Salary Cap

[MrTPlush]

1 hour ago, FidoMcCokefiend said:

And, that's (well one of many reasons) why you'll never get a salary cap in MLB. There is no way enough owners want one either.  

Correct, you got at least 5 owners on each side of the coin that would be entirely against it. Thus, you could only lose another 4 before losing majority. You would probably lose 5 before even threatening a lockout.

I don’t know that there are even 10 teams that would actually go to battle to fix things. 

[jw5511986]

On 10/15/2025 at 12:26 PM, owbc said:

I’m opposed to a cap. I would rather have more revenue sharing. This deferred contract nonsense also needs to be stopped and all TV dollars including local TV revenue should go into the same pot that is distributed equally. All international players should have to enter through the draft, not go to their team of choice. 

The Brewers will not benefit from a system that forces other small market teams to spend more money. They are thriving in the current system. It will not help us if the Pirates are forced to compete. Let them continue to languish in last place, it isn’t our problem. 

Their failed strategy of being overly aggressive against LA’s starting pitchers is more to blame for the current situation than any salary-related discrepancies. 

This is the right answer.

[BrewerFan]

On 10/15/2025 at 10:10 AM, MrTPlush said:

Small markets? This is starting to become a situation where even mid-markets are starting to lag behind a bit.

2025: $5.65 billion in team payroll (only est. I found)

2019: $3.98 billion

$1.67 billion difference

That 6 year difference is comparable to the change from 2006-2019.

The sad reality, the wealth gap is irrelevent and I doubt many owners care. As long as the overall wealth is increasing they are happy.

 

 I don't agree. From what I've heard, even the Yankees, Red Sox...Phillies, they want a cap.

Problem is, a cap doesn't do anything other than give the wealthiest teams more money in the owners pocket.

You need more/better revenue sharing. A cap... doesn't do much for the Brewers. 

You give them a cap, they still can't keep Woodruff. The Dodgers could keep Kershaw for ~20M a year just because... he was a legendary pitcher for them. Didn't even use him on the post-season roster and he'd have probably been our #2/#3 starter.

 

NONE of this is to take away from the LAD. I'd sign Ohtani, Freeman, Snell, I'd gladly embrace the 2nd best Japanese prospect to ever come over(if you care to make the distinction between prospect and a player posting, Sasaki was a "prospect," and Ohtani was an established player, but a prospect as well as opposed to Yamamoto, Suzaki...).

You need a true 60/40 revenue split. 

Make it an NBA type. You can spend and go over the cap to keep your own players.

 

 

The REAL issue is how to you implement a cap... but not diminish the % of revenue the players get(and actually increase it as it's lower than the NFL/NBA). 

[Baldkin]

Of course the richest teams want a cap. The owners want to make more money. 

 

The players have to agree to it. 

If the owners could have a salary cap of 2 million they would take it

[Bulldogboy]

Players will never agree to a cap unless maybe you offer free agency after say 4-5 years. Quicker run to big money but less up side on bigger money? Regardless Brewers have to be smarter than blowing 45 million on Yelich Woodruff and Hoskins. 

[jw5511986]

13 minutes ago, Bulldogboy said:

Players will never agree to a cap unless maybe you offer free agency after say 4-5 years. Quicker run to big money but less up side on bigger money? Regardless Brewers have to be smarter than blowing 45 million on Yelich Woodruff and Hoskins. 

Awful for small markets with effective scouting and development operations.

[MrTPlush]

8 minutes ago, Bulldogboy said:

Players will never agree to a cap unless maybe you offer free agency after say 4-5 years. Quicker run to big money but less up side on bigger money? Regardless Brewers have to be smarter than blowing 45 million on Yelich Woodruff and Hoskins. 

Smarter with their money? How exactly are they supposed to be smarter?

1) All three of those players had pretty big impacts this season. Even Hoskins was pretty decent when he played this year. The postseason struggles (or not playing at all) sucks…but hardly something you can go predict. Without them, we don’t win the division. Or worse

2) What is your alternative that is so much smarter? Short term deals with risk (Woodruff/Hoskins) is by far the best way for us to find impact talent without hamstringing our payroll long term.

If you don’t like big long term deals like Yelich and don’t like spending money on Hoskins/Woodruff types…your solution is? Jeff Suppan types?

 

 

[Thurston Fluff]

10 hours ago, BrewerFan said:

 I don't agree. From what I've heard, even the Yankees, Red Sox...Phillies, they want a cap.

Problem is, a cap doesn't do anything other than give the wealthiest teams more money in the owners pocket.

You need more/better revenue sharing. A cap... doesn't do much for the Brewers. 

You give them a cap, they still can't keep Woodruff. The Dodgers could keep Kershaw for ~20M a year just because... he was a legendary pitcher for them. Didn't even use him on the post-season roster and he'd have probably been our #2/#3 starter.

 

NONE of this is to take away from the LAD. I'd sign Ohtani, Freeman, Snell, I'd gladly embrace the 2nd best Japanese prospect to ever come over(if you care to make the distinction between prospect and a player posting, Sasaki was a "prospect," and Ohtani was an established player, but a prospect as well as opposed to Yamamoto, Suzaki...).

You need a true 60/40 revenue split. 

Make it an NBA type. You can spend and go over the cap to keep your own players.

 

 

The REAL issue is how to you implement a cap... but not diminish the % of revenue the players get(and actually increase it as it's lower than the NFL/NBA). 

There is no scenario where you have a cap without a floor and revenue sharing. Which makes big teams hoarding money unlikely. It also would not allow for teams to just keep a player just because. it does the opposite of that.

Something I don't ever here mentioned is what equalizing salaries does to the product. As it stands teams like the Dodgers don't have to be particularly good at player development or finding hidden talent others overlook. They just buy the best money can buy and be done with it. The Brewers have to improve every aspect of their system to compete. That means they find and develop talent other teams can't. Even the playing field forces all teams to improve their player development. doing that improves the entire league's talent.

[MrTPlush]

9 minutes ago, jw5511986 said:

Awful for small markets with effective scouting and development operations.

Under the current system, sure. That’s because we have zero shot to ever resign them. We only have players 4-5 years now as is because we have to trade them away so we don’t lose them for nothing.

If there was a salary cap, that cheap control isn’t as essential for small markets because their ability to retain the talent isn’t unfair like it is now.

 

[jw5511986]

9 minutes ago, MrTPlush said:

Under the current system, sure. That’s because we have zero shot to ever resign them. We only have players 4-5 years now as is because we have to trade them away so we don’t lose them for nothing.

If there was a salary cap, that cheap control isn’t as essential for small markets because their ability to retain the talent isn’t unfair like it is now.

 

Sure but your top end talent is still going to want to go to the big markets. Probably you keep guys like Turang but Chourio still goes and he goes faster than he otherwise would have.

[wntrtxn21]

5 minutes ago, jw5511986 said:

Sure but your top end talent is still going to want to go to the big markets. Probably you keep guys like Turang but Chourio still goes and he goes faster than he otherwise would have.

Top end talent goes where the money is. Big markets get them because they have the ability for huge payrolls. Milwaukee would be ideal for a lot of players, but the money is elsewhere. 

[Bulldogboy]

25 minutes ago, MrTPlush said:

Smarter with their money? How exactly are they supposed to be smarter?

1) All three of those players had pretty big impacts this season. Even Hoskins was pretty decent when he played this year. The postseason struggles (or not playing at all) sucks…but hardly something you can go predict. Without them, we don’t win the division. Or worse

2) What is your alternative that is so much smarter? Short term deals with risk (Woodruff/Hoskins) is by far the best way for us to find impact talent without hamstringing our payroll long term.

If you don’t like big long term deals like Yelich and don’t like spending money on Hoskins/Woodruff types…your solution is? Jeff Suppan types?

 

 

These three players provided just about what I did in the playoffs this year. If you want to go with that as  great deals so be it. Now I'm not saying Brewers were not smart on the margins but your top three salaries can't be zero impact and then cry about Dodgers payroll is unfair. Now let's see if they take that money and find some talent that can help including a shortstop who can hit better than me.

[jw5511986]

11 minutes ago, wntrtxn21 said:

Top end talent goes where the money is. Big markets get them because they have the ability for huge payrolls. Milwaukee would be ideal for a lot of players, but the money is elsewhere. 

The cap isn't going to be $150MM below what the Dodgers and Mets are currently spending, you'll still have them spending big on 12 guys with 14 either pre or arb. And the bottom end payrolls will be at or near the floor, it's not an equalizer in that way. Also you don't need to look much past the NBA model to see how the stars still managed to accumulate on a few teams before the 2nd apron introduction (that's not coming at the same time as a hard cap).

[jw5511986]

I'm skeptical that we're even getting a cap this time, the owners can't afford to miss a year with a media rights deal that ends after the 28 season. And I understand they have more resources than the players but the players can't except a cap, it's a loser long term. NFL players are down to 48% from the 64% they originally agreed to, meanwhile the owners have never been more wealthy.

[FidoMcCokefiend]

12 hours ago, Baldkin said:

Of course the richest teams want a cap. The owners want to make more money. 

And the “poorest” owners/teams do not want a floor. 

[Thurston Fluff]

3 hours ago, jw5511986 said:

The cap isn't going to be $150MM below what the Dodgers and Mets are currently spending, you'll still have them spending big on 12 guys with 14 either pre or arb. And the bottom end payrolls will be at or near the floor, it's not an equalizer in that way. Also you don't need to look much past the NBA model to see how the stars still managed to accumulate on a few teams before the 2nd apron introduction (that's not coming at the same time as a hard cap).

I don't see any version of a salary cap the players would accept that didn't involve complete revenue sharing like they have in the NFL. With it there is no team that can't afford to be at or near the top in payroll. 

[BrewerFan]

4 hours ago, Thurston Fluff said:

There is no scenario where you have a cap without a floor and revenue sharing. Which makes big teams hoarding money unlikely. It also would not allow for teams to just keep a player just because. it does the opposite of that.

Yeah... I agree. That's why I'm saying a cap wouldn't do anything for the Brewers. 

They'd still lose Woodruff(if they wanted to keep him) or anyone else. They wouldn't be able to suddenly spend more, other teams would just spend less. And you'd never sell that to MLBPA. 

4 hours ago, Thurston Fluff said:

As it stands teams like the Dodgers don't have to be particularly good at player development or finding hidden talent others overlook. They just buy the best money can buy and be done with it.

But they do. So there's... really nothing the Brewers can do that can put them on equal footing.

The Brewers had a top ~4-6 farm system, #1 per BA(I think that was with Mis).

You sign Snell when you have Ohtani, Yamamoto, Glasnow... probably 5-6 pitchers who'd slot in behind Mis and ahead of Bishop in our prospect rankings... it's just kinda silly at that point. 

This isn't the Yankees going out and signing a FA here or there. This is them and the Mets battling for basically every FA. A team on occasion gives a home grown guy a big deal, but... it's just getting further and further out of control. 

We're spending LESS than we were in 2018 and the Dodgers are spending....twice as much. The Mets even more before the luxury tax, though they'll get hit with it.

The Red Sox and Yankees are being outspent. 

I wouldn't expect a huge change though. I'll hold out hope, but... I don't think we'll suddenly be able to spend 200M while the Dodgers can "only" spend 300M. 

 

We'll probably lose what would be Jesus Made's rookie year as we try and figure all this out, but there's no solution I see that other teams are going to be happy with.

Boston, NYY, some of the big market teams that want to cap the spending, they're not going to want to cap the spending, then turn around and take a smaller piece of the pie. 

The Dodgers, Mets, they don't want to cap anything. In fact... they don't like the luxury taxes as it is.

Then ~20 of the teams that are not able to spend anywhere near those teams, the Brewers, Indians, Twins, Royals, even the M's and the Tigers, White Sox, Reds, Pirates, Marlins, they want what the NFL has... and I think the ship has sailed there. 

Even if you had "equity," players want to play in... LA, Miami, LV, Chicago, NYC, for some reason Philly... so I don't expect parity. 

I'd just like to see the Brewers have a better chance to keep some of their own homegrown players, the Dodgers not be able to put off 73M of a 75M contract into the future so they save 60M in luxury taxes.

 

And even if none of that happens, I'm still going to root for the Brewers because... what the hell else am I gonna do? Become a Dodgers fan? I'd be like rooting for the Empire in Star Wars. Hoping Luke can't hit the inexplicable weakness in the "Death Star," which was only there for aesthetic choices(not sure if that's true or not, but Family Guy said so, so... I'm gonna go with that... because it's fictional and I'm already on my own tangent). 

Plus... when Jesus is on your side(even if it's only for just shy of 7 years... you've got a shot).

[BrewerFan]

4 hours ago, jw5511986 said:

I'm skeptical that we're even getting a cap this time, the owners can't afford to miss a year with a media rights deal that ends after the 28 season. And I understand they have more resources than the players but the players can't except a cap, it's a loser long term. NFL players are down to 48% from the 64% they originally agreed to, meanwhile the owners have never been more wealthy.

NFL players aren't down from to 48% from the 64% they agreed to. 

They got like 64% of 70% of the revenue. They didn't include local revenue, team naming rights... there's a lot of other sources of revenue that they didn't get a piece of. Luxury Suites I believe(one thing that makes Dallas so profitable). 

As for the owners never having been "more wealthy," Reggie White signed a 4/17M deal. 
Micah Parsons got a 4/188M deal.

The NFL should be what MLB is aiming for. 

 

Meanwhile MLB players revenue% has been dropping for the last decade. It was at about 57% in 2015 and t's down to ~42-45% this year. 

I'd also say the owners can weather a missed year FAR easier than the players can and the small market teams that rely on the National TV revenue sharing... which is still paid out. It'll hurt in the long run, but... things can't get much more out of whack than they are now. 

The Players meanwhile... they make... nothing. 

I haven't got a clue how they're going to address this seemingly inevitable labor stoppage, but the Phillies and Bryce Harper's warm reception of the MLB commissioner would lead one to believe it's going to be a pretty contentious stoppage. 

 

The "fairest" situation to me would be something where a bigger percent of revenue is shared. Maybe teams like the Yankees/Dodgers have to share 30% of their net revenue, they get a cap. The cap would have to start high(~280M) and keep that in place for ~8 years. 

Teams can go over that to re-sign their own players, again, the "Bird Rule," type deal. 
Cap Floor- that'd have to be something similar to the NFL. You don't have to hit it every year, but you do have to average it out. 

Service time... Service time gets cut to 5 years(wouldn't like that). 

But my guess is there will be some ancillary changes and nothing too dramatic. 

 

[Fear The Chorizo]

A hard cap and floor, full revenue sharing, and take 1 season out of the path of team control to reach free agency.  Make it the NFL model but with guaranteed money.

 

Honestly, i dont know why any team but the Dodgers wouldnt want that.

[BrewerFan]

12 minutes ago, Fear The Chorizo said:

A hard cap and floor, full revenue sharing, and take 1 season out of the path of team control to reach free agency.  Make it the NFL model but with guaranteed money.

 

Honestly, i dont know why any team but the Dodgers wouldnt want that.

I don't think most of the wealthy teams would want that. Boston, NYY, the Mets(who are already losing a lot of money).. the Phillies. The Cubs damn sure wouldn't. They don't want to share revenue with their players, they're not going to want to share it with the Brewers(and everyone else). 

 

I think that'd be the best for the long-term health of MLB, but... I don't think it'd be the best for the next decade. 

I also think you'd have to phase something like this in slowly... you can't just ask the Dodgers to give up 200M in revenue sharing with the commitments on their books. They owe 100M a year for the 10 years after Ohtani and Yamamoto's contracts are up. 

 

As a Brewers fan... that'd be great. But hell, I don't even need an equal piece of the pie. Just make it slightly bigger! Make it so signing Turang to an extension doesn't have a cascading impact on the rest of the roster(or... god forbid, William Contreras). 

[Thurston Fluff]

37 minutes ago, Fear The Chorizo said:

A hard cap and floor, full revenue sharing, and take 1 season out of the path of team control to reach free agency.  Make it the NFL model but with guaranteed money.

 

Honestly, i dont know why any team but the Dodgers wouldnt want that.

I think they'd have to address options and years of control before being added to the 40 man on top of taking away a year of control. Too many games can be played to manipulate service time for five years actually being five years.

[SRB]

I'm not even sure a salary cap would fully work. The Dodgers and Yankees would still have a massive built-in advantage from the marketing dollars attached to their feeble-minded fanbases.

Baseball needs more aggressive rules to enforce parity, like forfeiting draft picks after consecutive LCS/WS appearances. The competitive balance picks as they exist are a bit of a joke.

I also think a salary floor might have an even bigger impact than a salary cap. The fact that numerous teams don't bother bidding on free agents is a big part of why the Dodgers can fill out their roster with quality players. It's not just the ability to sign the megasuperstars.

The commissioner's office also needs to be shaken up in their corrupt, preferential treatment of the Dodgers. The Sasaski deal should have been voided and the Dodgers should still be paying Bauer.

[GAME05]

Of course we had this same conversation 25 years ago and Selig just gave us more playoff teams saying "See, now the small market teams have a better chance."

Nobody wants a big fix but the fans, and it's gonna take 5-10 more Montreals and Oaklands where fans just stop bothering for anything to change. And even then they'll just relocate the team.

[rickh150]

Bob Costas had it right within his book years back….50% local revenue and local tv is kept while the other 50% is shared evenly.  Dodgers would still keep more because they draw 50,000 with an huge tv market.  And a universal draft!

I agree that a cap ceiling/floor is going to be tough to get by the players.  A larger revenue sharing plan and stricter luxury tax would probably be more reasonable for the next CBA.  Maybe 20-30 years down the road they cross the road to salary cap.

[Austin Tatious]

The Dodgers grabbing all the JP players coming over is also extreme BS.  That system needs to be equitable.  For them to have the most money for MLB free agents AND THEN STILL cherry picking the best JP players is crazy land.

Those JP guys never played in the MLB and haven’t earned six year service time for total free agency. The typical player enters the league through the draft (US territory) or a cap (international).  I get that they’ve been pros already but not in our system.  Giving them a benefit for total free agency that other players don’t get is absurd IMO.