Arbitration--Salary Cap

[UtahSox]

5 hours ago, Bellhorn04 said:

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.

AI suggests it will be much easier to divide out 32 teams at 154 games vs 162……

42 division games

40 interleague 

72 league games

 

[mvp 78]

7 hours ago, UtahSox said:

AI suggests it will be much easier to divide out 32 teams at 154 games vs 162……

42 division games

40 interleague 

72 league games

 

Having almost as many interleague games as division games is a nightmare. 

[mvp 78]

12 hours ago, Bellhorn04 said:

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.

Those changes are contingent on a cap being added apparently. 

[JoeBrady]

On 10/3/2026 at 8:21 PM, 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 . 

I agree.  I think the cap is a illusion designed to trick the players into accepting less overall.  There are 8 teams over $265M, and 5 teams > $300M.  They don't seem overly interested in a cap.  And 10 teams under $145M who aren't competing for the big names.

[JoeBrady]

On 10/3/2026 at 8:41 PM, moonslav59 said:

LOL

Like lets boycott gasoline.

My bet is that we can cut back usage by a solid 10% if we drove more efficient cars and used them a little less often.  That alone would drive down the price.

[JoeBrady]

On 10/5/2026 at 8:41 AM, 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.

I grew up in a lifetime employment in the same company environment.  There is a lot to be said about that.  But if a better opportunity, with more money came along, I would consider it.

[JoeBrady]

On 10/6/2026 at 8:27 AM, Hugh2 said:

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

Absolutely not.  Collective billionaires v rich billionaires?

[JoeBrady]

On 10/6/2026 at 5:25 PM, moonslav59 said:

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

Until what?  Both sides have screwed this up badly.  I have room in my heart for both nuclear and clean replacements, but both sides hate one or the other idea.  France is my energy muse.

[NHNative]

2 minutes ago, JoeBrady said:

I grew up in a lifetime employment in the same company environment.  There is a lot to be said about that.  But if a better opportunity, with more money came along, I would consider it.

I get it, but its a pet peave of mine having watched what has happened to the NBA and the NFL...I left the NBA years ago and am close to giving up on the NFL.

[JoeBrady]

8 hours ago, UtahSox said:

Vegas will do well in the sense that a lot of visiting fans will travel.

Oh hell yeah.  I love LV anyway, but the idea of catching a Monday night RS game is sensational.

[NHNative]

Echo.

[JoeBrady]

IMO, everyone should be an agnostic on this issue.  Once I spend my money, I don't care how they divvy it up.  But a couple of modest proposals:

• The owners and players should agree on what constitutes a fair distribution of revenue.  If they agree on 50/50, for example, and define what the sources of revenue are, most of the work is done.
• I like a floor and cap.  Consolidate all TV revenue under the auspices of the league office and distribute that evenly.  That will level the floor.  Local teams keep all local money, hopefully providing motivation to provide the best reasonable product for the fans.
• The numbers for the floor/cap is less important, since the players still get their 50%.  But I'd like to see a three-year rolling average for the floor.  If the floor was say $120M, and a team is re-building, this allows them to spend $80M, $80M, and then $200M.
• Reducing the season to 154 and expanding the playoffs are a no-brainer.
• I think most fans, on both sides, agree that more should be done on the lower end.  I've mentioned this before, but if a player is promoted for one week, he gets a minimum of one month pay and one month service time.  If there are 100 players affected, the total cost might be $10M.  Let the team absorb the added payroll and let the union absorb the extra service time costs.

[illinoisredsox]

9 hours ago, UtahSox said:

AI suggests it will be much easier to divide out 32 teams at 154 games vs 162……

42 division games

40 interleague 

72 league games

 

I don’t see how this works for 154 games.  (assuming 8 divisions of 4 teams each).

14 games against division foes x 3 = 42

6 games against non division league foes x  12 = 72 

So far, so good.

Getting to 40 inter league games doesn’t work with the same number of games against each team.  Ironically, if you played 3 inter league games against all 16 teams, you get 48 which gets you back to 162 games.

[moonslav59]

14 hours ago, UtahSox said:

Not contracting of league…….    just not happening.

....these are my best guesses. 120 floor 300 ceiling

Zero chance the contract. That doesn't change my opinion that it should.

On the second point:

They probably start with 

70 Floor/$270 ceiling

80/280

90/285

100/290

110/295

120/300 (end of 5 year deal)

 

[moonslav59]

4 hours ago, illinoisredsox said:

I don’t see how this works for 154 games.  (assuming 8 divisions of 4 teams each).

14 games against division foes x 3 = 42

6 games against non division league foes x  12 = 72 

So far, so good.

Getting to 40 inter league games doesn’t work with the same number of games against each team.  Ironically, if you played 3 inter league games against all 16 teams, you get 48 which gets you back to 162 games.

You could go 

3 x 16 other league=48

6 x 12 own league=72

14 x 3 own div=42

 

[NHNative]

How about a longer season with same number of games---good for the players and great for the fans. It could be done to eliminate double headers, also.

[moonslav59]

1 hour ago, NHNative said:

How about a longer season with same number of games---good for the players and great for the fans. It could be done to eliminate double headers, also.

It's hard to start the season earlier into March, especially for northern teams without a dome stadium. If you push too far back into October, the playoffs go into November and maybe cold times in some places.

I think we can take the heat off a 162 games season in the same time frame by expanding the roster to 27 or 28, and the 40 to 44. This would be a major give by owners to players, as the pay differential between 26 and 40 man roster is a pretty big deal to many players. Raising the 40 to 44 would also add a lot of security and higher pay to the high amount of bubble-type players in baseball.

Shorten the arb years, pre-arb years and raise the min wage for MLB players and 40 man roster minor league players and you'd gain 30-40% support from the players, who will never be affected by salary caps.

Create a floor cap and the middle paid 30-40% would jump aboard.

[UtahSox]

4 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

You could go 

3 x 16 other league=48

6 x 12 own league=72

14 x 3 own div=42

 

I like that much better than 154 my AI recommended ….. that’s clean way to get it done

[NHNative]

13 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

It's hard to start the season earlier into March, especially for northern teams without a dome stadium. If you push too far back into October, the playoffs go into November and maybe cold times in some places.

I think we can take the heat off a 162 games season in the same time frame by expanding the roster to 27 or 28, and the 40 to 44. This would be a major give by owners to players, as the pay differential between 26 and 40 man roster is a pretty big deal to many players. Raising the 40 to 44 would also add a lot of security and higher pay to the high amount of bubble-type players in baseball.

Shorten the arb years, pre-arb years and raise the min wage for MLB players and 40 man roster minor league players and you'd gain 30-40% support from the players, who will never be affected by salary caps.

Create a floor cap and the middle paid 30-40% would jump aboard.

That is interesting.

[NHNative]

However its done, I really think putting less pressure on player health/injury would be very good for the game.

[moonslav59]

16 hours ago, UtahSox said:

I like that much better than 154 my AI recommended ….. that’s clean way to get it done

I don't really like the idea of 8 four team divisions. I'd prefer 4 divisions of 8 teams, but that would create some issues, unless you go totally geographical and break apart the whole AL-NL history. 

Assume Nashville and SLC as you suggest:

EAST: BOS, NYY, NYM, PHI, BAL, WSH, TOR, PIT

NORTH: DET, CLE, CIN, CHC, CWS, MIL, MIN, SLC

SOUTH: ATL, TBR, MIA, NSH, STL, KCR, TEX, HOU

WEST: COL, LV, AZ, SEA, SFG, LAD, LAA, SDP

You could lump East and South or East and North into one conference. Or, have no conferences- just 4 divisions.

Games:

3 x 16 other conference= 48

6 x 8 other division within conference= 48

9 x 7 teams in own division= 63 (10 games vs 3 and 9 games vs 4)=66

or with no conferences:

4 x 24 other divisions= 96 (lots of 2 game series or play 4 game series H and A and alternating yearly. Maybe 2 and 2 vs some closer teams and 4 game series with far away teams.) 

9 or 10 games x 7 own division= 66 games

or

5 games vs 24 teams=120 games (3 H and 2 A or 2 H and 3 A with alternating seasons)

6 games vs own 7 teams= 42 games

(This is a highly balanced scheduling idea.) Only 6 games vs own division cuts way back on rivalry series.

 

[UtahSox]

7 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

I don't really like the idea of 8 four team divisions. I'd prefer 4 divisions of 8 teams, but that would create some issues, unless you go totally geographical and break apart the whole AL-NL history. 

Assume Nashville and SLC as you suggest:

EAST: BOS, NYY, NYM, PHI, BAL, WSH, TOR, PIT

NORTH: DET, CLE, CIN, CHC, CWS, MIL, MIN, SLC

SOUTH: ATL, TBR, MIA, NSH, STL, KCR, TEX, HOU

WEST: COL, LV, AZ, SEA, SFG, LAD, LAA, SDP

You could lump East and South or East and North into one conference. Or, have no conferences- just 4 divisions.

Games:

3 x 16 other conference= 48

6 x 8 other division within conference= 48

9 x 7 teams in own division= 63 (10 games vs 3 and 9 games vs 4)=66

or with no conferences:

4 x 24 other divisions= 96 (lots of 2 game series or play 4 game series H and A and alternating yearly. Maybe 2 and 2 vs some closer teams and 4 game series with far away teams.) 

9 or 10 games x 7 own division= 66 games

or

5 games vs 24 teams=120 games (3 H and 2 A or 2 H and 3 A with alternating seasons)

6 games vs own 7 teams= 42 games

(This is a highly balanced scheduling idea.) Only 6 games vs own division cuts way back on rivalry series.

 

Assuming the same SLC or Portland  and Nashville. 
 

here is how I would do it

AL East: Yankees, Red Sox, Bluejays, Orioles, Guardians, Tigers, White Sox, Twins

AL West: Royals, Rockies, Astros, Rangers, Mariners, A’s, Angels, SLC/Portland.

NL East: Mets, Phillies, Nationals, Braves, Pirates, Reds, Marlins, Rays

NL West: Brewers, Cubs, Cardinals, Nashville, Padres, Giants, Dodgers, DBacks

[moonslav59]

1 hour ago, UtahSox said:

Assuming the same SLC or Portland  and Nashville. 
 

here is how I would do it

AL East: Yankees, Red Sox, Bluejays, Orioles, Guardians, Tigers, White Sox, Twins

AL West: Royals, Rockies, Astros, Rangers, Mariners, A’s, Angels, SLC/Portland.

NL East: Mets, Phillies, Nationals, Braves, Pirates, Reds, Marlins, Rays

NL West: Brewers, Cubs, Cardinals, Nashville, Padres, Giants, Dodgers, DBacks

Not bad.