Quote from brent wolff on January 16, 2026, 7:53 am

Agree with a stoppage of play coming in 2027.  Not sure where the middle ground is.  I don't see a win/win solution for both the players and owners.

Ultimately a salary cap is needed, even Dave Roberts admitted that.  The good thing about a salary cap is their will be a salary floor as well.  If they can somehow make the salary floor high enough maybe the union will finally look at what is best for the majority of players and not just the superstars.  I just don't think the union will ever agree with a salary cap.  The current tax thresholds do act as somewhat of salary cap, except for the mega rich franchises such as the Dodgers, Mets & Yanks.  I agree with the penalties against the mega rich teams need to be more than financial, need to hit the draft picks and international signing amounts hard.

So how long will the lockout last?  Do you think we could lose a whole season or more?  Prime years of Manny, Tati, Jackson and Bogey could be lost.  I just think as always the baseball fans lose while the owners and players can't figure out a way to divide up their millions & billions of dollars.  Ugh!

Quote from Randy Manese on January 16, 2026, 8:09 am

I like your #1 idea but #2 seems too difficult to execute and wouldn't the bottom dwelling teams in the lowest divisions still end up at or near the bottom year after year?  Maybe I'm looking at this incorrectly.

I haven't done the calculations but we do have data from the current CBA that could be used to establish a ceiling and a floor, if the CBA negotiations head that way.  What if we took all the teams that made the playoffs in the last CBA and averaged out their payroll/AAV?  You have the high end teams but also several that got in with relatively low payrolls.  This average will then become the ceiling which I'm guessing will still be around 200 million or more.  The creative part will be how teams will have to reduce current year payroll/AAV to not exceed the ceiling.  For example, what portion of salary will this high end team have to bear if they release or trade a player to meet the cap and would that amount count against the cap?  What about players with huge deferred salaries?  Will draft choices in be in play with teams losing multiple draft choices over multiple years and not being able to reacquire them from other teams?  Further, institute an international draft in reverse order of standing to keep these teams from this pipeline to restock their franchise and also reduce international money/participation in this international draft if they have not met the yearly ceiling cap.

For the floor, why not take the bottom 1/2 or 2/3 of MLB teams' payrolls and make that the floor amount.  That should push the floor to at least 100 million and this could increase over the course of the new CBA just as the new ceiling could rise but at a lower rate.

Again, also just throwing things against the wall but I do think fans want to see their teams as competitive and are willing to pay for season tickets and higher rates to have "fun" at the park.  If current owners don't want to spend to make it so, then the new CBA will/should pressure them into selling their franchises to owners who want to win under the new structure.  Pretty radical, but the salary amounts the Dodgers and Mets can take on make it impossible for teams in their respective divisions to compete year after year with hopes of making it to not only the playoffs but the World Series.

Quote from fenn68 on January 16, 2026, 8:42 am

On the floor / ceiling discussion ... need to start with the total of all the payrolls to ensure no potential reduction of money to the players. Initially the ceiling should be high to satisfy the union (maybe at the current first threshold adjusted to $250MM). Then take the current excess for sizing the floor. Allocate the "excess" to the amount at the bottom of payrolls to create a theoretical floor. Idea being the over will have to come down and the under will have to come up ... net overall no change. At least that is a starting point for negotiation.

Probably would have to do some staged compliance (3 years?) with the overs not being able to increase payrolls via new adds (league can block FA signings / trades) and not make adds costing greater than a low X dollars. Attrition of current contracts will get them in compliance or they make some sell trades. On the other end ... just a pure fine to those teams that do not hit the minimum (basically it cost them the same as complying).

To get the union on board ... the floor may have to have a built-in gradual increase that reduces the gap between ceiling and floor without curtailing the growth in the ceiling. Guessing the above play would get a floor in the low $100MM range (with maybe 9 teams having to increase to make that level). Not something that is easy for them ... so higher quicker is probably not feasible. However, over time (and if tied to some form of revenue sharing) the floor could move from around 50% of the ceiling to maybe 67%.

All this hurts the Tuckers of the world but should help the veteran mid-range players to earn (or even stay in the league).

 

Quote from fenn68 on January 16, 2026, 8:54 am

My guess is that a floor may just motivate some owners to sell (especially in unprofitable markets) ... question will be are there buyers into that market.

To make all that work ... need some accommodation recognizing that some franchises are located in cities that just cannot generate the cashflow to make the floor requirement (and nobody wants to run a perpetual cash flow deficit). Back to some form of revenue sharing backstopping cash floor creating negative cash flow.

Of course some could make a case of contraction dropping the non-profitable teams (union would never go for it). Also, a few cities still want franchises ... so maybe a more league supported moves ... e.g. Nashville, Portland, Salt Lake City, Montreal all actually want clubs and (at least in the short run) should have more fan support (revenue streams) than some of the current teams.

Not easy alternatives.

Quote from fenn68 on January 16, 2026, 9:26 am

Hits just keep on coming:

The Mets and free agent infielder Bo Bichette are in agreement on a three-year contract, reports Will Sammon of The Athletic. He’ll be guaranteed a hefty $126MM on that short-term pact, per Jon Heyman of the New York Post. Bichette can opt out after the first and second season of the contract, Ken Rosenthal of The Athletic adds. He also picks up a $5MM bonus if he exercises one of those opt-outs, per Rosenthal. There’s no deferred money in the contract, which is still pending a physical. Bichette is represented by Vayner Sports.

Bichette goes to 3B and they have Lindor at SS and Semien at 2B ... looks as though either Baty (LHH) or Vientos (RHH) are the odd man out. Preller making his call today? Mets still need a RP boost ... Vientos fits a Padre need ... league minimum with 4 years control ... seems like a match for Estrada.

Quote from ultratvfan on January 16, 2026, 10:05 am

Dodgers signed Tucker for a 4-year $240 million deal.

Quote from MrPadre19 on January 16, 2026, 12:09 pm

Quote from Randy Manese on January 16, 2026, 8:09 am

I like your #1 idea but #2 seems too difficult to execute and wouldn't the bottom dwelling teams in the lowest divisions still end up at or near the bottom year after year?  Maybe I'm looking at this incorrectly.

I haven't done the calculations but we do have data from the current CBA that could be used to establish a ceiling and a floor, if the CBA negotiations head that way.  What if we took all the teams that made the playoffs in the last CBA and averaged out their payroll/AAV?  You have the high end teams but also several that got in with relatively low payrolls.  This average will then become the ceiling which I'm guessing will still be around 200 million or more.  The creative part will be how teams will have to reduce current year payroll/AAV to not exceed the ceiling.  For example, what portion of salary will this high end team have to bear if they release or trade a player to meet the cap and would that amount count against the cap?  What about players with huge deferred salaries?  Will draft choices in be in play with teams losing multiple draft choices over multiple years and not being able to reacquire them from other teams?  Further, institute an international draft in reverse order of standing to keep these teams from this pipeline to restock their franchise and also reduce international money/participation in this international draft if they have not met the yearly ceiling cap.

For the floor, why not take the bottom 1/2 or 2/3 of MLB teams' payrolls and make that the floor amount.  That should push the floor to at least 100 million and this could increase over the course of the new CBA just as the new ceiling could rise but at a lower rate.

Again, also just throwing things against the wall but I do think fans want to see their teams as competitive and are willing to pay for season tickets and higher rates to have "fun" at the park.  If current owners don't want to spend to make it so, then the new CBA will/should pressure them into selling their franchises to owners who want to win under the new structure.  Pretty radical, but the salary amounts the Dodgers and Mets can take on make it impossible for teams in their respective divisions to compete year after year with hopes of making it to not only the playoffs but the World Series.

This happens in the NFL all the time.....they manage.

 

Quote from BoosterSD on January 16, 2026, 3:32 pm

I have seen one other suggestion for realigning the divisions in baseball. A "large" market league and a "small" market league.

So teams like the BOS, NYY, NYM, PHI, LAD, SF, CHC and others in one league. And then the A's, MIL, CIN, PIT and such in the other league. Setting up a David v. Goliath World Series.

Even in that scenario I would like to see a hard salary floor and a salary cap. In fact, maybe the MLBPA would get behind a hard salary floor and then a softer salary cap with harsher penalties that would make teams like LAD and NYM think harder about going over that cap.

Quote from Jeremy Hill on January 16, 2026, 4:38 pm

Just make the penalty for going over the last CBT threshold like 500% and call it a day. The thresholds were always meant to be de facto caps. The Dodgers and to a lesser extent the Mets are the only teams the penalties aren't really stopping.