MLB HOT STOVE ‘25-‘26

[18thandWells]

Now the M's need to sign Bregman.

[MU82]

Now the M's need to sign Bregman.

That would be lovely, but I doubt they'll get in a bidding war for him, and supposedly the Mets and Cubs (among others) are after him.

[18thandWells]

That would be lovely, but I doubt they'll get in a bidding war for him, and supposedly the Mets and Cubs (among others) are after him.

I think the Mets resign Alonso as their offseason "splash," the Cubs keep Charlie Kirk at 3B.

[Uncle Rico]

Woodruff accepted his qualifying offer from the Milwaukee Brewers baseball club.  Huh.

[wadesworld]

Woodruff accepted his qualifying offer from the Milwaukee Brewers baseball club.  Huh.

Might as well just trade the farm for Skubal and let them all walk after this year.

[18thandWells]

Woodruff accepted his qualifying offer from the Milwaukee Brewers baseball club.  Huh.

Paying $32M, (including the $10m buyout he was getting anyway), sounds like a lot for up to one healthy season of Brandon Woodruff. This must be another example of how small market teams must be shrewd.

[Uncle Rico]

Paying $32M, (including the $10m buyout he was getting anyway), sounds like a lot for up to one healthy season of Brandon Woodruff. This must be another example of how small market teams must be shrewd.

Are you saying the Brewers haven't been shrewd?  They've had years where they have increased payroll and spent extra.

[ChuckyChip]

Paying $32M, (including the $10m buyout he was getting anyway), sounds like a lot for up to one healthy season of Brandon Woodruff. This must be another example of how small market teams must be shrewd.

A multi-year deal can still be negotiated, maybe knock the AAV by adding a couple of years.

[GB Warrior]

The $10M buyout was supposedly on last years books since it was likely to be taken. It is a lot but it's also hard to replace him for less than that. Not really such a thing as a bad 1 year contract

[cheebs09]

Don't you need to make the Qualifying Offer for a draft pick? I honestly don't know if he was expected to accept.

[18thandWells]

Don't you need to make the Qualifying Offer for a draft pick? I honestly don't know if he was expected to accept.

I believe a QO has to be made and declined by the player in order for the team to gain a Compensatory Pick. I also think the placement of the comp pick depends on whether or not the club participates in revenue sharing, (16 teams?), and whether or not the player ultimately signs for over/under $50 million.

Basically, the Dodgers sign whomever they want and are ruining MLB.

[wadesworld]

I believe a QO has to be made and declined by the player in order for the team to gain a Compensatory Pick. I also think the placement of the comp pick depends on whether or not the club participates in revenue sharing, (16 teams?), and whether or not the player ultimately signs for over/under $50 million.

Basically, the Dodgers sign whomever they want and are ruining MLB.

Nobody said they're ruining the MLB. People have said no salary cap in baseball is absurd. And it is.

[MU82]

Nobody said they're ruining the MLB. People have said no salary cap in baseball is absurd. And it is.

NFL-style revenue sharing is all MLB needs. But that would require owners of the 5-10 richest teams to make sacrifices for the good of the game. While they count their billions, they prefer to tell the players to make sacrifices.

[The Sultan]

Yeah, again all a salary cap does is give owners a reason not to pay the players. More centralized revenue distribution is the much easier way to solve this issue. The players would still have to agree, but throw in a salary floor, and my guess is that they'd be on board.

Honestly at this point in time, I am not sure the NFL or NBA actually needs a salary cap as long as revenue distribution is relatively equal. It enriches the owners more than the players.

[MU82]

Yeah, again all a salary cap does is give owners a reason not to pay the players. More centralized revenue distribution is the much easier way to solve this issue. The players would still have to agree, but throw in a salary floor, and my guess is that they'd be on board.

Honestly at this point in time, I am not sure the NFL or NBA actually needs a salary cap as long as revenue distribution is relatively equal. It enriches the owners more than the players.

100%.

The owners want all the onus to be on the players, and they want a salary cap to protect owners from other owners.

[wadesworld]

Totally fine with a better rev share system as a solution, too.

[Pakuni]

Yeah, again all a salary cap does is give owners a reason not to pay the players. More centralized revenue distribution is the much easier way to solve this issue. The players would still have to agree, but throw in a salary floor, and my guess is that they'd be on board.

Honestly at this point in time, I am not sure the NFL or NBA actually needs a salary cap as long as revenue distribution is relatively equal. It enriches the owners more than the players.

Right, and for all intents, the NBA has so many exceptions and legal circumventions that it doesn't really have a salary cap. There are costs with going over the cap, but nobody is losing out on players they really want because of the cap.

[Pakuni]

Totally fine with a better rev share system as a solution, too.

Not opposed, but a much bigger problem (IMO) than the revenue sharing system is that there's no mechanism that force owners to spend the shared revenue.
According to numbers I've seen, MLB teams pool 48% of their local revenues and divide them evenly, which works out to about $110 million per club. Add in the $90 million each receives in national revenues, and teams have a $200 million baseline to work with even before touching the other 52% of their local revenues.
And yet only 12 teams exceeded $200 million in payroll last season. That's inexcusable.
Obviously there are tons of other costs associated with running an MLB team. The two teams owned by public corps. - and therefore with somewhat open books - are the Blue Jays and Braves. According to their 2023 reports, non-baseball operating costs were $134 million and $137 million, respectively.

Until the owners are forced to spend more of the revenue they're making, there's no real justification for a cap. It'll merely be a tool to artificially depress wages.

[MU82]

Not opposed, but a much bigger problem (IMO) than the revenue sharing system is that there's no mechanism that force owners to spend the shared revenue.
According to numbers I've seen, MLB teams pool 48% of their local revenues and divide them evenly, which works out to about $110 million per club. Add in the $90 million each receives in national revenues, and teams have a $200 million baseline to work with even before touching the other 52% of their local revenues.
And yet only 12 teams exceeded $200 million in payroll last season. That's inexcusable.
Obviously there are tons of other costs associated with running an MLB team. The two teams owned by public corps. - and therefore with somewhat open books - are the Blue Jays and Braves. According to their 2023 reports, non-baseball operating costs were $134 million and $137 million, respectively.

Until the owners are forced to spend more of the revenue they're making, there's no real justification for a cap. It'll merely be a tool to artificially depress wages.

Yup. Very good points.