MLB HOT STOVE ‘25-‘26

[Pakuni]

I'm 100% on board with a salary floor, and that would be necessary with any change to revenue sharing or adding a salary cap.  Have never argued otherwise.

But cool.  The Brewers could shoot for putting all but 1 penny of their profit back into their roster and they'll almost catch the Dodgers in payroll.  They only fall $388MM shy of the Dodgers if you add the $24MM profit the Brewers made all back into their payroll.  That'd get them all the way to 29% of the Dodgers payroll!  So close!

Think of how absolutely absurd the system is that the Brewers could spend every penny of profit that they make and still only be able to get to 29% of what the Dodgers spend on their payroll.

Kind of irrelevant, but I think your math is off a bit.
The Brewers' projected 2026 payroll is $136 million. The Dodgers' is $359 million. Add $24 million to the Brewers = $160 million. That's about 45%, not 29%.

That said, nobody disputes that there are imbalances that can be better addressed. But the primary results of a salary cap would be to 1) artificially depress wages and 2) enrich poorly run franchises to the detriment of those that are run well.
What some people seem unwilling to recognize is that in addition to some of their market advantages, the Dodgers have money to burn because they're an exceptionally well run franchise. And punishing that success by taking their money and giving it to franchises that DGAF (looking at you, Pittsburgh and Miami) is no less unfair than the discrepancies you're talking about.

[18thandWells]

Kind of irrelevant, but I think you're math is off a bit.
The Brewers' projected 2026 payroll is $136 million. The Dodgers' is $359 million. Add $24 million to the Brewers = $160 million. That's about 45%, not 29%.

I think he's adding Luxury Tax to "payroll."

I've never run any business, including any MLB franchise.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

Pete Alonzo to the Orioles for 5 years $155mil.

[18thandWells]

Pete Alonzo to the Orioles for 5 years $155mil.

Huh. Where'd they find the revenue?

[MU82]

A salary floor and better revenue-sharing program won't solve everything, but they are the best potential solutions. If enacted, they would require the owners to work with each other, and to spend the revenue-sharing money they are handed instead of pocketing it. And it doesn't require the players to help save them from themselves.

[WhiteTrash]

A salary floor and better revenue-sharing program won't solve everything, but they are the best potential solutions. If enacted, they would require the owners to work with each other, and to spend the revenue-sharing money they are handed instead of pocketing it. And it doesn't require the players to help save them from themselves.

MLB spend basically the same % of revenue on payroll as NFL and NBA. A salary floor will not help the players.

A hard cap with a floor could address competitive balance.

[MU82]

MLB spend basically the same % of revenue on payroll as NFL and NBA. A salary floor will not help the players.

A hard cap with a floor could address competitive balance.

A salary floor absolutely would help the players. Among other things, it would require the teams that just pocket revenue-sharing money to put it into their payroll.

The cruddy teams might spend the money poorly, but it would go to players, mostly those at the bottom of the salary ladder.

[WhiteTrash]

A salary floor absolutely would help the players. Among other things, it would require the teams that just pocket revenue-sharing money to put it into their payroll.

The cruddy teams might spend the money poorly, but it would go to players, mostly those at the bottom of the salary ladder.

There will never be a floor without a cap. I will die on that hill everyday of the week and twice on Sunday.

I think MLB will be better off with a cap/floor but not the players as a whole.

[MU82]

There will never be a floor without a cap. I will die on that hill everyday of the week and twice on Sunday.

I think MLB will be better off with a cap/floor but not the players as a whole.

I wouldn't doubt that you are correct, because there are enough owners who are satisfied pocketing cash and not trying to win.

[Pakuni]

There will never be a floor without a cap. I will die on that hill everyday of the week and twice on Sunday.

I think MLB will be better off with a cap/floor but not the players as a whole.

The thing is, MLB is fine as it is. Revenues are up. Attendance is up. TV ratings are up. Fans enjoy the product.

[WhiteTrash]

I wouldn't doubt that you are correct, because there are enough owners who are satisfied pocketing cash and not trying to win.

Thank God JR is not one of those owners. 

[18thandWells]

Congrats to new MLB Hall of Famer Joe Buck.

[GB Warrior]

Per Forbes, the Dodgers operating income was $21 million in 2024, good for 13th in MLB.
You know who made more?
The Brewers at $24 million.
Reds, $29 million
Tigers, $30 million
Rays, $32 million
Marlins, $38 million
Pirates, $47 million

When small market teams stop raking in profits that exceed those of the world champs, I'll take their cries of poor more seriously. Most of these teams receive far more via revenue sharing than they invest in payroll.
I'm not opposed to additional revenue sharing, but some of these teams aren't using the revenue they already get on payroll. What makes you think that would change with more?
MLB should be more interested in getting the frugal teams to spend more than putting restrictions on the big spenders.

As for the Cardinals, maybe they need to put a better product on the field. Their yearly attendance has dropped by more than a million over the past decade while their payroll has remained largely stagnant. Perhaps there's a correlation?

I missed the part in which wages weren't incorporated in operating income. This is largely disingenuous because it ignores the expenses associated with running a franchise that are and aren't avoidable...namely, you can avoid paying players, but there are some fixed or rigid costs that can't be and are largely uniform across franchises.

I could tell the Brewers to invest $24M extra to pay the next Blake Snell that is good but injury-prone. And they could do that and still be at a break-even point. But when that investment doesn't pay off, I don't have another $24M to reinvest for another bite at the apple. So while I could do that, no reasonable business person would because it destroys your liquidity and is predicated on everything going exactly to plan. The result is that some teams can afford to take these risks because the ratio of variable to fixed costs is much much higher. Rhys Hoskins is a perfect example of what the Brewers can do. Exorbitant one-year (plus option but whatever) expensive deals that - if they don't pay off - don't destroy your liquidity. This isn't in the same universe as what we are seeing in large market teams. 

The flip side to all of this is the Pirates, who get fat on revenue sharing and TV contracts, product be damned.

Both sides of this need to be closed and addressed, as there is absolutely no reason for anyone to agree for more revenue sharing without the benefit of parity or competitive balance.

Alonso is going to be a good example of this as a contract that would destroy a team like the Brewers but be absorbable by wealthier franchises. I think it's a stupid contract for any team for what it's worth.

[WhiteTrash]

I missed the part in which wages weren't incorporated in operating income. This is largely disingenuous because it ignores the expenses associated with running a franchise that are and aren't avoidable...namely, you can avoid paying players, but there are some fixed or rigid costs that can't be and are largely uniform across franchises.

I could tell the Brewers to invest $24M extra to pay the next Blake Snell that is good but injury-prone. And they could do that and still be at a break-even point. But when that investment doesn't pay off, I don't have another $24M to reinvest for another bite at the apple. So while I could do that, no reasonable business person would because it destroys your liquidity and is predicated on everything going exactly to plan. The result is that some teams can afford to take these risks because the ratio of variable to fixed costs is much much higher. Rhys Hoskins is a perfect example of what the Brewers can do. Exorbitant one-year (plus option but whatever) expensive deals that - if they don't pay off - don't destroy your liquidity. This isn't in the same universe as what we are seeing in large market teams. 

The flip side to all of this is the Pirates, who get fat on revenue sharing and TV contracts, product be damned.

Both sides of this need to be closed and addressed, as there is absolutely no reason for anyone to agree for more revenue sharing without the benefit of parity or competitive balance.

Alonso is going to be a good example of this as a contract that would destroy a team like the Brewers but be absorbable by wealthier franchises. I think it's a stupid contract for any team for what it's worth.

How many players made more than the Brewers?

[Pakuni]

I missed the part in which wages weren't incorporated in operating income.

Not sure what you mean by this. Explain further, please.

This is largely disingenuous because it ignores the expenses associated with running a franchise that are and aren't avoidable...namely, you can avoid paying players, but there are some fixed or rigid costs that can't be and are largely uniform across franchises.

No doubt there are fixed costs that are the same/similar across the league. There are also costs that are going to fluctuate from market to market. Think taxes, facility costs, non-baseball employee wages, travel, etc. On that, I think we can agree running a multibillion dollar business in New York or Los Angeles is going to be much more costly than one in Milwaukee or St. Louis.
I bet a parking lot attendant at Dodgers Stadium makes a lot more than one at the Great American Ballpark. And the Mariners spend more on travel than the Guardians.

Alonso is going to be a good example of this as a contract that would destroy a team like the Brewers but be absorbable by wealthier franchises. I think it's a stupid contract for any team for what it's worth.

Wealthier franchises ... like the Orioles?
Orioles revenue: $338 million
Brewers revenue: $337 million

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/04/11/cnbcs-official-mlb-team-valuations-2025.html

[GB Warrior]

Not sure what you mean by this. Explain further, please.

No doubt there are fixed costs that are the same/similar across the league. There are also costs that are going to fluctuate from market to market. Think taxes, facility costs, non-baseball employee wages, travel, etc. On that, I think we can agree running a multibillion dollar business in New York or Los Angeles is going to be much more costly than one in Milwaukee or St. Louis.
I bet a parking lot attendant at Dodgers Stadium makes a lot more than one at the Great American Ballpark. And the Mariners spend more on travel than the Guardians.

Wealthier franchises ... like the Orioles?
Orioles revenue: $338 million
Brewers revenue: $337 million

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/04/11/cnbcs-official-mlb-team-valuations-2025.html

I mean salaries are netted against revenue for purposes of operating income. Meaning, sure, I can net out to the same number but it's because I've spent an absurdly high number to whittle OI down to that number.

I won't argue about the Orioles, though it should be noted that they've operated as a top third market after Rubenstein's cash infusion. So if the answer is we just need wealthier owners, ok.

[dgies9156]

If you guys think there's going to be a salary cap after the next set of labor negotiations, I have a bridge between Brooklyn and Manhattan I can sell you on the cheap. No way. No how. Not ever. Not even with a floor.

The ghost of Marvin Miller will haunt every player who agreed to that into eternity. Players who agreed to this will be condemned to listening to Branch Rickey and negotiating with George Steinbrenner forever.

To the "everything is negotiable" crowd, to the players, salary caps are non-negotiable absolutes. Steve Garvey would vow celibacy before the players give on salary caps. Charlie Finley, Pete Rose and Barry Bonds all will be in the Hall of Fame before the players agree to such nonsense.

The owners need to discipline themselves and maybe avoid anymore talent diluting expansion. Every time they expand, baseball owners ultimately increase their costs because they expand the demand for marginally talented players. Tell Nashville, Charlotte and Portland to pound sand.

[dgies9156]

As for the Cardinals, maybe they need to put a better product on the field. Their yearly attendance has dropped by more than a million over the past decade while their payroll has remained largely stagnant. Perhaps there's a correlation?

I could not agree with you more. But it doesn't just take payroll. Developing a good scouting system, an effective minor league training program and talented leadership at the major league level also works. That's what Chaim Bloom is trying to do.

The reason for the attendance drop-off in St. Louis is totally related to winning. Cardinal fans are willing to tolerate mediocre seasons when it's evident that the players and management are trying to win. We're not Cub fans, who will show up three million strong to watch Little League baseball.

When the front office shows they mean business and the team does the "little things" necessary to win, the fans will be back. So will the winning!

[WhiteTrash]

To the "everything is negotiable" crowd, to the players, salary caps are non-negotiable absolutes. Steve Garvey would vow celibacy before the players give on salary caps. Charlie Finley, Pete Rose and Barry Bonds all will be in the Hall of Fame before the players agree to such nonsense.

The idea that it is "nonsense" is harsh and completely overstating the position. MLB players get roughly the same % of revenue as sports with floors & caps. You could make a reasonable argument that a cap that provides a floor would guaranty against some unreasonable reduction of the share of revenue, as there is nothing to prevent owners from making salaries stagnant as revenues increase. Not likely or even remotely likely, but still possible. 

[Billy Hoyle]

reportedly the Tigers and Dodgers had conservations regarding a Skubal trade. But of course...   

[wadesworld]

reportedly the Tigers and Dodgers had conservations regarding a Skubal trade. But of course...   

I'm sure they are having discussions.  Most likely outcome is he stays for the year and then the Dodgers just sign him without giving up any prospects/players.

[MU82]

The idea that it is "nonsense" is harsh and completely overstating the position. MLB players get roughly the same % of revenue as sports with floors & caps. You could make a reasonable argument that a cap that provides a floor would guaranty against some unreasonable reduction of the share of revenue, as there is nothing to prevent owners from making salaries stagnant as revenues increase. Not likely or even remotely likely, but still possible. 

Once you open the door on a salary cap, there is no going back. If the owners insist on the players protecting the owners from themselves, there will be a long lockout that would damage the game significantly more than not having a salary cap ever would.

And then they'd end up settling after the long lockout - and they still won't have a salary cap. Because I'm confident saying it just won't happen.