1
- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: MLB is proposing a salary floor of $171.2 million and a salary cap of $245.3 million
Posted on 9/16/26 at 12:45 pm to WestCoastAg
Posted on 9/16/26 at 12:45 pm to WestCoastAg
quote:
That doesn't address players with 10/5 or no trade clauses Existing contracts will stay in place and will either impact teams going forward with new contracts, or there will be easing, or there will be an NBA style soft cap
10/5 is part of the CBA. It could (unlikely) be removed.
Obviously details have to be fleshed out, but I just can’t agree with a situation that exempts current contracts from counting towards the cap. That creates a situation where teams close to or above the cap already can pay significantly more.
Maybe a percentage of of the contracts can count, or a base amount, for a period of time.
Posted on 9/16/26 at 1:08 pm to Wayne Campbell
I dont disagree on that they should count
More meant, the contracts themselves will be allowed to stay in place but teams over the cap will be in situations where they cant maneuver until they are under
Or there will be a soft cap with NBA style exemptions (minimum contracts, MLEs, etc) that the teams will be stuck on
Then its up to the organizations to decide to stick it out or find trade suitors that work within the CBA
But we are getting ahead of ourselves either way as there will be a lot of negotiating back and forth on this
More meant, the contracts themselves will be allowed to stay in place but teams over the cap will be in situations where they cant maneuver until they are under
Or there will be a soft cap with NBA style exemptions (minimum contracts, MLEs, etc) that the teams will be stuck on
Then its up to the organizations to decide to stick it out or find trade suitors that work within the CBA
But we are getting ahead of ourselves either way as there will be a lot of negotiating back and forth on this
This post was edited on 9/16/26 at 1:09 pm
Posted on 9/16/26 at 1:19 pm to WestCoastAg
They would put some exemptions in to buy players out as well without it counting against the cap, like the NHL did when it implemented a cap
Posted on 9/16/26 at 4:11 pm to Wayne Campbell
quote:
Everyone pisses and moans about the Dodgers buying championships. Not counting current contracts against the cap would only exacerbate that issue.
I mean they still have to go out and win them… you can’t shock the system too much if you want players to accept it
Posted on 9/17/26 at 1:19 am to RLDSC FAN
I am assuming that MLB is like other leagues and these things require a pretty solid majority vote from owners to move things forward. There are 12 teams that would have to spend more (some dramatically so) than they do today, and the other group that would have to lower their spending to fit in.
Those 12 teams have owners that spend what they want and still bring in cash from the overspenders, etc. Would they vote for that mandatory floor? The expensive teams could spend less if they wanted but choose not to. If they have the resources, why would they vote for less spending? The only way I can see this working is for them to unify all the TV monies and distribute it evenly to offset the forced expenditures of small market teams. Why would the Dodgers, Yankees, Red Sox, etc vote for that when those deals give them an advantage?
I just dont see how they have enough franchises agreeing to this for these negotiation tactics to really be real.
Those 12 teams have owners that spend what they want and still bring in cash from the overspenders, etc. Would they vote for that mandatory floor? The expensive teams could spend less if they wanted but choose not to. If they have the resources, why would they vote for less spending? The only way I can see this working is for them to unify all the TV monies and distribute it evenly to offset the forced expenditures of small market teams. Why would the Dodgers, Yankees, Red Sox, etc vote for that when those deals give them an advantage?
I just dont see how they have enough franchises agreeing to this for these negotiation tactics to really be real.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News