Salary Cap

[jw5511986]

7 hours ago, BrewerFan said:

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. 

 

The fact that the team is public owned, the Packers were valued at $115MM in 1992 per a report by Financial World and are now valued at $5.6-6.3B according to Forbes and other sources. In what world does that not mean owners are more wealthy now than they were?

[nate82]

The salary cap would be the death of the minor league system as we know it right now.  Probably looking at gutting about 60% of the minors to where there is only DSL, Rookie and AAA.  The only reason I believe the DSL and Rookie would survive is because those are major investments by the MLB teams.

I believe you would also have to cut the number of games which the owners will not want to do or increase the roster size to around 30-33 which I am not sure the owners or players would be ok with.  Teams would be even more babyish to pitchers with a salary cap in place.  No one will want their pitchers to be going down for the year especially with a salary cap hit when a starting pitcher goes down with TJ and they are then out for a year plus.  Or a starting pitcher goes out with a shoulder injury and now they are out for a year plus or more. 

I just don't believe a salary cap will help and will probably be a hindrance more so than it is helpful.  It is probably best to go with something similar to what the NBA has.  Which MLB already has somewhat.  There just need to be more punishment for going over the cap like losing all of a teams international bonus money and the earliest the team can draft is in the third round.  Could also make it impossible for a team over the cap to make a trade at the deadline unless they are trading contracts of equal value with the minimum value being $10mm.  So for example the Dodgers would have been ineligible to make a trade this past deadline unless they traded someone on their active roster who was making $10mm or more per season and they would have to receive a player who had an equal per season average to who they were trading away and you can't combine players together it has to be one for one.  

Allow the teams to go over the cap but if they go over it there are consequences for doing so and more than just a monetary consequence.  You have to hit the teams hard by not allowing them to get better in the future.  So taking draft picks away and taking international bonus money away.  I think MLB needs to go to something similar to what the NBA has now and not a true salary cap like the NFL.  The salary cap died in 1994 for MLB.  

[MrTPlush]

On 10/18/2025 at 9:59 AM, Bulldogboy said:

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.

So there is no payroll issue argument because a few of our highly paid guys didn’t play/perform in the postseason? I don’t know that Hoskins or Woodruff are even Top 10 salaries on the Dodgers. 

Here is a list of expensive players the Dodgers paid this year and aren’t on their postseason roster:

Michael Conforto - $17mil (left off roster)

Kirby Yates - $13mil (left off roster)

Chris Taylor - $17mil (released midseason)

Tanner Scott - $13mil (injured)

Pitchers Gonsolin, Kopech, Phillips, and Graterol - $20mil (injured)

BONUS: Clayton Kershaw -$16mil (1 postseason appearance so far)

That is $96mil of payroll not even playing for them in the postseason, but yah, no reason to complain, right? Certainly no issue they have endless money to have ridiculous depth and have zero issue with all that wasted money. A guy that would be our #2 starter riding the pine and being in the conversation to miss the NLCS roster entirely.

[BrewerFan]

20 hours ago, jw5511986 said:

The fact that the team is public owned, the Packers were valued at $115MM in 1992 per a report by Financial World and are now valued at $5.6-6.3B according to Forbes and other sources. In what world does that not mean owners are more wealthy now than they were?

Can you point to the part of the post where I inferred the owners WEREN'T wealthier now?

I pointed out that the players were ALSO making a helluva lot more money now. 

 

You made some point that the players USED to get a bigger piece of the pie(then ignored how they got a bigger piece, but only of some of the pie) and then made an argument AGAINST something I NEVER said.

 

By all means, I have no problems arguing, just... make it something I've ACTUALLY said. Don't hear what I didn't say. 

[BrewerFan]

17 hours ago, nate82 said:

The salary cap would be the death of the minor league system as we know it right now.  Probably looking at gutting about 60% of the minors to where there is only DSL, Rookie and AAA.  The only reason I believe the DSL and Rookie would survive is because those are major investments by the MLB teams.

You gotta explain this to me as I don't understand.

Why would it gut the minor league systems?

Just make it the 40 man roster. Even the Dodgers don't have a ton of money in the minors. They get paid very little.

 

Otherwise, I generally agreed with your post. I think you should put a cap in, you're just going to have to start at... like 290 and give teams a few years to get there(hell, I don't know what it'd start at, but it really wouldn't be fair for it to start at like 210 given the Dodgers, Mets, Yankees, Phillies... frankly, the large markets who really drive the sport(minus Chicago which inexplicably doesn't spend much money).

Much smarter people than I will argue about this, but...I like the idea of incorporating some of the themes the NBA uses. Hard capping teams, etc...

But you have to do more than that. You have to make the bottom teams spend more or there's just no reason for the MLBPA to go along with it... and while I'm ready to say right now "screw it, lets have a long labor battle," I'm already looking forward to next Spring Training and I'm pretty sure I'm going to feel MUCH differently the year Jesus Made is signed after 2 games so that we get team control as well as a draft pick for his ROY season.

 

So while your proposal doesn't quite feel like it balances the field out, I don't think any will and yours at least helps makes things a bit more even. 

[jw5511986]

On 10/18/2025 at 3:29 PM, BrewerFan said:

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

Was this not an implied statement that Owners were not more wealthy or are you just bad at structuring thoughts?

[BrewerFan]

4 minutes ago, jw5511986 said:

Was this not an implied statement that Owners were not more wealthy or are you just bad at structuring thoughts?

Or you're just really bad about reading things that aren't there.

I thought it was a pretty simple statement that the sport and revenue had grown for BOTH the owners and players.

Jesus... my posts are generally pretty verbose so people don't have to guess what the "implications," were, but YOU'RE telling ME that you really thought I didn't understand that the value of franchises had gone up when the 3rd richest contract at that time was 4.25M a year, but NOW the Packers are able to give their SECOND highest paid player... at the same position... 47M a year?

 

Ya...ya really thought I believed that to be true, but that the valuation of franchises hadn't gone up since their 1992 values?

LOL... that makes MUCH more sense than pointing out players AND owners had benefitted from the revenue sharing and CBA in the NFL as example by the smallest market in Professional Sports being able to spend as much as any team in the sport.

 

 

You seem to have chose to re-direct this conversation from the fantastical notion that owners were giving players 64% of all revenue and now it's "dropped" to ~50% and instead... well, again, so there's no confusion about what I'm implying, claiming I suggested owners weren't making more money). 

[nate82]

18 minutes ago, BrewerFan said:

You gotta explain this to me as I don't understand.

Why would it gut the minor league systems?

Just make it the 40 man roster. Even the Dodgers don't have a ton of money in the minors. They get paid very little.

For a salary cap to work the owners would have to give up some of their revenue to the players.  That now introduces smaller revenue for the teams.  What do businesses do when revenue starts to shrink?  You guessed it they start cutting things.  One of the things the teams will start to cut quickly are the minor leagues.  Since MLB heavily subsidizes the minor leagues it will be the thing that gets cut.  It is just a money saving thing.  The DSL and the spring training facilities will probably be safe as those investments are already rather high for the teams so cutting them doesn't make much sense.  The cuts will probably be made at A and AA or just eliminating A ball.  

The owners will still want to stay around the profits they were bringing in before the salary cap so something will have to be cut for that to happen.  The easiest thing to cut is the minor leagues.  We have already seen a cut in the minors recently so I wouldn't be surprised if a salary cap were to be implemented it would probably lead to the end of the minor league system as we know it today.  

[BrewerFan]

22 hours ago, rickh150 said:

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.

Yeah, I think this is PRETTY close to how it's written right now, it's just written like the US tax code(that's apolitical).

There's something in there where if you take the "risk" and invest in your own TV deal, you don't have to pay as much. So that's applicable for the Yankees and the YES network, but he Dodgers, they got that 8.8B TV deal and... someone more informed please correct me if I'm wrong, but they invested in the Fox News Regional network, so then they had to pay at a lower rate. 

I'm not exactly sure, but I know it's TECHNICALLY 48% of NET local revenue IS shared with different exclusions. The Dodgers have saved nearly 1B dollars by some cap that either happened by circumventing MLB rules or was a compromise with MLB, but they only pay out 130M(only)... whereas the Yankees contribute 200M, but keep 300M on top of that. 

 

But small market teams DO make a lot of money from the big market teams. 

It'd be FAR more preferable to just have MLB negotiate all the TV rights and then divide those up, have them split the gate revenue 60/40 like the NFL does(they exclude luxury boxes which is one reason Jerry Jones pissed off all the other owners  when he showed a proposal of "Jerry World," then came back with ~20K fewer seats and 100 more luxury suites).

How do you sell the LAD and NYY on that though? "Hey, people are exponentially more interested in watching you play because you're from markets 30X bigger than the smallest markets, so you have to split your money with them?" 

 

Then you'd come up with a Cap(not a hard cap, again, use a "Bird Rule," because the Yankees never should have lost Derek Jeter because they were up against the cap) and a floor and if the Nutting family doesn't like it... there's a list of big egos with bigger wallets who I believe would step in.

[BrewerFan]

35 minutes ago, nate82 said:

For a salary cap to work the owners would have to give up some of their revenue to the players.  That now introduces smaller revenue for the teams.  What do businesses do when revenue starts to shrink?  You guessed it they start cutting things.  One of the things the teams will start to cut quickly are the minor leagues.  Since MLB heavily subsidizes the minor leagues it will be the thing that gets cut.  It is just a money saving thing.  The DSL and the spring training facilities will probably be safe as those investments are already rather high for the teams so cutting them doesn't make much sense.  The cuts will probably be made at A and AA or just eliminating A ball.  

The owners will still want to stay around the profits they were bringing in before the salary cap so something will have to be cut for that to happen.  The easiest thing to cut is the minor leagues.  We have already seen a cut in the minors recently so I wouldn't be surprised if a salary cap were to be implemented it would probably lead to the end of the minor league system as we know it today.  

Oh I thought I was missing something. That you'd have to be paying Minor League Players at a higher rate, but... I don't think this makes any sense. 

Cap or no cap, more revenue going to MLB players or less, we KNOW the more cost efficient way to find and develop talent in throught he farm system. You're not going to eliminate everything from the DSL to AAA. Now you draft a HS kid(which teams would VERY likely shy away from) and... what, they jump straight to AAA after a year going to the DSL?

Also, professional sports don't operate under the same constructs that normal industry does...obviously(I know you know this). That's the whole point. If they did, the Dodgers would be spending 200M dollars and walking away each year with 300M+ in net revenue. 

MOST of the large market teams could spend substantially less and make substantially more. The Mets are losing a couple hundred million a year. 

 

I don't see a scenario in which MiLB players are impacted BEYOND the prospect of them reaching free agency faster. 

I mean, that's the ONE area poor teams don't skimp even now. They all spend and invest heavily on prospects. That's how they get their next stars.

But... what's more, you'd also have to conclude that... you just largely be eliminating the farm systems. Where would you get prospects from? This would create an even bigger issue. Do players now go and play for an independent league and get to pick who they sign with? Because... Jackson Chourio and Jesus Made as 20-year-olds probably aren't picking the Brewers. They'll probably pick the same 6-8 big market teams... maybe the Marlins in Miami or the As in LV.

 

You've got a really good outline... I just just vehemently disagree with the conclusion you're coming to as it pertains to the minor league systems. 

[treego14]

[jw5511986]

2 hours ago, BrewerFan said:

Or you're just really bad about reading things that aren't there.

I thought it was a pretty simple statement that the sport and revenue had grown for BOTH the owners and players.

Jesus... my posts are generally pretty verbose so people don't have to guess what the "implications," were, but YOU'RE telling ME that you really thought I didn't understand that the value of franchises had gone up when the 3rd richest contract at that time was 4.25M a year, but NOW the Packers are able to give their SECOND highest paid player... at the same position... 47M a year?

 

Ya...ya really thought I believed that to be true, but that the valuation of franchises hadn't gone up since their 1992 values?

LOL... that makes MUCH more sense than pointing out players AND owners had benefitted from the revenue sharing and CBA in the NFL as example by the smallest market in Professional Sports being able to spend as much as any team in the sport.

 

 

You seem to have chose to re-direct this conversation from the fantastical notion that owners were giving players 64% of all revenue and now it's "dropped" to ~50% and instead... well, again, so there's no confusion about what I'm implying, claiming I suggested owners weren't making more money). 

Here's where I tell you to get better at reading into things that aren't really there. I never said 64% of all revenue.

And yes, players make more now than they did then, guess what, so does the average American. None of that diminishes the fact that the owners are doing better than the players and have been ever single negotiation since the cap was agreed to. The same will happen to the MLB players too. They might well make a lot more money 30 years from now too, but it will be a percentage of what the owners have made during that same time. Using your example of White vs Parsons, that is a 11x increase, no small thing until we look at the example of the valuation increase of the Packers which, using the low end valuation of 5.6B is a 48x increase. And that increase is, as you have said, because of the "non-football" revenue and the cost certainty of the cap.  I'll never side with the Billionaires at the expense of the Millionaires, I don’t care that the Millionaires make a lot more than I do, they should.  What I care about is limiting the financial manipulation that the Billionaires are able to get away with and a cap doesn't do that, it simply serves to enrich them more than they are. The cap is nothing more than a means to ensure that their valuations continue going up as opposed to the moderate stagnation that they will claim has occurred recently.

[MrTPlush]

Someone mentioned it before, but the current ‘competitive balance’ stuff is actually embarrassing. Large markets get a slap on the wrist punishment in the draft and the small market gets a marginal boost. Both of which won’t see the fruits or turds of that labor for half a decade.

On the other hand the free agency advantage is so lopsided the only way to somewhat bring that down is to basically take 10 rounds of Dodgers picks away so they basically have no farm. These big markets basically have a minor league farm system and an instant reward free agency farm system.

A big issue I don’t see talked about often in the competitive balance issue is the major decline in trade returns you get now. It used to be blue chippers, heck, even for rentals. Now you get middling prospects regardless. Small markets don’t even get the big boost trading their guys off anymore. 10 years ago trading Peralta was a no brainer, now it feels like you might as well roll the dice with him.

[BrewerFan]

4 hours ago, jw5511986 said:

Here's where I tell you to get better at reading into things that aren't really there. I never said 64% of all revenue.

And then here's the part where I tell you... this isn't a very good job of covering up that you didn't know what you were talking about when you claimed NFL players revenue had DROPPED from 64% to 48%. If you knew that was not an accurate statement, why make it?

Quote

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.

So they're "down" to 48% from 64%, but you were never talking about making an apples to apples comparison?

Yeah, seems like I was reading EXACTLY what was right there. 

That doesn't make much sense though.

If your point was that you were never said that it was from the same pool(and to be clear, the 65% was capped up until a certain number and didn't include most local revenue and was primarily driven by TV contracts and Gate reciepts)... then again, why even make the statement? What purpose does it serve

 

4 hours ago, jw5511986 said:

And yes, players make more now than they did then, guess what, so does the average American

So... that's really make this part of the statement irrelevant than;

Quote

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.

Meanwhile the players have never been more "wealthy." 

Everyone makes more! So... you're really not saying anything. 

I think the problem is that you did a quick search, saw the NFLPA originally agreed to 65% during the '87 strike, but you didn't realize just how much of the total revenue that DIDN'T apply to. 

4 hours ago, jw5511986 said:

None of that diminishes the fact that the owners are doing better than the players and have been ever single negotiation since the cap was agreed to.

None of that even a point of contention in the previous posts.... but it's also not true.

Players have had years they've earned as much as 57%(of ALL revenue without a cap at a certain amount like your 1994 64% figure). 

But, again... when was this EVER the point of this thread/discussion?

 

I'm also curious in what line of work do the employees or have the employees outpaced the revenue of the companies during this time period?

This is a red herring and really not related to the MLB CBA discussions. 

4 hours ago, jw5511986 said:

They might well make a lot more money 30 years from now too, but it will be a percentage of what the owners have made during that same time.

Yeah... that's literally the point. It's a negotiated percentage. That's how you arrive at a salary cap, floor. You take a percentage of revenue. In the NFL, it's a MINIMIUM of 48%. The actual number is generally higher, but... that is the minimum percentage of revenue. 

4 hours ago, jw5511986 said:

Using your example of White vs Parsons, that is a 11x increase, no small thing until we look at the example of the valuation increase of the Packers which, using the low end valuation of 5.6B is a 48x increase.

And we're back to comparing Apples to Oranges.

 

Why did we just randomly shift from yearly revenue and the percentage of that that players receive to estimated valuations of franchises? Is this even a serious discussion any longer?

I suspect if you looked the average salary for an employee at MSFT or NVDA vs the valuation of the company... well, I really wouldn't care what you'd find, but I suspect you'd find the employees "revenue share" significantly lag behind the 4.7T dollar valuation. So...I don't know what we're talking about.

We're comparing what percent of revenue they get PER YEAR. Not the valuations of the franchises. That's... totally irrelevant. You can't pay people with projected prices when and if you sell and what that price is PROJECTED to be...

 

4 hours ago, jw5511986 said:

And that increase is, as you have said, because of the "non-football" revenue and the cost certainty of the cap. 

1-How's that? Where did I say "non-football" revenue? I don't know what you're talking about.

I mean, I was originally talking about BASEBALL and a wildly different financial structure than the NFL, but you choose to make some statements about the NFL that really doesn't hold much water.

I pointed out that the 64% YOU were talking about didn't include most LOCAL revenue. They also literally capped how much of the revenue they could share(150M in 1994). So it really... couldn't be less relevant. 

It'd be like saying..."once they reach 8B, you don't get anymore revenue" in the modern NFL. 
 You'll also have to show me where I said the revenue sharing didn't include "non-football revenue," or what point you're making here. 

And no, it's more the cost certainty of the NFL TV deals BLOWING up that the NFL players are VERY clearly sharing in, now at ~111B dollars and the NFL is almost certainly going to opt OUT of that in 2029 because it's not a big enough deal.

 

But AGAIN, I don't know why we've randomly shifted the conversation from Revenue generated per year by a league to franchise valuations are.

The cost of a franchise is elevated NOT just because of the money, but the scarcity. This really couldn't have less to do with the conversation. 

What's next, are we going to start talking about 12 month forward PE's for NFL franchises vs players salaries? An NFL teams percieved valuation from Forbes? Again, why are we occilating back between NFL valuations and how EVERY league determines players revenue... 

Revenue each year gets divided up every year. THAT is how the salary cap is decided. Not how much an NFL franchise is worth.  

4 hours ago, jw5511986 said:

I'll never side with the Billionaires at the expense of the Millionaires, I don’t care that the Millionaires make a lot more than I do, they should.

Don't think I asked you to. You've made this an ENTIRELY different conversation about millionaires and billionaires in another sport with... partial truths and inferences that weren't made.

4 hours ago, jw5511986 said:

What I care about is limiting the financial manipulation that the Billionaires are able to get away with and a cap doesn't do that, it simply serves to enrich them more than they are.

You're saying nothing here. 

I haven't seen anyone say, "hey, I'm for Billionaires being able to get away with financial manipulation!"

Are we still talking about Football(which for whatever reason has been the extent of this discussion) given the NFL DOES open it's books and have done so since 1993.... so I don't know what "financial manipulation," you're referring to here, but it seems like a larger and more disconnected political point vs a discussion on the economic inequalities in MLB.

4 hours ago, jw5511986 said:

The cap is nothing more than a means to ensure that their valuations continue going up as opposed to the moderate stagnation that they will claim has occurred recently.

It's NOTHING more?

So... a cap(And floor) and revenue sharing in the NFL(which is what the discussion was actually about)... that doesn't do ANYTHING but enrich owners?

 

Has it dawned on you that MAYBE one of the reasons the NFL is so WILDLY successful is that pretty much EVERY NFL team can sign afford ANY player? Maybe that's part of the reason their revenue has just blown past that of MLB?

That the very first day of the league year, EACH team is given a check, this year for ~400M dollars that covers the entire 280M salary cap?

 

That every single team is on equal footing? A Cap wouldn't make it so a publicly owned team from a city of 100K people could be on equal financial footing with the New York teams, the LA, Dallas, Chicago teams?

I was unaware that a cap ONLY served one singular agenda.

 

I guess I won't read things that aren't there.

A salary cap does literally NOTHING but increase franchise valuations. Absolutely nothing else at all. Would a floor then serve "no purpose" but to lower a franchises valuation then?

I mean, that's the logical conclusion from such a broad statement lacking all nuance, but... I'm just curious. 

[jw5511986]

6 hours ago, BrewerFan said:

And then here's the part where I tell you... this isn't a very good job of covering up that you didn't know what you were talking about when you claimed NFL players revenue had DROPPED from 64% to 48%. If you knew that was not an accurate statement, why make it?

So they're "down" to 48% from 64%, but you were never talking about making an apples to apples comparison?

Yeah, seems like I was reading EXACTLY what was right there. 

That doesn't make much sense though.

If your point was that you were never said that it was from the same pool(and to be clear, the 65% was capped up until a certain number and didn't include most local revenue and was primarily driven by TV contracts and Gate reciepts)... then again, why even make the statement? What purpose does it serve

 

So... that's really make this part of the statement irrelevant than;

Meanwhile the players have never been more "wealthy." 

Everyone makes more! So... you're really not saying anything. 

I think the problem is that you did a quick search, saw the NFLPA originally agreed to 65% during the '87 strike, but you didn't realize just how much of the total revenue that DIDN'T apply to. 

None of that even a point of contention in the previous posts.... but it's also not true.

Players have had years they've earned as much as 57%(of ALL revenue without a cap at a certain amount like your 1994 64% figure). 

But, again... when was this EVER the point of this thread/discussion?

 

I'm also curious in what line of work do the employees or have the employees outpaced the revenue of the companies during this time period?

This is a red herring and really not related to the MLB CBA discussions. 

Yeah... that's literally the point. It's a negotiated percentage. That's how you arrive at a salary cap, floor. You take a percentage of revenue. In the NFL, it's a MINIMIUM of 48%. The actual number is generally higher, but... that is the minimum percentage of revenue. 

And we're back to comparing Apples to Oranges.

 

Why did we just randomly shift from yearly revenue and the percentage of that that players receive to estimated valuations of franchises? Is this even a serious discussion any longer?

I suspect if you looked the average salary for an employee at MSFT or NVDA vs the valuation of the company... well, I really wouldn't care what you'd find, but I suspect you'd find the employees "revenue share" significantly lag behind the 4.7T dollar valuation. So...I don't know what we're talking about.

We're comparing what percent of revenue they get PER YEAR. Not the valuations of the franchises. That's... totally irrelevant. You can't pay people with projected prices when and if you sell and what that price is PROJECTED to be...

 

1-How's that? Where did I say "non-football" revenue? I don't know what you're talking about.

I mean, I was originally talking about BASEBALL and a wildly different financial structure than the NFL, but you choose to make some statements about the NFL that really doesn't hold much water.

I pointed out that the 64% YOU were talking about didn't include most LOCAL revenue. They also literally capped how much of the revenue they could share(150M in 1994). So it really... couldn't be less relevant. 

It'd be like saying..."once they reach 8B, you don't get anymore revenue" in the modern NFL. 
 You'll also have to show me where I said the revenue sharing didn't include "non-football revenue," or what point you're making here. 

And no, it's more the cost certainty of the NFL TV deals BLOWING up that the NFL players are VERY clearly sharing in, now at ~111B dollars and the NFL is almost certainly going to opt OUT of that in 2029 because it's not a big enough deal.

 

But AGAIN, I don't know why we've randomly shifted the conversation from Revenue generated per year by a league to franchise valuations are.

The cost of a franchise is elevated NOT just because of the money, but the scarcity. This really couldn't have less to do with the conversation. 

What's next, are we going to start talking about 12 month forward PE's for NFL franchises vs players salaries? An NFL teams percieved valuation from Forbes? Again, why are we occilating back between NFL valuations and how EVERY league determines players revenue... 

Revenue each year gets divided up every year. THAT is how the salary cap is decided. Not how much an NFL franchise is worth.  

Don't think I asked you to. You've made this an ENTIRELY different conversation about millionaires and billionaires in another sport with... partial truths and inferences that weren't made.

You're saying nothing here. 

I haven't seen anyone say, "hey, I'm for Billionaires being able to get away with financial manipulation!"

Are we still talking about Football(which for whatever reason has been the extent of this discussion) given the NFL DOES open it's books and have done so since 1993.... so I don't know what "financial manipulation," you're referring to here, but it seems like a larger and more disconnected political point vs a discussion on the economic inequalities in MLB.

It's NOTHING more?

So... a cap(And floor) and revenue sharing in the NFL(which is what the discussion was actually about)... that doesn't do ANYTHING but enrich owners?

 

Has it dawned on you that MAYBE one of the reasons the NFL is so WILDLY successful is that pretty much EVERY NFL team can sign afford ANY player? Maybe that's part of the reason their revenue has just blown past that of MLB?

That the very first day of the league year, EACH team is given a check, this year for ~400M dollars that covers the entire 280M salary cap?

 

That every single team is on equal footing? A Cap wouldn't make it so a publicly owned team from a city of 100K people could be on equal financial footing with the New York teams, the LA, Dallas, Chicago teams?

I was unaware that a cap ONLY served one singular agenda.

 

I guess I won't read things that aren't there.

A salary cap does literally NOTHING but increase franchise valuations. Absolutely nothing else at all. Would a floor then serve "no purpose" but to lower a franchises valuation then?

I mean, that's the logical conclusion from such a broad statement lacking all nuance, but... I'm just curious. 

You can continue to misrepresent what I'm saying, I'll waive the white flag and tell you how smart you are. The players should agree to whatever the owners want because they will all make more money and it's all for the good of the game. In fact everyone from any career path that has an arbitrary cap has made more money because of it. Have you considered a career with the MLBPA, the players probably have much to learn from you as I have today.

[BrewerFan]

4 minutes ago, jw5511986 said:

You can continue to misrepresent what I'm saying

I haven't done that. YOU said that the NFLPA has gone from a 65% of revenue share to a 48% of revenue share.

I used your quotes so there wasn't any confusion. If you made that statement knowing it was wildly misleading and that 65% wasn't 65% of the whole pie like the 48% is then you were just being intellectually dishonest.

7 minutes ago, jw5511986 said:

I'll waive the white flag and tell you how smart you are.

Most appreciated. I just think we should try and stay on topic.

7 minutes ago, jw5511986 said:

The players should agree to whatever the owners want because they will all make more money and it's all for the good of the game.

I'm sorry, you started this thread by saying;

7 minutes ago, jw5511986 said:

You can continue to misrepresent what I'm saying,

And yet... where exactly did I say "the players should agree to whatever the owners want?"

Just say what you mean. Discussions are much easier when you do that instead of create strawman arguments. 

 

9 minutes ago, jw5511986 said:

because they will all make more money and it's all for the good of the game.

See, now THIS part is closer... if you don't make up the whole, "the players should give the owners whatever they want," and play the big bad billionaires card.

I said that more revenue sharing, a cap where you can spend to retain your own players similar to how the NBA has it and then a FLOOR... would be good.

But to put a finer point on it, I said that the NFL's Collective Bargaining Agreement has helped the sport as a WHOLE grow their revenue and that's good for everyone. Not exactly "the players should give the owners whatever they want." 

12 minutes ago, jw5511986 said:

In fact everyone from any career path that has an arbitrary cap has made more money because of it. 

I'm sorry, WHAT point are we even attempting to make or argue at this point?

And it's not an arbitrary cap. It's based on the league's revenue. AT least as it pertains to Baseball. But then we went to Football when you cited what WAS an arbitrary cap where they just made up random exceptions and limits and used that to argue that the cap was the reason that their revenue sharing had dropped from 65% to 48%. 

15 minutes ago, jw5511986 said:

Have you considered a career with the MLBPA, the players probably have much to learn from you as I have today.

LOL... sure! I'll... get right on top of that!

 

To recap, you made the argument that the NFLPA's percentage of revenue had gone down drastically since they implemented a cap(you specifically used that time frame and the 65% number) and said it had dropped down to 48%.

When I pointed out you're not at all comparing the same things as that 65% was not close to the entire revenue pie, you accused me of "mis-representing things you said," while claiming that I "inferred" the owners had not made more money...upon pointing out that Micah Parsons just signed for 47M a year where as Reggie signed his contract(which was actually VERY close to the richest in LEAGUE history, not just for a defensive player... hell, Parsons isn't even the top paid Packer. 

 

It was at THIS point you felt the need to change the discussion from the two principle points in a CBA, REVENUE and what SHARE of that revenue the players get and instead.... start talking about franchise valuations. 

 

 

If you want to waive the white flat... waive it bud. If you want to keep digging the shovel, playing the 'that's not what I meant,' even though it's exactly what you said card and then create strawman arguments to respond to me... I'll keep doing so.

 

I will have to wait to get back to you as... I probably should get some work done, but I look forward to seeing how I have said that... MLB players should volunteer to play for the league minimum or some other equally foolish statement that I never actually made while you complain about being misrepresented! 

[Fear The Chorizo]

On 10/18/2025 at 10:56 PM, Austin Tatious said:

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.   

100% this.

IF there isn't a legit salary cap and/or full revenue sharing across MLB as part of this next CBA, I think the bare minimum change that needs to happen is to set up some sort of guardrails on Asian professional league poaching for teams who exceed MLB's luxury tax at least once over the prior 5-year period.  I'm sure there would be ways for the Dodgers and other big market bullies to game the system somehow (i.e., colluding with premier Japanese players and their Japanese teams to wait to post them until they're eligible to bid on them), but something needs to be done.  Right now Japan is the equivalent of a Dodger AAA team on top of their own farm system that gets to draft and sign US/international amateur players at the same rate as everyone else.  It's absurd. 

[Jopal78]

12 hours ago, MrTPlush said:

Someone mentioned it before, but the current ‘competitive balance’ stuff is actually embarrassing. Large markets get a slap on the wrist punishment in the draft and the small market gets a marginal boost. Both of which won’t see the fruits or turds of that labor for half a decade.

On the other hand the free agency advantage is so lopsided the only way to somewhat bring that down is to basically take 10 rounds of Dodgers picks away so they basically have no farm. These big markets basically have a minor league farm system and an instant reward free agency farm system.

A big issue I don’t see talked about often in the competitive balance issue is the major decline in trade returns you get now. It used to be blue chippers, heck, even for rentals. Now you get middling prospects regardless. Small markets don’t even get the big boost trading their guys off anymore. 10 years ago trading Peralta was a no brainer, now it feels like you might as well roll the dice with him.

Anyone who was in favor of the last labor deal should’ve known it would be bad for teams like Milwaukee. It’s been a double whammy. Prices Since for even mediocre free agents have reached 10+ million dollars a year. Leaving teams like Milwaukee to bargain shop in February when the free agent class has mostly been picked over two or three times already.

Then with the prices being what they are, even the big dogs recognize with the costs of talent acquisition they need to have a pipeline of young cheap talent and don’t trade blue chippers.

As for a salary cap, there is no reason for the Dodgers, Yankees, Mets, Phillies to want a salary cap; they’re more than satisfied playing an opponent on unequal footing most nights. I’m not convinced small market owners in KC, Cincy, TB, Milwaukee etc, want a salary floor either. In rebuilding seasons where they don’t have the horses on the roster to win they want to retain the ability to pare salary down to the bone and not sign 10 million dollar a year free agents simply to meet a floor. 

[Jopal78]

23 minutes ago, Fear The Chorizo said:

100% this.

IF there isn't a legit salary cap and/or full revenue sharing across MLB as part of this next CBA, I think the bare minimum change that needs to happen is to set up some sort of guardrails on Asian professional league poaching for teams who exceed MLB's luxury tax at least once over the prior 5-year period.  I'm sure there would be ways for the Dodgers and other big market bullies to game the system somehow (i.e., colluding with premier Japanese players and their Japanese teams to wait to post them until they're eligible to bid on them), but something needs to be done.  Right now Japan is the equivalent of a Dodger AAA team on top of their own farm system that gets to draft and sign US/international amateur players at the same rate as everyone else.  It's absurd. 

Nothing practical can be done. Even if they made an international draft or put caps in place, star professional players in Japan are well compensated compared to the other foreign leagues. Therefore,  the next Yamamoto or Sasaki could decide there’s too much culture shock in Milwaukee, or not enough chance to win in Minnesota, etc., and simply refuse to come stateside and play if selected by a team they do not prefer or wait until preferred destination becomes possible. 
 

I suppose teams could set up a baseball academies like in the DR and start scouting amateur Japanese players and beat the NPB to the punch in contracting them, but that sounds quite expensive with no guarantee of it ever being worthwhile. 

[Fear The Chorizo]

Just now, Jopal78 said:

Nothing practical can be done. Even if they made an international draft, star professional players in Japan are well compensated compared to the other foreign leagues. Therefore,  the next Yamamoto or Sasaki could decide there’s too much culture shock in Milwaukee, or not enough chance to win in Minnesota, etc., and simply refuse to come stateside and play if selected by a team they do not prefer. 

Well, they wouldn't wind up on the Dodgers then, would they?  I also find it hard to believe that a Japanese player would turn down generational wealth from any organization in baseball due to "culture shock" in today's MLB just because they don't play half their games in a city on the west coast.  The argument about not having enough chance to win has more to do with the system I'm advocating be changed, too.  The player still would have a right to negotiate with any team eligible to sign them over that 45 day period - it isn't that difficult for even large market teams to get under the luxury tax threshold consistently enough, either.   

Maybe once over previous 5 years is too long a period for a team to be excluded from bidding on a posted Japanese/professional player....because using 2024-2020 seasons that list would be 14 teams.  let's go with being over the luxury tax at least 3 of the previous 5 seasons....that same period would then only include the Yankees, Phillies, Braves, Dodgers, Astros, and Giants.  

Even with the massive spending the Mets and Yankees have recently committed to, I think the only MLB team that finds itself in perpetual luxury tax hell with existing contracts on the books is the Dodgers (meaning they'd need to gut their current roster to get under that threshold due to longterm contracts and deferrals).  They are by far and away playing by a different set of rules than anyone else in MLB - which should be obvious considering the fact they can be penciled in as a WS participant for the NL at the start of every season, and nobody in their right mind would bet against that.  That HAS to change somehow for the good of the league.

[GAME05]

>not a hard cap, again, use a "Bird Rule," because the Yankees never should have lost Derek Jeter because they were up against the cap

To a good degree teams can prepare for this. I otherwise like the idea that when re-signing a player, 10% of their salary will not count toward the cap. Baseball should encourage players sticking with the same team.

[Fear The Chorizo]

>not a hard cap, again, use a "Bird Rule," because the Yankees never should have lost Derek Jeter because they were up against the cap

 

Well, with a hard cap, the Yankees wouldn't have faced that decision, either some of those years if they didn't want it - they just would have not been able to add as much additional salary as they did from other teams via free agency or trade as the seasons ebbed and flowed (i.e., Sabathia, Clemens, Giambi, Matsui, Mussina, ARod, Randy Johnson, Damon, etc).

 

I would add that a hard cap would also include full broadcast revenue sharing - meaning that the financial playing field, while not totally equal due to markets sizes, would be much more level and allow for all ballclubs to retain their homegrown stars longterm if they want them, in addition to shelling out money in free agency much more consistently.  Huge market clubs still would have built in advantages if they are well run (similar to how many big market clubs were routinely playing for titles before MLB adopted free agency) - but the game would be much healthier and generate much more fan interest if the whole league had reasonable windows where their local team could win it all or could sign a marquee free agent from time to time.  The NBA has a better financial model going than MLB along with more varaibility on who's playing for NBA titles from each conference, which is a black eye on MLB.

[nate82]

17 hours ago, BrewerFan said:

Cap or no cap, more revenue going to MLB players or less, we KNOW the more cost efficient way to find and develop talent in throught he farm system. You're not going to eliminate everything from the DSL to AAA. Now you draft a HS kid(which teams would VERY likely shy away from) and... what, they jump straight to AAA after a year going to the DSL?

They may not get rid of every level and just do away with low A but it will be different.  You will also have to pay some minor league players more.  Anyone on the 40 man would have to be paid at the MLB minimum.  So that means your AAA and some AA players will be making more.

They could just get rid of A ball completely.  That would eliminate enough minor league teams.

It may just be better to go away with the active roster and the 40 man and just go with an active roster only.  That would have to be less than 40.  Probably something around 30-35.  

You could also slow walk the prospects by keeping them at a lower level until they are ready for AAA.  This may actually be better for the prospects.  This would also reduce the number of players in the minors.  So yes some will have to go to the independent leagues.  Majority of the prospects in the minors don’t amount to anything so thinning the rosters may be more beneficial to the teams and players.  A smaller minor league system should allow for more coaching for the prospects than they get now.  So one or two years at the DSL and spring training facilities and then off to AA or AAA.  
 

17 hours ago, BrewerFan said:

Also, professional sports don't operate under the same constructs that normal industry does...obviously(I know you know this). That's the whole point. If they did, the Dodgers would be spending 200M dollars and walking away each year with 300M+ in net revenue. 

MOST of the large market teams could spend substantially less and make substantially more. The Mets are losing a couple hundred million a year. 

The losses are usually only temporary.  At some point the Mets and even the Dodgers will stop spending.  They don’t have an infinite money glitch they can tap into.  At some point there will be cuts made to the payroll.

 

Another thing I think for a cap either a NFL style cap or an NBA one to work the draft would need to be altered.  Probably where the first three rounds get guaranteed contracts.  Which would mean more college players would be picked in the first three rounds.  Maybe not do three rounds and only the first two and then limit the draft to 15 rounds.  This would also eliminate the international signing as they would be included in the draft.  For the MLBPA to accept this I believe you need to give the guaranteed money to the draft picks so it is similar to what the international players are getting now in terms of bonus money.  So may need to keep it at the first three or five rounds.

 

[BrewerFan]

6 hours ago, Jopal78 said:

Nothing practical can be done. Even if they made an international draft or put caps in place, star professional players in Japan are well compensated compared to the other foreign leagues. Therefore,  the next Yamamoto or Sasaki could decide there’s too much culture shock in Milwaukee, or not enough chance to win in Minnesota, etc., and simply refuse to come stateside and play if selected by a team they do not prefer or wait until preferred destination becomes possible. 
 

I suppose teams could set up a baseball academies like in the DR and start scouting amateur Japanese players and beat the NPB to the punch in contracting them, but that sounds quite expensive with no guarantee of it ever being worthwhile. 

No, something very practical can be done, you're just making an assumption that Japanese players would refuse to play here.

We WERE one of Sasaki's choices... but it was pretty obvious we weren't going to get him over the Dodgers. We've also had Japanese players here. A player like Sasaki who wanted to play in the Major Leagues SO badly that he couldn't wait another year when he would have signed a record setting deal(provided he stayed healthy this year in Japan).... you think he would have just not come over vs coming to Milwaukee for whatever time frame he was looking at?

A draft... is very much a practical solution. 

Why would the NBA be bringing players from France and all over Europe to San Antonio or wherever, but that wouldn't be the same in MLB? I believe you'd be able to make the same argument about the Dominican Republic. Though... most kids in Japan grow up learning English... so you could argue that it's an even bigger culture shock for kids from the DR. They leave at 16, they're playing Stateside by 18, 19... if they have success. 

[BrewerFan]

3 hours ago, nate82 said:

They may not get rid of every level and just do away with low A but it will be different.  You will also have to pay some minor league players more.  Anyone on the 40 man would have to be paid at the MLB minimum.  So that means your AAA and some AA players will be making more.

They could just get rid of A ball completely.  That would eliminate enough minor league teams.

It may just be better to go away with the active roster and the 40 man and just go with an active roster only.  That would have to be less than 40.  Probably something around 30-35.  

I just don't believe that's where MLB teams would look to cut. The most efficient form of developing cheap young talent.

3 hours ago, nate82 said:

You could also slow walk the prospects by keeping them at a lower level until they are ready for AAA.  This may actually be better for the prospects.  This would also reduce the number of players in the minors.  So yes some will have to go to the independent leagues.  Majority of the prospects in the minors don’t amount to anything so thinning the rosters may be more beneficial to the teams and players.  A smaller minor league system should allow for more coaching for the prospects than they get now.  So one or two years at the DSL and spring training facilities and then off to AA or AAA.  

Yes, the majority fail. But you don't know which will fail until... they fail. Eric Brown Jr would likely have been taking up a roster spot while Adamczewski would likely be playing in independent ball?

That wouldn't be a cheaper or more efficient system and we're still ultimately talking about a relatively small amount of money compared to one large FA.

3 hours ago, nate82 said:

The losses are usually only temporary.  At some point the Mets and even the Dodgers will stop spending.  They don’t have an infinite money glitch they can tap into.  At some point there will be cuts made to the payroll.

Well, the Dodgers aren't losing money, just the Mets.

And no, they don't have an ultimate money glitch, they just have a ton of money. 

But my point stands, if the goal was only to make money... those teams could make a lot more money and spend a lot less.

The Mets losing money wasn't really the point, it was more Cohen doesn't care about making money. I'm sure he'll adjust after he sees you can't just buy a championship, but I suspect they'll move more in the Dodgers direction of working to develop the best farm system AND paying the most.

 

But maybe there will be a cut at some point. Or maybe the TV money will just keep going up as it's the one area where TV is actually growing, live sports. 

 

I guess we'll see what happens. That just seems like the least efficient place to cut. In fact, if there was a cap, I would guess the large market teams would spend even more on scouting and player development.... and the teams that do it now would continue to.