Arbitration--Salary Cap

[NHNative]

Curious what you guys think.

My wife and I are in the owners court on this.

Money is one thing that has ruined the NFL and it is happening to MLB.

Rather than love and loyalty to the game and team, its about being multi-millionaires.

This can only damage the greatest game.

[moonslav59]

I'm fine with some sort of soft or hard cap, as long as there is a floor that rises quickly and significantly.

I think the players would agree to it, if the owners offered tidbits to the majority of players and not the ones at the top of the food chain. Some ideas I have mentioned- geared toward most players are....

shortened pre-arb and or arb years

greatly increasing minimum pay (perhaps change the formula for players yo-yo'd between minors/majors.

increase roster sizes 26 to 27 and or 40 to 42

further incentivize teams to call up top prospects earlier rather than build control years

If owners give up enough in these types of areas, the majority of players, who are not greatly impacted by salary caps, anyway, might go along with the cap.

 

 

[NHNative]

2 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

I'm fine with some sort of soft or hard cap, as long as there is a floor that rises quickly and significantly.

I think the players would agree to it, if the owners offered tidbits to the majority of players and not the ones at the top of the food chain. Some ideas I have mentioned- geared toward most players are....

shortened pre-arb and or arb years

greatly increasing minimum pay (perhaps change the formula for players yo-yo'd between minors/majors.

increase roster sizes 26 to 27 and or 40 to 42

further incentivize teams to call up top prospects earlier rather than build control years

If owners give up enough in these types of areas, the majority of players, who are not greatly impacted by salary caps, anyway, might go along with the cap.

 

 

I agree the bottom needs to come up---its way out of whack.

If less is given to players at the top, there are more resources available to the fans. There is a hard bottom and not top.

This is fundamentally wrong.

[moonslav59]

12 minutes ago, NHNative said:

I agree the bottom needs to come up---its way out of whack.

If less is given to players at the top, there are more resources available to the fans. There is a hard bottom and not top.

This is fundamentally wrong.

Don't think for a minute any saving the owners get will go back to the fans.

[NHNative]

52 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

Don't think for a minute any saving the owners get will go back to the fans.

Therein is the problem.

Perhaps the fans ought to enter arbitration.

[moonslav59]

11 minutes ago, NHNative said:

Therein is the problem.

Perhaps the fans ought to enter arbitration.

This is not a unique business. Look at the record profits from oil companies, right now. Why don't they give back some to consumers? It's unrealistic to ask companies to minimize profits.

[Eldon Dunlop]

I'm not sure that many of the owners will agree to a cap . There are multi-billionaire owners , that don't care how much a winning team costs them . They even don't care about how much payroll tax it costs them . There are 30 teams , and I would guess that it would take a super-majority vote to pass any type of cap . My guess is that there are at least 6 owners that would vote against a cap . 

[NHNative]

37 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

This is not a unique business. Look at the record profits from oil companies, right now. Why don't they give back some to consumers? It's unrealistic to ask companies to minimize profits.

Fans could choose to boycott.

[moonslav59]

2 minutes ago, NHNative said:

Fans could choose to boycott.

LOL

Like lets boycott gasoline.

[NHNative]

The NFL has been seeing this sort of thing. Although to date, not significant.

I think it will change.

[NHNative]

Anyway---reading back after my temporary lapse of reason, I am all wet.

[notin]

13 hours ago, NHNative said:

Fans could choose to boycott.

Something we could have done any time in the last 35 years, and yet here we are again…

[notin]

13 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

LOL

Like lets boycott gasoline.

Buy an EV…

[notin]

14 hours ago, Eldon Dunlop said:

I'm not sure that many of the owners will agree to a cap . There are multi-billionaire owners , that don't care how much a winning team costs them . They even don't care about how much payroll tax it costs them . There are 30 teams , and I would guess that it would take a super-majority vote to pass any type of cap . My guess is that there are at least 6 owners that would vote against a cap . 

********.  They all care.  You don’t get to be a billionaire by overspending freely.

 

[Deja Doh]

Expand rosters to 27, then add two more teams, then shrink rosters back to 25 (giving the expansion teams potential MLB prospects to choose from).  Create 8 - 4 (or 4 - 8) team divisions. Eliminate interleague games (or at least minimize it).  Get rid of the DH.

[moonslav59]

1 hour ago, notin said:

Buy an EV…

The thing is much of our electricity comes from fossil-burning fuel plants.

[moonslav59]

1 hour ago, Deja Doh said:

Expand rosters to 27, then add two more teams, then shrink rosters back to 25 (giving the expansion teams potential MLB prospects to choose from).  Create 8 - 4 (or 4 - 8) team divisions. Eliminate interleague games (or at least minimize it).  Get rid of the DH.

I'd prefer contracting the league and expanding the roster to 28. 

We already have 3-4 cities that don't support their teams, even if they have winning teams (TBR) or very nice stadiums (PIT & MN.) KC. MIA and the A's have neither.

I'm not sure Vegas, Salt Lake City or any other city will do better.

[mvp 78]

If you are worried about money's impact on the game, the majority of the money sits with ownership. Not sure why that would keep you siding with ownership on this issue. 

I don't have a problem with teams like the Dodgers, Jays and Mets spending money. I have a problem with the system that allows teams at the bottom to receive money and not spend it like the Reds and Pirates. The reason half the teams are excluded from WS contention every season is because their owners are guaranteed a profit no matter if their fans show up or not. Fix that problem and maybe the competition year to year will get better. 

Can't blame players for 10+ teams simply not wanting to spend. Caps are a boon to ownership. They don't need more money.

[NHNative]

15 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

If you are worried about money's impact on the game, the majority of the money sits with ownership. Not sure why that would keep you siding with ownership on this issue. 

I don't have a problem with teams like the Dodgers, Jays and Mets spending money. I have a problem with the system that allows teams at the bottom to receive money and not spend it like the Reds and Pirates. The reason half the teams are excluded from WS contention every season is because their owners are guaranteed a profit no matter if their fans show up or not. Fix that problem and maybe the competition year to year will get better. 

Can't blame players for 10+ teams simply not wanting to spend. Caps are a boon to ownership. They don't need more money.

I get all of that, but fundamentally when players are chasing money, where is loyalty to teams and the game? Money Ball or Baseball?

Sure--I am an idealist.

[mvp 78]

2 minutes ago, NHNative said:

I get all of that, but fundamentally when players are chasing money, where is loyalty to teams and the game? Money Ball or Baseball?

Sure--I am an idealist.

Where is the loyalty from owners to players? Sox showed little to no interest in retaining their top stars going back to the Lynn and Fisk days through Xander and Mookie days. Go all the way back to Babe Ruth if you'd like. Giving the owners more money won't fix that issue. Owners have less loyalty than players do. 

[NHNative]

1 minute ago, mvp 78 said:

Where is the loyalty from owners to players? Sox showed little to no interest in retaining their top stars going back to the Lynn and Fisk days through Xander and Mookie days. Go all the way back to Babe Ruth if you'd like. Giving the owners more money won't fix that issue. Owners have less loyalty than players do. 

I doesn't exist.

[Hugh2]

Millionaires vs. Billionaires......Do I have to take a side?

[Hugh2]

Both sides fighting for more money.....fans will still pay more no matter who wins. 

[Michigan Adam2]

On 10/4/2026 at 12:17 PM, moonslav59 said:

The thing is much of our electricity comes from fossil-burning fuel plants.

The next obvious answer is push non fossil fuel power.  

[moonslav59]

2 hours ago, Michigan Adam2 said:

The next obvious answer is push non fossil fuel power.  

Don't want to get political, but that's what we were trying to do, until...

[Bellhorn04]

A cap of 240 million or whatever they're proposing is going to be a hard sell.  Because we already know there are teams that can spend a pile more than that and still pay their bills.

[Bellhorn04]

The owners are proposing to cut back to 154 games, increase the LDS to 7 games and fix up the playoff system.  These changes actually seem fine.

[JimEd]

1 hour ago, Bellhorn04 said:

A cap of 240 million or whatever they're proposing is going to be a hard sell.  Because we already know there are teams that can spend a pile more than that and still pay their bills.

since this was their opening proposal, they are clearly open to a higher number. nobody opens a deal like this with their final take-it-or-leave-it offer. i'm guessing they would go to at least $275M.

[notin]

On 10/4/2026 at 9:44 AM, Deja Doh said:

Expand rosters to 27, then add two more teams, then shrink rosters back to 25 (giving the expansion teams potential MLB prospects to choose from).  Create 8 - 4 (or 4 - 8) team divisions. Eliminate interleague games (or at least minimize it).  Get rid of the DH.

MLB only adds teams when the lose collusion lawsuits and have to pay hundreds of millions to the players’ union…

[UtahSox]

On 10/4/2026 at 10:22 AM, moonslav59 said:

I'd prefer contracting the league and expanding the roster to 28. 

We already have 3-4 cities that don't support their teams, even if they have winning teams (TBR) or very nice stadiums (PIT & MN.) KC. MIA and the A's have neither.

I'm not sure Vegas, Salt Lake City or any other city will do better.

Not contracting of league…….    just not happening.

SLC and Nashville are my guesses. 80 extra roster spots… Vegas will do well in the sense that a lot of visiting fans will travel. Nashville I suspect will do well organically + add in visiting team destination, should do well. SLC I think will surprise you. People here love to attend sporting events. Great corporate support. Will do well probably top 15-22 in attendance my guess. 
 

agree with 28 active roster… 

I think the pre-arb/ arb years definitely need to be quickened. main thing. iMO

floor w/ draft pick penalty for being under, and soft cap w/ escalating penalties for being over.

 

these are my best guesses. 120 floor 300 ceiling