Question of the week: do you care more about a floor or a cap?

[MrTPlush]

A salary floor is more important:

Why?

Partially because a salary floor wouldn’t exist without salary cap. So the answer is really both combined. But even then, the forced revenue sharing that must happen to allow such a salary floor is more important than a cap.

A floor or cap is useless by itself, honestly. Forcing the limitation of the Dodgers ability to spend while forcing the spending of other teams is the most ideal situation. In theory, it should also spread out talent a little more and make more teams competitive.

 

[Thurston Fluff]

5 hours ago, wiguy94 said:

Brock I'm not sure what you were expecting asking this on a Brewers forum but I'd be shocked if a single person said they would rather have a floor than a ceiling.

I am for practical reasons. I think it's the only way to get revenue sharing with player approval. If teams share most revenue then the cap will naturally occur. Ideally we'd have a floor and ceiling with an agreement on percentage of revenue going to players. We don't live in an ideal world so taking the practical approach lets do the next best thing. 

[nate82]

3 hours ago, markedman5 said:

This is encouraging 

 

Very encouraging as I think the revenue split was the blocker during the strike for a salary cap.

[Jopal78]

1 hour ago, wibadgers23 said:

I'm not trying to start a debate about whether Mark A is just hoarding money every year but are the owners of teams like the Brewers and Pirates essentially admitting they have a lot more money to spend but simply choose not to spend?  I'm assuming all owners are in agreement of the $171.2 million floor?  That's a good $50 million more than what the Brewers typically spend in a given year.

Ok, I’ll bite. Mark Attanasio is high finance,  private equity, institutional capital rich. This narrative that owners pocket their baseball team’s money is ridiculous, and just dumb sportswriter drivel. The Brewers are merely one asset in a much larger portfolio of Attanasio’s holdings. He’s interested in increasing the team’s value ten fold more than the cash it generates on a year to year basis. 
 

Teams like the Brewers and Pirates spend what their market provides balanced against what the executives propose in their annual budget. 

[BarremlensTSSC]

2 hours ago, wiguy94 said:

MLBPA's offer included a much stronger share of local media money. There wasn't a number specified so I doubt it's an even split but it would be bigger than it currently is. They also had the competitive integrity tax as well if teams were below $150M in payroll.

the difference between the MLBPA's competitive tax at $150 million and a hard floor of $171 million from MLBs offer is interesting to me..... the other point you made about the owners historic refusal to open the books complicating any likelihood of MLBPA entertaining a cap/floor:  completely agree  But after decades of collusion and lying by the owners I'm not sure even opening the books would help.  I think the words "cap" and "floor" are probably non-starters even if the tax system proposed by MLBPA are basically soft cap/floor structures

[BarremlensTSSC]

1 hour ago, Jopal78 said:

This narrative that owners pocket their baseball team’s money is ridiculous, and just dumb sportswriter drivel. The Brewers are merely one asset in a much larger portfolio of Attanasio’s holdings. He’s interested in increasing the team’s value ten fold more than the cash it generates on a year to year basis. 
 

That's a distinction without a difference.  Certainly agree that the current group of owners is far more interested in increasing the value of their franchises than they are year to year revenue/profit.  Historically that hasn't been the case but it is now and has been for much (though not all) of Attanasio's ownership.

[Bulldogboy]

Floor

[Matt]

I don't care about either if local TV revenue is being distributed equally (even better if if more is being given to smaller markets).

[Lathund]

The MLBPA proposal also includes more revenue sharing (And a soft payroll floor), and I think that alone will go a long way towards more parity without needing a cap. Team payroll spending is highly correlated to team revenue, so more revenue sharing will see small market teams be able to spend more and take some money away from the Dodgers and Yankees and the likes and will even the playing field a lot. Finding a way to increase parity without a cap would be ideal IMO. Because the cap itself only benefits the owners. The rest of us may benefit from the side effects of the cap, but a cap isn't the only way to achieve that. There are a bunch of good ideas in the MLBPA proposal which adress these issues too. 

[thebruce44]

This doesn't seem difficult to me on what is best for the sport without getting into the minutia:

1. Salary cap and floor to mathematically keep overall player compensation consistent.
2. Revenue share so that all teams can hit the floor without losing money while also being incentivized teams and players to stay with their original team.
3. Pay prospects earlier but still reward teams that properly develop talent.

I wish the owners and players could agree on these overall goals before getting into detailed proposals. A work stoppage would be bad for both parties.
 

[Dragonbait]

I'm for whatever keeps ticket and food prices low. Especially as a family of 5.

[adambr2]

2 hours ago, Dragonbait said:

I'm for whatever keeps ticket and food prices low. Especially as a family of 5.

I assure you that nothing could be further from the minds of either side.

We will however get to hear them posture and tell the public repeatedly over the next 8 months how awful and greedy and unreasonable the other side is while they bicker on how they should split up a multi billion dollar pie and we smile and nod as we put $4.50 gas into our cars.

[jw5511986]

15 hours ago, tmwiese55 said:

I was pleasantly surprised by the local TV being agreed upon by the teams.   Trying to think it through, is there any reason the MLBPA would be opposed to that specifically?   In that it leads or starts the walk towards a more true 'cap' is the only reason I'm quickly coming up with.  Or that, if NY/LAD have to give an extra 70 mil each per year to a 'cheap' owner that won't spend it (or is barred from spending it by the cap).

But at least, the owners are fine with it. That's one battle I expected that doesn't seem to be there 

One reason would be these splits provide a new high water mark for the owners to negotiate down from each subsequent CBA. Meanwhile their franchise values go up up up and the players get none of that gain in equity.

[BrewerFan]

On 5/29/2026 at 5:50 AM, Dragonbait said:

I'm for whatever keeps ticket and food prices low. Especially as a family of 5.

I don't think anything is going to do that.

If the Brewers payroll was 30M this year, they'd still be charging the same for tickets and concessions. 

They don't raise ticket prices because they spend on payroll. They raise payroll because they're able to generate more revenue from ticket sales(and all other forms of revenue, merchandise, concessions, etc...). 

[BrewerFan]

On 5/28/2026 at 5:23 PM, wibadgers23 said:

I'm not trying to start a debate about whether Mark A is just hoarding money every year but are the owners of teams like the Brewers and Pirates essentially admitting they have a lot more money to spend but simply choose not to spend?  I'm assuming all owners are in agreement of the $171.2 million floor?  That's a good $50 million more than what the Brewers typically spend in a given year.

Yeah, but in this scenario, they'd be getting a MUCH bigger chunk of revenue from the TV deals all being shared. I'd imagine that'd more than make up for the 50M(or come close to it). 

I'm shocked that the local TV revenue sharing was agreed to by the large markets. 

 

I think you have to start this by grandfathering in some deals, maybe progressively building to it. You can't just punish the Dodgers because they like 120M a year in deferred money or a 360M payroll. 

But no, I don't think Mark Attanasio is hoarding the money. I think they leave a healthy room each year and turn a modest profit.

 

And once again, just to remind everyone, Attanasio owns somewhere in the 35-38% of the Brewers. He's the principal owner, not the majority. So he's making the decisions, but he's not quite as responsible as everyone is inferring. If we're going to lose 20M a year, he has to get approval for that as he did when they borrowed for the AZ and LA complexes(I believe). If it's approved, they move forward. Likewise, if they're going to go 20M into the red, that usually requires a capital call and the other owners, even smaller owners like Giannis is going to have to pay for the2% he owns(or whatever it may be). 

[Brock Beauchamp]

On 5/28/2026 at 6:01 PM, Thurston Fluff said:

I am for practical reasons. I think it's the only way to get revenue sharing with player approval. If teams share most revenue then the cap will naturally occur. Ideally we'd have a floor and ceiling with an agreement on percentage of revenue going to players. We don't live in an ideal world so taking the practical approach lets do the next best thing. 

I also prefer a floor for this reason. I’m also over teams that have a payroll similar to what they receive in revenue sharing, that’s utter nonsense that should stop. 

[Thurston Fluff]

1 hour ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

I also prefer a floor for this reason. I’m also over teams that have a payroll similar to what they receive in revenue sharing, that’s utter nonsense that should stop. 

One of the things few talk about is how the lack of a salary cap boosts innovation. Right now it's the small market teams that are forced to find new ways to win. It's the Brewers, Rays and Guardians of the sport that keeps baseball from stagnating. Without teams like Milwaukee we'd still be in the wait for the three run homer stage of baseball on offense and the only three inning relievers would be end of the roster mop up guys. Stealing bases, and defense would still be afterthoughts. 

A cap and revenue sharing would eliminate the need to find new ways to win. A floor and revenue sharing would do the opposite. It would prevent some teams from pocketing the profits but also force the big spenders to live within the same budget restraints as all the rest. That, to me at least, seems like a good way to get more teams to find new ways to win.

[nate82]

There is no cap without a floor so I really care about the floor.  I don't see the large market teams giving up their advantage without the floor so the floor it is.  

[brewcrewdue80]

I dont quite agree with a set floor.  The floor needs to be a range. Maybe that floor could be tied to a 2 season MLB team minors ranking.  Top 10 gets a 20mil range. 11-20 gets 10 mil. Bottom 10 gets no range.  Brewers with all of these young prospect entering the AA-ML level, why must they pay a FA they dont require when the depth chart is 2-4 deep at any time Pre-Arb players?  

As to cap, until you come up with some fix on deferrals counting toward that season's team payrolls and not counting towards it,  there isnt a fix.

Make it 50/50.   50pct of the player's deferral is counted that or each season. When the deferral amount year happens, 50pct of that amount isnt counted towards the team payroll that season.

 

So for example, in Ohtani's case, vs 10/700 being valued by MLB with his deferrals as 10/460 counting on payroll. 

It would be 10/350 and 35m counting vs the team payroll.

[Brewcrew82]

FWIW, the increased revenue sharing going to small markets under the MLBPA’s proposal is illusory.

You have more money being diverted away from small markets through the massive increase in the CBT threshold and the consequently sharply reduced tax payments from clubs like the Dodgers.

Let’s be honest MLBPA couldn’t care less about small markets. They just want more money for themselves, particularly the well off members who comprise their executive committee. Which basically means they’re pro-Dodgers.

[jw5511986]

Important to remember the proposed floor includes benefits and amateur bonuses, so your $171MM floor suddenly gets much closer to $128MM. 

[BrewerFan]

23 hours ago, Thurston Fluff said:

A cap and revenue sharing would eliminate the need to find new ways to win. A floor and revenue sharing would do the opposite. It would prevent some teams from pocketing the profits but also force the big spenders to live within the same budget restraints as all the rest. That, to me at least, seems like a good way to get more teams to find new ways to win.

It hasn't in other sports, I don't know why it would in MLB. 

Also, I think other teams would still value speed and defense irrespective of the Brewers, I think they always did. We've just had a little more success winning in the regular season without hitting as many HRs. However, as the playoffs comes, the team that hits the most HRs still wins something like 80%(actually, I believe it's 78% to be exact) of the time. So... that really didn't change much. 

 

In the NFL, it's generally the teams that draft the best and by in large has innovative offensive play callers. Sean McVay. 

There's also the best teams at allocating draft capital. 

 

I don't really think there's any argument that teams who are more equal in revenue are going to try less to innovate. I think they're just as likely to do everything to give them an edge.

That said, in the NFL, players have to be at least 3 years out of HS and you're not dealing with 6-9 minor league teams, scouting players as young as 13(we reportedly came to terms Maximiliano Feliz for 2M) so there's a lot more layers to Baseball... but yeah, I fundamentally reject the "eliminate the need to find new ways to win." 

It's sports. Athletes and teams are always looking for whatever edge they can find. Some suck at it like the Rockies or... generally speaking the Angels despite having money and some are good at it... but they're all trying. Even the Dodgers do pretty much all the things the Brewers do, but they at times eschew the defensive versatility because they can sign the best players. But they still put all the priority into scouting and development of the MiLB system. In fact, in most polls if the Brewers had the best farm system, the Dodgers have the 2nd or 3rd... and I believe the most top 100 prospects of any team right now.  

[Trail]

Ya...cap.  Obviously there's a lot more to it, but choosing between the two is easy.  I'm just wondering if a floor isn't going to be just as contentious as a cap.  The smaller market teams...especially in down years where their gate and TV ratings are low, might struggle a bit.  One more reason that the deal has to include revenue sharing for all TV. 

Having said all that...be carful what you ask for.  Right now the Brewers, who know they can't compete on higher-level free agents, put their resources into the minor leagues...coaching, scouting, development, facilities, pitching lab, Latin America, and other things we don't even know about.  Where organizational strength/smarts can level the playing field.  Attanasio has a system that seems to work.  Wondering if a financial structure that pushes a higher % of resources into the major leagues might negate that a bit? ...but we still need a cap :)  

[Thurston Fluff]

19 hours ago, BrewerFan said:

I don't really think there's any argument that teams who are more equal in revenue are going to try less to innovate. I think they're just as likely to do everything to give them an edge.

It's sports. Athletes and teams are always looking for whatever edge they can find. Some suck at it like the Rockies or... generally speaking the Angels despite having money and some are good at it... but they're all trying. Even the Dodgers do pretty much all the things the Brewers do, but they at times eschew the defensive versatility because they can sign the best players. But they still put all the priority into scouting and development of the MiLB system. In fact, in most polls if the Brewers had the best farm system, the Dodgers have the 2nd or 3rd... and I believe the most top 100 prospects of any team right now.  

 

It's amazing to me that there aren't more high revenue teams with great farms. When you can buy all the best players it creates a road block for all the talent on the farm. Which goes back to my belief that money stifles innovation. Certainly there will be teams like the Dodgers who do both. But for every Dodger franchise doing both there is a Mets team failing upward. 

I'll stick to my belief that necessity in the mother of invention here. Nothing is going to be 100% effective but there are ways to make it better. Simply having a floor or cap won't do it. But I think if there's going to be one or the other (which is what this the premise of this thread) I think a floor with revenue sharing is better than a cap with or without it. I base that on the idea that if all the teams make the same amount of money they'll be forced to find other ways to win than just buying the best players. I don't think it's an unreasonable belief.

[young guns]

The double edged sword with a team like the Mets, is that there are the extra resources but they come with extra expectations.  With the Brewers there was the ability to build up a farm and be patient with it, but I'm sure the Mets owners and fans, for the most part, just look at the farm as currency to help buy towards the now.

I feel like we have found a niche in the current system and a way to maximize it to our potential.  I am worried the seemingly inevitable changes on the horizon will break that niche one way or another.  But the one thing that gives me hope is that we've already invested a ton into the farm up approach that we should be able to weather the changes and make the needed adjustments.