Around Baseball 2026

[John_Havok]

20 hours ago, Jonn said:

They can't do a hard cap. The players will never accept it. They can absolutely do a floor because that's something both sides can get behind. Small market teams won't like it but the players and a lot of the owners will. Floor at minimum should be the goal. You can't have teams like the Pirates operating the way they do anymore.

I agree, but ownership as a whole would never agree to a floor without a cap. The low budget teams ownership would never accept having to increase their payrolls guaranteed  without seeing guarantees that big spending teams have a hard limit. 

[jaysblue]

Yankees sign Paul DeJong to a minor league deal, in response to the Jays Okamoto signing 😂

[glory]

Lots of steam on X about the Yankees and Edward Cabrera. One thing about the Yankees is their prospects are almost always overhyped so the package will probably be light if it happens.

[BTS]

Looks like Andruw Jones and Beltan will be inducted to the HoF this year. 

I'm usually a big hall guy, but Jones doesn't really feel like a HoFer to me. Weird that he'll be in and Jim Edmonds isn''t.  

[sliderguy35]

10 minutes ago, BTS said:

Looks like Andruw Jones and Beltan will be inducted to the HoF this year. 

I'm usually a big hall guy, but Jones doesn't really feel like a HoFer to me. Weird that he'll be in and Jim Edmonds isn''t.  

the edmonds thing is so unfortunate, he's a casualty of how stacked the ballot was in 2016.

12 people on that ballot are now in the HOF and that's not even including bonds, clemens, schilling. this year's ballot was a joke in comparison

[Orgfiller]

1 hour ago, BTS said:

Looks like Andruw Jones and Beltan will be inducted to the HoF this year. 

I'm usually a big hall guy, but Jones doesn't really feel like a HoFer to me. Weird that he'll be in and Jim Edmonds isn''t.  

I think Andruw Jones is basically the Ozzie Smith of the outfield, except he was a legit pretty good bat in his prime, and just declined early and fast. I think if Felix Hernandez is in, then someone like Jones likely should be as well.

I think Jim Edmonds likely deserves to be in if Jones is in. Edmonds had the reputation of an elite defender, but was more Pillar like in that he masked bad reads and ok range with absurd highlight reel plays, but those 8 GGs should help his candidacy. He was a legit impact bat though, a career 132 wRC+ bat with that many GGs and 64 fWAR likely means he deserves to be elected by the Veteran's committee later on.

Edit: and as usual sliderguy gives a better argument than I could

[Brownie19]

16 minutes ago, Orgfiller said:

Edit: and as usual sliderguy gives a better argument than I could

He makes almost everyone around here look bad 🤣

[Brownie19]

I'm good with all 3 of those guys getting into the HOF.  They each had 64+ WAR and they were all star players who played premium defensive positions.

They let Harold Baines in FFS - these 3 are miles ahead of him.

[Orgfiller]

Should be pointed out, to highlight Jones' candidacy:

6+ WAR seasons:

Beltran - 4

Jones - 6

Edmonds - 6

 

7+ WAR seasons:

Beltran - 2

Jones - 3

Edmonds - 1

 

His prime/peak was nuts, and that's with him being essentially washed by age 30, accumulating the entirety of his career value by then.

[jaysblue]

5 hours ago, BTS said:

Looks like Andruw Jones and Beltan will be inducted to the HoF this year. 

I'm usually a big hall guy, but Jones doesn't really feel like a HoFer to me. Weird that he'll be in and Jim Edmonds isn''t.  

Andruw Jones produced a 67 WAR for his career and was probably one of the best defensive outfielders in the late 90's and early 2000's. Shocked as a big advanced metrics guy that you are, you don't think he deserves to be in. 

Agree Edmonds should be in as well. He was also a better well rounded offensive player and finished at 64 WAR. Shouldn't discount what Jones has accomplished over his career though. 

 

[jaysblue]

This current message board would be obsessed with Andruw Jones today. You all would be wanting Atkins to trade for him lol. 

[BTS]

46 minutes ago, jaysblue said:

Andruw Jones produced a 67 WAR for his career and was probably one of the best defensive outfielders in the late 90's and early 2000's. Shocked as a big advanced metrics guy that you are, you don't think he deserves to be in. 

Agree Edmonds should be in as well. He was also a better well rounded offensive player and finished at 64 WAR. Shouldn't discount what Jones has accomplished over his career though. 

 

I don't have a strong opinion that Jones shouldn't be in. His numbers dictate that he should be. He just doesn't feel like a HoFer to me. Probably because I rarely watched him play , and WAR wasn't really on people's radar when he was at his peak, so I didn't really appreciate how good his defense made him. 

[Terminator]

Andruw Jones gets docked points by me for the highly regarded way he spells his first name.

Give me Jim Edmonds any day over him.

[Brownie19]

Brewers name Danny Burgers and Guillermo Martinez hitting coaches.  That is awesome.

[Brownie19]

17 minutes ago, BTS said:

I don't have a strong opinion that Jones shouldn't be in. His numbers dictate that he should be. He just doesn't feel like a HoFer to me. Probably because I rarely watched him play , and WAR wasn't really on people's radar when he was at his peak, so I didn't really appreciate how good his defense made him. 

I remember watching Andruw a lot as a kid.  I remember he was renowned for his defense early on - and he was incredible to watch.  It was like watching Devo again.

I remember him being a good, but not great hitter.  I think my perspective was skewed by a few things.  #1, I was a teenager.  #2, he hit 2nd a lot and that typically wasn't where the best players hit in the early 90's and #3, I was comparing him to the studs around him (Chipper, Big Cat, Javy, Pendleton, McGriff, etc.).  Looking at his stats now, he was a pretty good hitter from an early age.

Then of course he hit 51 HRs and that changed my perspective about him as a hitter.  He was consistently a 30 HR guy, but I remember it seems wild that he hit 51.  I seem to remember he bulked up when he hit 51 HRs, but the stat suggest his defense was still elite and he was an 8 WAR player.

Then he signed that big deal with LA and fell off a cliff.  It was kind of sad.

It's funny to go back and be honest about how you viewed players before all these advanced statistics were available.

[Stangstag]

On 1/4/2026 at 4:18 PM, glory said:

Lots of steam on X about the Yankees and Edward Cabrera. One thing about the Yankees is their prospects are almost always overhyped so the package will probably be light if it happens.

Yup. Im just preparing myself for the Paul Skenes for Spencer Jones + scraps trade that we know is coming in the next year or so.

[mphenhef]

On 1/3/2026 at 2:12 PM, John_Havok said:

I agree, but ownership as a whole would never agree to a floor without a cap. The low budget teams ownership would never accept having to increase their payrolls guaranteed  without seeing guarantees that big spending teams have a hard limit. 

I don't think this would be the case.  The low spenders likely want no upper cap with much higher tax penalties so there is more money going into the pot to be distributed to the non tax spenders.

[John_Havok]

48 minutes ago, mphenhef said:

I don't think this would be the case.  The low spenders likely want no upper cap with much higher tax penalties so there is more money going into the pot to be distributed to the non tax spenders.

This is never how low spending owners think (at least, IMO). If I'm forced to spend 80 million more (random # i pulled out of my ass) than I want to, I want to guarantee the gap between me and the highest spending is as small as possible. The main revenue sharing between teams is local and national revenue streams, not CBT penalties. Plus, CBT doesn't all go to revenue sharing, it also goes to player retirement funds and player benefits. 

[Jimcanuck]

Last thing MLB wants is bankrupt franchises.  If there is a floor it will start at not much more than the lowest current player payroll and slowly escalate annually.  And in return for a floor, the players would have to agree to a harder soft cap.

[glory]

The owners offered a cap and floor in the last CBA negotiations, which I believe was $180M/$100M respectively. The players will never agree to a cap, and the owners would never agree to a floor without a cap that is acceptable to them (closer to $180M than $300M). Even if they agreed on a cap/floor system (they won’t), there would still be the issue of owners not wanting a high floor and players not wanting a low cap. It’s a dead end. On top of that there’s the issue of splitting revenue and what actually counts as baseball related revenue, which the owners would without question manipulate to their advantage. 
 

So the question becomes are both sides stupid enough to miss games over this when the league is generating $12b in annual revenue and have all their national/international media rights expiring in 2028? Feels like this will end exactly how it did in the last lockout, where we miss Dec-Feb, and then they magically figure something out in early March.

[Brownie19]

14 minutes ago, glory said:

The owners offered a cap and floor in the last CBA negotiations, which I believe was $180M/$100M respectively. The players will never agree to a cap, and the owners would never agree to a floor without a cap that is acceptable to them (closer to $180M than $300M). Even if they agreed on a cap/floor system (they won’t), there would still be the issue of owners not wanting a high floor and players not wanting a low cap. It’s a dead end. On top of that there’s the issue of splitting revenue and what actually counts as baseball related revenue, which the owners would without question manipulate to their advantage. 

So the question becomes are both sides stupid enough to miss games over this when the league is generating $12b in annual revenue and have all their national/international media rights expiring in 2028? Feels like this will end exactly how it did in the last lockout, where we miss Dec-Feb, and then they magically figure something out in early March.

I hear what you're saying, but they've figured this out in the NFL, NBA and NHL - surely there's a solution that all can be happy with?  (not that I'm yet convinced a floor/cap system is needed for MLB - I haven't even considered that question really)

[Jimcanuck]

4 minutes ago, Brownie19 said:

I hear what you're saying, but they've figured this out in the NFL, NBA and NHL - surely there's a solution that all can be happy with?  (not that I'm yet convinced a floor/cap system is needed for MLB - I haven't even considered that question really)

Sure, through tough negotiations.

Really, the larger tension may between the owners, not between the owners and players.  How many MLB owners out there are pissed off at the Dodgers (and a little less so, the Jays)?

[Brownie19]

41 minutes ago, Jimcanuck said:

Sure, through tough negotiations.

Really, the larger tension may between the owners, not between the owners and players.  How many MLB owners out there are pissed off at the Dodgers (and a little less so, the Jays)?

Perhaps.  Probably just as many pissed off at the Owners of the Pirates, A's, Rays, etc.  Although I suspect that was true in all major sports leagues before cap systems were implemented.  

[L54]

 

[Jimcanuck]

Damn, WTF is going on in the evil empire?

Just went through BA's list.  Yankees are not listed against ANY of the top 50 internationals.

[BTS]

So the salary cap basically ruined hockey - the league is now 2-3 elite teams, 2-3 bad teams and 25 interchangeable mediocre teams. It's also pretty much impossible to compete perpetually - you need to go in cycles. And potential dynasties are torn apart prematurely by the cap. It's basically a flat league. 

Do we think a cap would do the same with baseball, or would well-run teams still be able to perpetually contend? 

[Laika]

I am so against a salary cap. 

I love the payroll disparities in baseball and the drama involved. The narratives. To dynasties and empires. 

[Laika]

12 minutes ago, BTS said:

So the salary cap basically ruined hockey - the league is now 2-3 elite teams, 2-3 bad teams and 25 interchangeable mediocre teams. It's also pretty much impossible to compete perpetually - you need to go in cycles. And potential dynasties are torn apart prematurely by the cap. It's basically a flat league. 

Do we think a cap would do the same with baseball, or would well-run teams still be able to perpetually contend? 

Stands to reason that the well-run teams who can win on lower or mid tier payrolls right now would benefit bigly from a cap/floor. The Rays, Guardians, etc. 

[John_Havok]

17 minutes ago, BTS said:

So the salary cap basically ruined hockey - the league is now 2-3 elite teams, 2-3 bad teams and 25 interchangeable mediocre teams. It's also pretty much impossible to compete perpetually - you need to go in cycles. And potential dynasties are torn apart prematurely by the cap. It's basically a flat league. 

Do we think a cap would do the same with baseball, or would well-run teams still be able to perpetually contend? 

While the opinion of the cap ruining hockey is extremely debatable... 

In hockey there are only 1 level of pro below the NHL where they even have control over a player's development. 

In baseball there are 5. A team with solid drafting and development could still compete with the biggest  spenders with a hard cap because it levels out that teams largest advantage, assuming the lower tier teams were willing to allocate the resources necessary to develop players at the highest level AND the bigger spending teams didn't just reallocate a chunk of what they didn't spend on the roster to also improve their development. 

A cap floor likely wouldn't change the landscape a HUGE amount, but it would certainly put even more pressure on every team to improve their player development systems. 

[Brownie19]

9 minutes ago, BTS said:

So the salary cap basically ruined hockey - the league is now 2-3 elite teams, 2-3 bad teams and 25 interchangeable mediocre teams. It's also pretty much impossible to compete perpetually - you need to go in cycles. And potential dynasties are torn apart prematurely by the cap. It's basically a flat league. 

Do we think a cap would do the same with baseball, or would well-run teams still be able to perpetually contend? 

I think that's all worthy of a debate as to whether it's good or bad.  I'm sure a lot of franchises and fans prefer the cyclical nature of winning v. watching dynasties.

The NHL seems to be doing well financially.  They recently expanded, have strong TV deals in place and have growing revenues.  I'd certainly need to do more research to provide a better opinion.