Arbitration--Salary Cap

[moonslav59]

28 minutes ago, illinoisredsox said:

IIRC, Utah is the Bee Hive State, so at least there’s a connection.  If you don’t like Bees, how about Buzz?

Buzz might have drug-related comotations, but I like it better than "Bees."

How about "Stingers" or "Swarm?"

[NHNative]

1 hour ago, moonslav59 said:

Buzz might have drug-related comotations, but I like it better than "Bees."

How about "Stingers" or "Swarm?"

How about the 'Saltines' or the Briners.

[moonslav59]

28 minutes ago, NHNative said:

How about the 'Saltines' or the Briners.

I kinda like "The Swarm."

[UtahSox]

think Nashville has pretty much settled on the Nashville Stars if they land an MLB expansion team.

As for Utah, I think there are some really interesting options, especially if we dig into the state’s minor league baseball history.

Salt Lake Gulls: The Gulls were around for a long time, dating back to the 1960s. The name pays homage to Utah’s state bird and the famous story of seagulls saving the early settlers’ crops from crickets during a crucial period in Utah’s history. Personally, I don’t love the actual mascot, but I think the uniforms and logos could be fantastic. There are some great color combinations to work with. Teal, Orange, White.

Salt Lake Trappers: The Trappers played in the 1980s and were famously part-owned by Bill Murray. The name pays homage to Utah’s frontier and territorial history. It’s a pretty safe choice, although I don’t love the traditional colors. MLB already has way too many red-and-navy teams.

Salt Lake Buzz: This was the name of our Triple-A team in the 1990s and the first team I really remember growing up. I loved the uniforms and branding. David Ortiz was probably the most famous player to spend significant time here during his rise through the Minnesota Twins organization. If I remember correctly, the team eventually had to change its name because of a trademark dispute with Georgia Tech over the similar mascot and branding.

Salt Lake Bees: Obviously, this is the current Triple-A identity, and I think they’ve done a fantastic job with it. The merchandise is awesome, and the branding has been really well received by fans and players. I’d love to see an MLB version using cream, black, yellow, gray, and a little red as an accent. That’s a unique color combination that would stand out in Major League Baseball. Use of Abejas with Teal and pinks is pretty solid.

Some new possibilities: Utah Outlaws: I actually think this could be a really cool name. It pays homage to Utah’s Wild West history, with figures like Butch Cassidy and Porter Rockwell. There would be a ton of opportunities for great logos, uniforms, and merchandise. Black and copper colors ( worlds biggest open pit copper mine is here)

Something dinosaur-related: Utah has an incredibly rich dinosaur and fossil history, and I think that’s an angle worth exploring. 

[NHNative]

I had a conversation with my neighbor today who is almost 90 YOA.

He is of the opinion that there are too many games and it would be best for all to reduce the number.

He is pretty sharp and laughed when I said, "a good Yankee is a losing Yankee".

[NHNative]

Interesting article in Reviewing the Brew...not sure if the link will work.

https://apple.news/AI2dgRidTTZCfCZV7jqUVhA

[JoeBrady]

2 hours ago, NHNative said:

Interesting article in Reviewing the Brew...not sure if the link will work.

https://apple.news/AI2dgRidTTZCfCZV7jqUVhA

every single owner is going to say ‘why can’t we be them?’

And I don't blame them.  But this happens every few years.  A team becomes successful and everyone decides to copy them,  I also don't think it will matter one iota to payroll.  The LAD, NYY, NYM, etc., will spend up to their budget, but might re-focus on certain parts of the game.

it's become clear that owners prefer to compete for pennies on the dollar.

No, that's not clear.  Payroll keeps increasing.  We now have (5) $300M++ teams.  Owners want the best bang for their buck, like everyone does.  But they mostly work within a budget.

[NHNative]

2 minutes ago, JoeBrady said:

every single owner is going to say ‘why can’t we be them?’

And I don't blame them.  But this happens every few years.  A team becomes successful and everyone decides to copy them,  I also don't think it will matter one iota to payroll.  The LAD, NYY, NYM, etc., will spend up to their budget, but might re-focus on certain parts of the game.

it's become clear that owners prefer to compete for pennies on the dollar.

No, that's not clear.  Payroll keeps increasing.  We now have (5) $300M++ teams.  Owners want the best bang for their buck, like everyone does.  But they mostly work within a budget.

I can't disagree, but folks will be thinking about it---as you say.

[southpaw777]

On 10/3/2026 at 6:37 PM, 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.

 

 

Were thinking alike here…

young players should only  have one rookie MLB year at a set base rookie pay then hit 3 years of arbitration, then free agency. A player like Anthony would have been a FA by age 25. Most would be FA by age 28.

there should be a cap a floor and some guardrails on deferred money. Also profit sharing for teams. Every owner can go to 150-175m and have a cap about 300m.

absolutely agree on expanding roster sizes. Maybe even to 30 and 45.

i also believe team owners like ours, should have to spend more than 44% of the teams profits back into the team. 

also, a side note…

St Petersburg and MLB needs to let the Rays go somewhere other than that awful awful poor excuse for a baseball park. I like the Carolinas or Tennessee.

 

[SPLENDIDSPLINTER]

I've got no problem expanding rosters, but I'm dead against expansion. Hell, there's not enough Big Show talent to man a 30 team league and some here want to go to 32. How watered down do you want MLB?

[SPLENDIDSPLINTER]

On 10/12/2026 at 3:44 AM, UtahSox said:

think Nashville has pretty much settled on the Nashville Stars if they land an MLB expansion team.

As for Utah, I think there are some really interesting options, especially if we dig into the state’s minor league baseball history.

Salt Lake Gulls: The Gulls were around for a long time, dating back to the 1960s. The name pays homage to Utah’s state bird and the famous story of seagulls saving the early settlers’ crops from crickets during a crucial period in Utah’s history. Personally, I don’t love the actual mascot, but I think the uniforms and logos could be fantastic. There are some great color combinations to work with. Teal, Orange, White.

Salt Lake Trappers: The Trappers played in the 1980s and were famously part-owned by Bill Murray. The name pays homage to Utah’s frontier and territorial history. It’s a pretty safe choice, although I don’t love the traditional colors. MLB already has way too many red-and-navy teams.

Salt Lake Buzz: This was the name of our Triple-A team in the 1990s and the first team I really remember growing up. I loved the uniforms and branding. David Ortiz was probably the most famous player to spend significant time here during his rise through the Minnesota Twins organization. If I remember correctly, the team eventually had to change its name because of a trademark dispute with Georgia Tech over the similar mascot and branding.

Salt Lake Bees: Obviously, this is the current Triple-A identity, and I think they’ve done a fantastic job with it. The merchandise is awesome, and the branding has been really well received by fans and players. I’d love to see an MLB version using cream, black, yellow, gray, and a little red as an accent. That’s a unique color combination that would stand out in Major League Baseball. Use of Abejas with Teal and pinks is pretty solid.

Some new possibilities: Utah Outlaws: I actually think this could be a really cool name. It pays homage to Utah’s Wild West history, with figures like Butch Cassidy and Porter Rockwell. There would be a ton of opportunities for great logos, uniforms, and merchandise. Black and copper colors ( worlds biggest open pit copper mine is here)

Something dinosaur-related: Utah has an incredibly rich dinosaur and fossil history, and I think that’s an angle worth exploring. 

The Nashville Honky Tonks and the Portland Kingsmen.

[JoeBrady]

45 minutes ago, SPLENDIDSPLINTER said:

I've got no problem expanding rosters, but I'm dead against expansion. Hell, there's not enough Big Show talent to man a 30 team league and some here want to go to 32. How watered down do you want MLB?

Expanding the rosters by two players is the same as adding two teams of 30 players.

[SPLENDIDSPLINTER]

2 minutes ago, JoeBrady said:

Expanding the rosters by two players is the same as adding two teams of 30 players.

Numbers wise that's true. Talent wise it's entirely different.

[moonslav59]

1 hour ago, southpaw777 said:

Were thinking alike here…

young players should only  have one rookie MLB year at a set base rookie pay then hit 3 years of arbitration, then free agency. A player like Anthony would have been a FA by age 25. Most would be FA by age 28.

there should be a cap a floor and some guardrails on deferred money. Also profit sharing for teams. Every owner can go to 150-175m and have a cap about 300m.

absolutely agree on expanding roster sizes. Maybe even to 30 and 45.

i also believe team owners like ours, should have to spend more than 44% of the teams profits back into the team. 

also, a side note…

St Petersburg and MLB needs to let the Rays go somewhere other than that awful awful poor excuse for a baseball park. I like the Carolinas or Tennessee.

 

One downside to a 30 man roster is adding more time to games as 2 more RP'ers will be used nearly every game.

[moonslav59]

44 minutes ago, JoeBrady said:

Expanding the rosters by two players is the same as adding two teams of 30 players.

So many players are borderline MLB/AAA, so adding 60 (90 if they go to a 29 man roster and 120 if they go to 30) would get a lot of players voting yes on almost any deal.

Lowering control years/arb years would get a lot of players' attention.

Having a significant floor takes the edge off a soft/hard cap aversion.

[southpaw777]

1 hour ago, moonslav59 said:

One downside to a 30 man roster is adding more time to games as 2 more RP'ers will be used nearly every game.

 I agree a lot of managers today use the hell out of relievers, but if starting pitching is good then it shouldn’t change much to what it is today besides more options and more needed rest for guys. Not so much up and down to Worcester. That’s more why id like it. They wear these guys out and they’re tired come September. 

[moonslav59]

23 minutes ago, southpaw777 said:

 I agree a lot of managers today use the hell out of relievers, but if starting pitching is good then it shouldn’t change much to what it is today besides more options and more needed rest for guys. Not so much up and down to Worcester. That’s more why id like it. They wear these guys out and they’re tired come September. 

I think a 27 man roster is reasonable and 28 would be fine.

The 40 man roster is what offers wider benefits to teams and players making way more money. 45 would be great. If the MLB roster is 27, a 45 man roster would give teams 18 in the minors. 9 positions and 9 pitchers, if chosen that way. Just seems right.

[mvp 78]

14 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

I think a 27 man roster is reasonable and 28 would be fine.

The 40 man roster is what offers wider benefits to teams and players making way more money. 45 would be great. If the MLB roster is 27, a 45 man roster would give teams 18 in the minors. 9 positions and 9 pitchers, if chosen that way. Just seems right.

If you increase the active roster to 28, but don't increase the 40 man roster, it strains the amount of MLB ready players you can have at AAA vs the amount of prospects you can stash on the 40 man. They would definitely need to adjust the roster at some point. I think the 26 man roster is probably the right size, unless they are going to go with 14/15 position players and 13 pitchers. Having additional pinch hitters would increase runs and not really "take away" from the game the way increased bullpen arms does. 

[NHNative]

15 hours ago, southpaw777 said:

They wear these guys out and they’re tired come September. 

This is THE salient point.

[harmony]

On 10/10/2026 at 5:37 PM, 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

FWIW the latest on Portland's bid for an MLB franchise:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gj9MtumETE4

 

[NHNative]

1 hour ago, harmony said:

FWIW the latest on Portland's bid for an MLB franchise:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gj9MtumETE4

 

It looks to be a great idea.

[UtahSox]

32 teams is happening no if’s and or but’s about it. Manfred has stated he wants 1 team in west, 1 team in East… Portland is making a really strong bid in the last 6 months. I assume Nashville is the #1 place they want to be. But as of now Nashville doesn’t have community support and political backing of SLC and Portland. 
I selfishly would love for MLB to expand both teams out west. But I don’t see it. I think it will be a dog fight between SLC and Portland for the west coast team. 6 months ago I was 95% sure it would be SLC. Now I’m 65% sure it will be SLC. 
 

Adding 2 roster spots + adding 2 new teams by 2032 would create a ton more MLB players. That’s why expansion will be put in right at end as a bargaining chip. If I’m a player I’d attack the # of arbitration years (shortening time to free agency)/ the revenue split, and worry a lot less about salary caps. Say yes to cap but negotiate a dollar amount of dead money a team can carry for a DFA’d player. For example if every team got 15m in dead money, the Red Sox could cut Trevor Story and while Trevor still made his full 25m only 10m of it would go against the cap. 

[moonslav59]

15 hours ago, UtahSox said:

Adding 2 roster spots + adding 2 new teams by 2032 would create a ton more MLB players. That’s why expansion will be put in right at end as a bargaining chip. If I’m a player I’d attack the # of arbitration years (shortening time to free agency)/ the revenue split, and worry a lot less about salary caps. Say yes to cap but negotiate a dollar amount of dead money a team can carry for a DFA’d player. For example if every team got 15m in dead money, the Red Sox could cut Trevor Story and while Trevor still made his full 25m only 10m of it would go against the cap. 

I like the dead money idea. That might ease in the creation of a cap.

The idea of a floor could really help players stomach the cap (soft, hard or somewhere in between.)

Upping the roster to 28 and addine two teams (2 x 28) would mean 116 more players making MLB money ve minor league money. That's a HUGE gain for players.

Chopping one year off the ard process or pre-arb years will likely be the max gain they might expect. I think this added to 116 more MLB paid players should be enough to get a majority player vote, as most players are pre-arb, arb or understand how it was when they were.

The final give back could be significantly raising the min wage. That and the 1 year less of arb or pre-arb status gets nearly all the prearb players to a yes vote.

1. Floor

2. 116 more MLB paid players

3. 1 year less to become a FA

4. Min wage increase (goes along with adding a "floor cap" for many teams)

Other than the salary cap, what else do owners want?

[NHNative]

25 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

The final give back could be significantly raising the min wage. That and the 1 year less of arb or pre-arb status gets nearly all the prearb players to a yes vote.

This.

[moonslav59]

I'm not sure why I'm thinking there might not be any missed games next year.

Lost Money?

[JoeBrady]

6 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

I'm not sure why I'm thinking there might not be any missed games next year.

Lost Money?

I don't expect to miss any games unless they are looking for the 154-game model.

[Larry Cook]

Are the owners still wanting to do away with drafting high schoolers?? 

[JimEd]

8 hours ago, Larry Cook said:

Are the owners still wanting to do away with drafting high schoolers?? 

i'm guessing they want to give that up if they're going to have give up a year (or more) of arb years. why invest so much time and trouble developing a kid drafted out of high school just to lose him that much sooner? outside of the very rare exception, i don't like the idea of drafting high school kids anyway.

[jad]

So looking forward to listening to the owners explain how a Rays/Brewers series proves definitely that MLB absolutely needs a salary cap for competitive balance, otherwise we'll be seeing teams like this in the WS forever.

[mvp 78]

1 hour ago, jad said:

So looking forward to listening to the owners explain how a Rays/Brewers series proves definitely that MLB absolutely needs a salary cap for competitive balance, otherwise we'll be seeing teams like this in the WS forever.

It proves to them that they shouldn't have to spend! These players demanding big contracts are just being greedy! 100M - 150M payroll should be fine! 😎