helps all that much. The tanking teams would just take on contracts like Benintendi etc and still be bad.

On 10/13/2026 at 6:01 PM, Lip Man 1 said:

Anything can happen but I have a hard time seeing the MLBPA agree to any type of cap or floor. it's simply not in their DNA. This gets resolved I think with some smaller concessions on their part and the owners fracturing as they always do.

If MLB insists on the cap/floor proposal, it's going to be awhile. I don't think any serious negotiations even occur until March at the earliest. All of the ownership proposals to date have been tied to a salary cap system and that's a total non-starter for the MLBPA. The sides essentially haven't even talked.

8 minutes ago, Y2Jimmy0 said:

I really don't think a floor helps all that much. The tanking teams would just take on contracts like Benintendi etc and still be bad.

If MLB insists on the cap/floor proposal, it's going to be awhile. I don't think any serious negotiations even occur until March at the earliest. All of the ownership proposals to date have been tied to a salary cap system and that's a total non-starter for the MLBPA. The sides essentially haven't even talked.

So now you're on the side of them missing out on games? Serious negotiations not starting in March means games will be lost.

Edited Thursday at 02:35 PM2 days by Bob Sacamano

3 minutes ago, Bob Sacamano said:

So now you're on the side of them missing out on games? Serious negotiations not starting in March means games will be lost.

I think the owners probably cave. If they don't though, oh yeah. It's going to be ugly.

15 minutes ago, Y2Jimmy0 said:

I really don't think a floor helps all that much. The tanking teams would just take on contracts like Benintendi etc and still be bad.

If MLB insists on the cap/floor proposal, it's going to be awhile. I don't think any serious negotiations even occur until March at the earliest. All of the ownership proposals to date have been tied to a salary cap system and that's a total non-starter for the MLBPA. The sides essentially haven't even talked.

WQith a floor, teams that don't spend aren't going to spend "stupidly" (taking on Beni). They'll spend as smart as they can, while hitting the floor, so you'd absolutely see additional movement. I certainly think it would make a huge difference (depending on floor amount).

4 minutes ago, Squirmin' for Yermin said:

WQith a floor, teams that don't spend aren't going to spend "stupidly" (taking on Beni). They'll spend as smart as they can, while hitting the floor, so you'd absolutely see additional movement. I certainly think it would make a huge difference (depending on floor amount).

There won't be a floor without a cap though I wouldn't think. I'm not convinced that the small market owners would be interested in a floor.

23 minutes ago, Squirmin' for Yermin said:

WQith a floor, teams that don't spend aren't going to spend "stupidly" (taking on Beni). They'll spend as smart as they can, while hitting the floor, so you'd absolutely see additional movement. I certainly think it would make a huge difference (depending on floor amount).

I guess what he meant was: take on an expiring contract along with something interesting. At least that's what I thought he meant by tanking teams. But then teams could also just sign guys to high AAV 1-2 year deals and try to flip them later.

34 minutes ago, Bob Sacamano said:

So now you're on the side of them missing out on games? Serious negotiations not starting in March means games will be lost.

That's the history. They play brinkmanship games until it starts costing them real money and finally get serious.

Meanwhile the millionaires work to get the fans on their side and the owners know fans will always want to support the players.

In years past, I got the impression more fans would blame greedy overpaid players for high prices at the ballpark, etc during labor disputes

Edited Thursday at 03:15 PM2 days by Chick Mercedes

28 minutes ago, Squirmin' for Yermin said:

WQith a floor, teams that don't spend aren't going to spend "stupidly" (taking on Beni). They'll spend as smart as they can, while hitting the floor, so you'd absolutely see additional movement. I certainly think it would make a huge difference (depending on floor amount).

Bigger contracts won't create better players. The question is will it redistribute players from the Dodgers and Mets to the Pirates and As?

I'm not certain it will. I think the floor inflates the bottom and the cap deflates the top. We still have the question is having the bulk of your payroll concentrated in two the three superstar contracts or upgrades at more positions?

1 hour ago, Y2Jimmy0 said:

There won't be a floor without a cap though I wouldn't think. I'm not convinced that the small market owners would be interested in a floor.

Yeah, ideally I'd want both

On 10/13/2026 at 8:25 PM, Lip Man 1 said:

My father used to say, "Wish in one hand, piss in the other...see which fills up first."

No way the Sox even attempt to sign those guys.

This is why it's so frustrating being a White Sox fan.

Let's hope Jerry doesn't try crying poor again.

4/5 final playoff teams there in the Bot 7

then you have the Cubs/Red Sox ownership groups driving their fanbases crazy

Pirates and Marlins the most criticized for not spending...Reds are up there too

Edited Thursday at 07:37 PM2 days by caulfield12

43 minutes ago, South Side Fireworks Man said:

This is why it's so frustrating being a White Sox fan.

Hopefully that changes when Ishbia takes over. And hopefully I'll still be alive to see it.

Can TV networks sue MLB if games are missed and fans aren’t watching their networks as a result?

46 minutes ago, AntMan26 said:

Can TV networks sue MLB if games are missed and fans aren’t watching their networks as a result?

Sounds like they addressed this in their deals and potentially another year gets added on to their deals if enough time is lost as a result of this lockout.

1 hour ago, AntMan26 said:

Can TV networks sue MLB if games are missed and fans aren’t watching their networks as a result?

According to a story I read they have clauses in the deals where if 60 games are missed the money paid to MLB by the networks starts getting reduced. That's around Memorial Day.

3 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

Sounds like they addressed this in their deals and potentially another year gets added on to their deals if enough time is lost as a result of this lockout.

2 hours ago, Lip Man 1 said:

According to a story I read they have clauses in the deals where if 60 games are missed the money paid to MLB by the networks starts getting reduced. That's around Memorial Day.

I was thinking these TV deals might be huge incentive for them to figure it out if that means a lot of TV money is lost with games not being played.

On 10/15/2026 at 10:13 AM, Chick Mercedes said:

In years past, I got the impression more fans would blame greedy overpaid players for high prices at the ballpark, etc during labor disputes

The board was solidly on the player's side during the last one.

On 10/15/2026 at 4:43 PM, Lip Man 1 said:

According to a story I read they have clauses in the deals where if 60 games are missed the money paid to MLB by the networks starts getting reduced. That's around Memorial Day.

Because baseball is really only interesting to the masses after Labor Day.

54 minutes ago, Texsox said:

The board was solidly on the player's side during the last one.

Online I would imagine is generally on the side of labor yes. In years past. I don’t know if the flow of online political leaning is gaining any more of the *ahem* more supply side people nowadays

From Rich Dubroff of Baltimore Baseball:

"A lot of my friends were buying teams, and I realized they're making money. They're making more money than I'm making in private equity," he said. "I thought I should look at it as a financial thing, but ultimately, I bought the Orioles for a philanthropic purpose."

Rubenstein purchased a majority stake in the Orioles from the Angelos family in 2024, at a valuation of $1.725 billion.

It feels obvious to say that MLB owners are making a ton of money, with the income apparently surpassing even what Rubenstein makes from The Carlyle Group private equity firm he co-founded (which drove his estimated net worth above $4 billion). Billionaires rarely buy something if they aren't going to make money from it.

However, that's not the image the owners will be projecting once the likely lockout begins.