2025 ATL Thread - MLB Salary Cap DIscussion Page 8

[blazza18]

Good for Seattle. Let's join them later today

[MickeyDavis]

Fun

[ReasonablySober]

Congrats Mariners fans.

[Dick Tate]

Fun and exhausting!

[MickeyDavis]

Read on Twitter

[MikeIsGood]

Baseball has plenty of problems here I could take issue with, but it's hard to bitch IMO when we're spending 93M and sitting at 25th in payroll. Not a hot take, I know.

[Ron Swanson]

And how much of that $315 million for the Dodgers is also a completely fake number without factoring in all the "deferred compensation" BS. The murmurs of a salary cap are only going to be getting louder the wider the wealth gap keeps growing. A $256 million disparity between the highest and lowest payroll is obscene.

[Iheartfootball]

ALCS just got interesting.

[MickeyDavis]

12-3 in the 8th and Seattle fans haven't left.

[MickeyDavis]

So assuming that the owners are serious about a cap I'm really curious what it would look like. Would they go the NFL route of a hard cap? But the NFL has no guaranteed contracts and signing/workout/roster bonuses can be stretched. And they commonly redo contracts to kick the can down the road. Do they do an NBA style cap that's really a soft cap with "aprons/penalties"? The current MLB system already has tax payments, which don't matter at all to the Dodgers.

Any MLB cap would take awhile to implement, there are tons of long term big money contracts out there. It would have to be phased in. What about deferred compensation? I would assume all of Ohtani's $70 million would have to count immediately, not $2 million they are actually paying. There are lots of deferred contracts out there. We'll be paying Yelich $2 million a year for 10 years after he's done.

There would have to be a floor installed. How much would that be?

As we all know the big difference between MLB and the NFL and NBA is the discrepancy in local media money. It's huge. And while national TV money is shared equally it's only $1.8 billion in MLB. NBA is about $7 billion. NFL is over $12 billion. And of course there are other sources of league revenue.

Does MLB do a percentage of revenue divided by 30? What formula would they use?

I don't see any way a system is implemented where all teams spend the same on salary. Whatever they come up with is still going to have wide gaps. The Dodgers and maybe Mets/Yankees may have to reign in spending a bit. Having a floor will cause some teams to have to spend more.

I honestly don't know what the answer is. It will be interesting to see what the initial proposals are when this thing gets serious.

[coolhandluke121]

I don't know what's going to happen, but I do think that change would negatively affect one cohort/generation of players in a way that they will perceive to be unfair, and that's one of the reasons the status quo stays in place. Just as an example, the group that just endured years of team control and underpayment via the ridiculous arbitration system is expecting a big free agency payday to make up for it; if they can't be persuaded that a salary cap won't compromise their paydays, which is a legitimate concern, then the union will almost certainly take their side and it will get ugly.

[Thunder Muscle]

This is more the Brewers/Attanasio angle.

Bought team in 2005 for 223M. Forbes values team at 1.7B in 2025. So his asset is +1.477B and on average grows 64.2M/year.

Per Statista.com since 2005 the cumulative operating income of the team is 470.3M which is +20.4M/year. Take out COVID season and its +23M/year.

Obviously the team is getting assistance on stadium repairs/upgrades. They put in 110M so approximately 5-6 season worth of income.

I feel like if there was a player we really love and want to pay, money is there. I get not every year but a guy every once in a while.

[jakecronus8]

The Dodgers have 13 guys making over $8 million in salary. The Brewers have 3 (one of which is not on the postseason roster).

Of the Dodgers 13 guys making over $8 million in salary, only one (the corpse of Clayton Kershaw) was actually brought up through their system.

The Dodgers payroll (without adjusting for deferred money BS) is just under 4x the Brewers.

The Dodgers media rights deal nets them just under 6x what the Brewers deal does.

To summarize, we're the idiots for pumping money into this machine. Pray for a long labor stoppage

[MickeyDavis]

I don't know what's going to happen, but I do think that change would negatively affect one cohort/generation of players in a way that they will perceive to be unfair, and that's one of the reasons the status quo stays in place. Just as an example, the group that just endured years of team control and underpayment via the ridiculous arbitration system is expecting a big free agency payday to make up for it; if they can't be persuaded that a salary cap won't compromise their paydays, which is a legitimate concern, then the union will almost certainly take their side and it will get ugly.

All good points. One reason why it would be very hard to implement something immediately, it would have to be phased in. And I don't think all of the owners will be on board. The Dodgers won't be. Teams like the White Sox or Pirates might not be if they will have to spend more. I don't even think Attanasio would necessarily be for it. I guess it depends if he can still make his yearly profit. Giannis needs his annual check.

[Thunder Muscle]

The Dodgers have 13 guys making over $8 million in salary. The Brewers have 3 (one of which is not on the postseason roster).

Of the Dodgers 13 guys making over $8 million in salary, only one (the corpse of Clayton Kershaw) was actually brought up through their system.

The Dodgers payroll (without adjusting for deferred money BS) is just under 4x the Brewers.

The Dodgers media rights deal nets them just under 6x what the Brewers deal does.

To summarize, we're the idiots for pumping money into this machine. Pray for a long labor stoppage

Put like this, it feels like we’re a mid major college that the goal is to make the tournament and our championship is getting to the rd of 32.

[MikeIsGood]

I don't know what's going to happen, but I do think that change would negatively affect one cohort/generation of players in a way that they will perceive to be unfair, and that's one of the reasons the status quo stays in place. Just as an example, the group that just endured years of team control and underpayment via the ridiculous arbitration system is expecting a big free agency payday to make up for it; if they can't be persuaded that a salary cap won't compromise their paydays, which is a legitimate concern, then the union will almost certainly take their side and it will get ugly.

All good points. One reason why it would be very hard to implement something immediately, it would have to be phased in. And I don't think all of the owners will be on board. The Dodgers won't be. Teams like the White Sox or Pirates might not be if they will have to spend more. I don't even think Attanasio would necessarily be for it. I guess it depends if he can still make his yearly profit. Giannis needs his annual check.

I think it's generally understood and agreed that a cap would: (1) have to also come with a floor, and (2) mean that revenue sharing ends. For both those reasons I think Attanasio isn't on the fence - he's a hard against.

[MVP2110]

If the a cap/floor comes with more revenue sharing I'm sure all the small market owners would get on board. The tough part will be getting the large markets to split their local revenues

[MickeyDavis]

If the a cap/floor comes with more revenue sharing I'm sure all the small market owners would get on board. The tough part will be getting the large markets to split their local revenues

Yup. Right now the Yankees are for a cap. They don't like spending as much as they're spending and still not winning a title. But if they're asked to share their local TV money they will balk. Getting all of the owners on board with a plan will be very difficult. And then you have to deal with the players. I'm all for a lockout IF it means meaningful reform. I'm very dubious. I don't think there will be any cap that will result in every team spending the same. At least in the NBA the penalties have some consequences that make teams alter their approach. Getting under the aprons has advantages.

[BUCKnation]

I think they definitely need to get rid of this deferred nonsense. I also think they need to limit free agency contract lengths. For your own prospects these 8 year deals actually make sense, but handing out these 7+ year deals to free agents puts an extra barrier on the potential for small markets to compete for certain players.

[ReasonablySober]

The thing to keep in mind is that for whatever gains MLB gets in the next CBA, they're gonna have to concede significant items to the MLBPA. I'd love a salary cap and better revenue sharing, but my worry is that the smallest markets would be sacrificed in the process by eliminating years of team control. It would be a huge blow to a team like the Brewers if all of the sudden the Rule 5 draft is a year earlier and arbitration shows up after one year of service time. Now guys are free agents after age 25 or 26. Then they've got less incentive to sign below market long term deals early.