Around Baseball 2026

[glory]

1 hour 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)

There's a lot of distrust between owners and players in MLB. I don't think they can figure out a salary cap system unless one side (the players) completely folds, and that's probably going to take a lost season like what happened with the NHL. 

The last time the NBA had a lockout that led to missed regular season games (2011), it was because allegedly the majority of teams were losing money and the players were getting a larger share of the revenue split. I haven't looked too deeply into MLB's financials, but I'd be shocked if either of those things were true in MLB right now. I'm sure some teams are in the red (or claim to be) but I doubt it's wide spread especially with revenue sharing and no salary floor, and I'd be surprised if the players were getting even 50% of league revenues at the moment. I don't even think a salary cap/floor system would benefit most of the owners.

My guess is there will be harsher penalties for going over the CBT in the next CBA, and little adjustments here and there, but I'd be very surprised if it bled into the regular season. MLB and ESPN had a divorce recently, and when MLB had to sell ESPN's rights elsewhere, they made sure those rights were only for 3 years so that all of their national and international rights expired at the same time (2028). I don't think they do that if they thought they'd miss games in 2027. Imagine missing parts or all of 2027, and then trying to sell a package to Netflix or Amazon for the rights in 2028-29. Owners aren't stupid, but maybe I'm just being cautiously optimistic. Would hate to lose games obviously. 

[John_Havok]

14 minutes ago, glory said:

There's a lot of distrust between owners and players in MLB. I don't think they can figure out a salary cap system unless one side (the players) completely folds, and that's probably going to take a lost season like what happened with the NHL. 

The last time the NBA had a lockout that led to missed regular season games (2011), it was because allegedly the majority of teams were losing money and the players were getting a larger share of the revenue split. I haven't looked too deeply into MLB's financials, but I'd be shocked if either of those things were true in MLB right now. I'm sure some teams are in the red (or claim to be) but I doubt it's wide spread especially with revenue sharing and no salary floor, and I'd be surprised if the players were getting even 50% of league revenues at the moment. I don't even think a salary cap/floor system would benefit most of the owners.

My guess is there will be harsher penalties for going over the CBT in the next CBA, and little adjustments here and there, but I'd be very surprised if it bled into the regular season. MLB and ESPN had a divorce recently, and when MLB had to sell ESPN's rights elsewhere, they made sure those rights were only for 3 years so that all of their national and international rights expired at the same time (2028). I don't think they do that if they thought they'd miss games in 2027. Imagine missing parts or all of 2027, and then trying to sell a package to Netflix or Amazon for the rights in 2028-29. Owners aren't stupid, but maybe I'm just being cautiously optimistic. Would hate to lose games obviously. 

All of the big 4 leagues in North America are doing quite well right now. What the main differences are is how they generate their money. 

NFL is massively driven by their media deals. Something like 65+% of their total revenue is from broadcasting and media rights, and like 15% on ticket revenue, with the rest in the merch, sponsors etc. 

Contrast that with the NHL and MLB where it's still largely driven by attendance as their main revenue source, with broadcasting rights as a fast-growing source, but still not quite the top. 

Makes sense when ya think of how few games there are in the NFL and how many fewer tickets can be sold to games vs MLB

[glory]

11 minutes ago, John_Havok said:

All of the big 4 leagues in North America are doing quite well right now. What the main differences are is how they generate their money. 

NFL is massively driven by their media deals. Something like 65+% of their total revenue is from broadcasting and media rights, and like 15% on ticket revenue, with the rest in the merch, sponsors etc. 

Contrast that with the NHL and MLB where it's still largely driven by attendance as their main revenue source, with broadcasting rights as a fast-growing source, but still not quite the top. 

Makes sense when ya think of how few games there are in the NFL and how many fewer tickets can be sold to games vs MLB

Yeah which is why the 2028 media rights deal for MLB is so important. That's billions of dollars on the line for the next 5-10 years. Having a lockout that bleeds into the regular season in 2027 not only takes away gate revenue (which as you said is how they make a lot of their money), but also devalues their brand as they head into a media rights negotiation. The NBA can have a lockout next season if they wanted to because they have an 11 year, $77B media rights deal with NBC/Amazon/Disney in their pockets. MLB doesn't have that luxury. They probably want to get that type of massive media deal, and then worry about the salary cap stuff later. Which is why I think a lot of this is just hot air. Players don't want a salary cap, and owners have way too much to lose if they miss games. 

[mphenhef]

45 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'm dead set against a cap in baseball but could get behind escalated penalties for spending.  A hard cap would create massive advantages for certain teams who would be better suited to recruit players when salaries are similar.  Ie the histories of the Dodgers and Yankees combined with the extra revenue potential in those cities make them more attractive to many players.  Teams in no income tax states would also have an advantage with salary numbers having to be equal.  Try convincing a player to take the same amount of money to play in April snow in Minnesota as they could get playing in perfect weather Arizona.  

 

The Dodgers being both a smart run organization and having so much appeal in their team and city would likely end up having just as mush success if not more in a cap system.

[BTS]

2 minutes ago, mphenhef said:

I'm dead set against a cap in baseball but could get behind escalated penalties for spending.  A hard cap would create massive advantages for certain teams who would be better suited to recruit players when salaries are similar.  Ie the histories of the Dodgers and Yankees combined with the extra revenue potential in those cities make them more attractive to many players.  Teams in no income tax states would also have an advantage with salary numbers having to be equal.  Try convincing a player to take the same amount of money to play in April snow in Minnesota as they could get playing in perfect weather Arizona.  

 

The Dodgers being both a smart run organization and having so much appeal in their team and city would likely end up having just as mush success if not more in a cap system.

The income tax thing is a great point, and the impact of it in the NHL has been enormous. States with no income tax have won 5 of the last 6 Stanley Cups. 

[mphenhef]

34 minutes ago, Brownie19 said:

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.

I don't believe expansion is tied to doing well financially anymore as much as it maybe was before.  It's often used as a way for the current owners to receive an influx of cash up front in exchange for giving up a piece of the pie.    One thing holding the other leagues back from expansion is the fact that 1/30th or 1/32nd of that pie is a very large amount for those leagues at the moment.  For example, in the sale of BamTech (which came from mlb advanced media (mlb.tv) and turned into disney plus interestingly enough, Disney paid the MLB owners over 3 billion dollars.  NHL owners for 350 million in that deal.

[Terminator]

Deferrals and signing bonuses are a great way to level the income tax disparities between teams.

MLB needs to keep those in place, despite the majority of fans not understanding how it all works. 

[John_Havok]

48 minutes ago, Terminator said:

Deferrals and signing bonuses are a great way to level the income tax disparities between teams.

MLB needs to keep those in place, despite the majority of fans not understanding how it all works. 

The signing bonus tax loophole is a big one that allowed the Jaya to give what they did to Vlad and have roughly equivalent taxes despite him playing for Toronto rather than a state with no state tax. 

Deferrals on the other hand needs to be addressed. Big spending teams can exploit it far better than any lower spending team which is precisely the team it was designed to help. It's helping big spending teams more, which was not the intent. 

[G-Snarls]

41 minutes ago, John_Havok said:

The signing bonus tax loophole is a big one that allowed the Jaya to give what they did to Vlad and have roughly equivalent taxes despite him playing for Toronto rather than a state with no state tax. 

Deferrals on the other hand needs to be addressed. Big spending teams can exploit it far better than any lower spending team which is precisely the team it was designed to help. It's helping big spending teams more, which was not the intent. 

Yeah

I'm not seeing Japanese stars lining up to play in Pittburgh or Colorado and deferring a bulk of their salary while they're at it

[Spanky__99]

Why are you dingleberry's bringing up NFL, NHL etc... you're a bunch of birds It isn't close. 

[Spanky__99]

22 hours ago, jaysblue said:

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

What does this mean?

[BTS]

3 minutes ago, Spanky__99 said:

Why are you dingleberry's bringing up NFL, NHL etc... you're a bunch of birds It isn't close. 

Fight me 

[Spanky__99]

Just now, BTS said:

Fight me 

OH yeah... Baby! It's on like donkey kong!

[Terminator]

2 hours ago, John_Havok said:

The signing bonus tax loophole is a big one that allowed the Jaya to give what they did to Vlad and have roughly equivalent taxes despite him playing for Toronto rather than a state with no state tax. 

Deferrals on the other hand needs to be addressed. Big spending teams can exploit it far better than any lower spending team which is precisely the team it was designed to help. It's helping big spending teams more, which was not the intent. 

This isn't true. The net present value calculations that are done essentially close off all potential loopholes that big spending teams could exploit. 

The only thing that needs to be addressed is that fans need to realize that the reported contract terms aren't that actual terms when deferrals are involved. The real dollar amounts are the net present value. 

Best example is Ohtani. He signed for a reported 10 years, 700 million but that number is all fugazi. He really signed for 10 years, 460 million, the terms of which fell in line with what he was projected to get. 

If MLB instituted a salary cap and got rid of deferrals, the Jays would be absolutely screwed and the Texas and Florida teams would gain a huge advantage. 

[Terminator]

1 hour ago, G-Snarls said:

Yeah

I'm not seeing Japanese stars lining up to play in Pittburgh or Colorado and deferring a bulk of their salary while they're at it

No one is lining up to play in Pitt or Colorado because they don't offer Free Agents good contracts, deferrals or not.

[John_Havok]

8 minutes ago, Terminator said:

This isn't true. The net present value calculations that are done essentially close off all potential loopholes that big spending teams could exploit. 

The only thing that needs to be addressed is that fans need to realize that the reported contract terms aren't that actual terms when deferrals are involved. The real dollar amounts are the net present value. 

Large spending teams have the ability to defer far more money than low spending teams for the same reason they can spend far more money than low spending teams, they just have way more money. 

It's not the actual deferral process that needs addressing, it's how many deferred contracts you can have on your roster that needs to be limited, as well as the overall % of the contract that can be deferred. That's where the big spenders have their advantage. 

To paralell the NHL ( I know, sacriligous... ) there are limits to how many contracts you can have on your books that you retain salary on and how much of a percentage you can retain overall. 

[Terminator]

23 minutes ago, John_Havok said:

Large spending teams have the ability to defer far more money than low spending teams for the same reason they can spend far more money than low spending teams, they just have way more money. 

It's not the actual deferral process that needs addressing, it's how many deferred contracts you can have on your roster that needs to be limited, as well as the overall % of the contract that can be deferred. That's where the big spenders have their advantage. 

To paralell the NHL ( I know, sacriligous... ) there are limits to how many contracts you can have on your books that you retain salary on and how much of a percentage you can retain. 

That’s just a spending-capacity issue, not a deferral issue.

MLB already accounts for deferrals by converting contracts to net present value for luxury-tax purposes. The team isn’t saving money, and they aren’t gaming the system. You could defer money on every player on the 26-man roster and it wouldn’t change competitive balance because the system normalizes it back to today’s dollars.

The NHL comparison doesn’t really work because it operates under a completely different CBA that requires real-time accounting. Players are guaranteed exactly 50% of hockey-related revenue and there’s a hard cap, so timing of payments matters A LOT and why they have to limit accounting options like deferrals.

MLB’s system is looser by design. There’s no hard cap and no fixed revenue split, so deferrals don’t distort the system. They just shift when money is paid, not how much is actually spent. And of course, it also gets rid of the income tax disparity between the various teams, something that the NHL struggles with. 

[Laika]

I do think deferrals are a toy that the richer teams can use more often simply because they have the long-term financial flexibility and security to do it 

The teams with less money can't or don't feel like they can put that money on the books down the line 

I do think it will be addressed in some way in the CBA. I doubt that all owners are happy that the hedge fund owned Dodgers can and do use deferrals like they do

But there is tons of misinformation about deferred contracts in MLB and the fans are very misinformed or willfully ignorant. I don't think it's necessarily some huge loophole. 

[John_Havok]

16 minutes ago, Terminator said:

That’s just a spending-capacity issue, not a deferral issue.

MLB already accounts for deferrals by converting contracts to net present value for luxury-tax purposes. The team isn’t saving money, and they aren’t gaming the system. You could defer money on every player on the 26-man roster and it wouldn’t change competitive balance because the system normalizes it back to today’s dollars.

The NHL comparison doesn’t really work because it operates under a completely different CBA that requires real-time accounting. Players are guaranteed exactly 50% of hockey-related revenue and there’s a hard cap, so timing of payments matters A LOT and why they have to limit accounting options like deferrals.

MLB’s system is looser by design. There’s no hard cap and no fixed revenue split, so deferrals don’t distort the system. They just shift when money is paid, not how much is actually spent. And of course, it also gets rid of the income tax disparity between the various teams, something that the NHL struggles with. 

yes. all true. However, the Dodgers know they have 700+ million in revenue every year, allowing them to be certain they can defer pretty much anything they want 

The Pirates cannot do that. 

[Terminator]

1 minute ago, John_Havok said:

yes. all true. However, the Dodgers know they have 700+ million in revenue every year, allowing them to be certain they can defer pretty much anything they want 

The Pirates cannot do that. 

The Dodgers literally have to take the 46 million a year and put it in an escrow account that they can't touch though. I swear MLB thought of every possible loophole and closed it.

 

[Brownie19]

1 hour ago, Spanky__99 said:

What does this mean?

I believe he's suggesting that Andruw Jones looks better when viewed through the eyes of fWAR than he did through the human eye and/or in context of his peers at the time.  I think there's "some" truth to that.  His defense certainly wasn't overlooked - but we didn't really have way to measure just how good his defense was.

For instance, I don't think I considered him to be a Top 10 player in 1998 when he hit .271 with 31 HRs, 89 R and 90 RBI.  That's the year Mac and Sosa were chasing 61.  

https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders/major-league?pos=all&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=y&type=8&month=0&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=0&filter=&player=&startdate=&enddate=&season=1998&season1=1998

For me personally, Andruw Jones reminds me Scott Rolen a bit.  I wouldn't have given him the credit he deserved without fWAR calculations.  Cal Ripkin Jr. kind falls into the same category for me.

[Terminator]

On 1/5/2026 at 2:41 PM, jaysblue said:

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

Well tbf he'd probably be the worst trade acquisition of all time.

You'd probably have to give up your entire farm system for a guy who inexplicably turns into a pumpkin at age 30. 

Still a HoFer though.

[Orgfiller]

8 minutes ago, Brownie19 said:

I believe he's suggesting that Andruw Jones looks better when viewed through the eyes of fWAR than he did through the human eye and/or in context of his peers at the time.  I think there's "some" truth to that.  His defense certainly wasn't overlooked - but we didn't really have way to measure just how good his defense was.

For instance, I don't think I considered him to be a Top 10 player in 1998 when he hit .271 with 31 HRs, 89 R and 90 RBI.  That's the year Mac and Sosa were chasing 61.  

https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders/major-league?pos=all&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=y&type=8&month=0&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=0&filter=&player=&startdate=&enddate=&season=1998&season1=1998

For me personally, Andruw Jones reminds me Scott Rolen a bit.  I wouldn't have given him the credit he deserved without fWAR calculations.  Cal Ripkin Jr. kind falls into the same category for me.

Not necessarily disagreeing with a lot of what you're saying, but I don't really think it's true to claim that people didn't know how good his defense was. He's generally regarded as one of, if not the best defensive outfielder of all time. This is well evidenced by him winning 10 consecutive GGs, which corresponds with practically the entirety of his prime/years as an elite player before his precipitous drop-off in his 30s.

The argument of course, is that people didn't, and to a certain extent still probably don't, value his defense as highly as it should(?) have been. You're gonna have a hard time convincing most people, even today, that a 160 wRC+ DH-only - or worse, brutal defender like a lot of the sluggers of the 90s in a no-DH league were - monster bat is as equally valuable as a 115 wRC+ defensive superstar even in a premium defensive position like CF, SS or C.

For god's sake, the Braves even experimented with putting Chipper Jones in the outfield from 2002-04 since it probably didn't even matter how brutal he was if Andruw would mostly cover for his range. They knew how good his defense was.

I agree fWAR allows us to retrospectively give him some of the credit he deserves, and this may ultimately result in a HOF induction that one may not have thought about during his playing days, but that's not to say that people didn't know just how good he was at defense, relative to his peers, even at the time.

[Brownie19]

1 hour ago, Orgfiller said:

Not necessarily disagreeing with a lot of what you're saying, but I don't really think it's true to claim that people didn't know how good his defense was. He's generally regarded as one of, if not the best defensive outfielder of all time. This is well evidenced by him winning 10 consecutive GGs, which corresponds with practically the entirety of his prime/years as an elite player before his precipitous drop-off in his 30s.

The argument of course, is that people didn't, and to a certain extent still probably don't, value his defense as highly as it should(?) have been. You're gonna have a hard time convincing most people, even today, that a 160 wRC+ DH-only - or worse, brutal defender like a lot of the sluggers of the 90s in a no-DH league were - monster bat is as equally valuable as a 115 wRC+ defensive superstar even in a premium defensive position like CF, SS or C.

For god's sake, the Braves even experimented with putting Chipper Jones in the outfield from 2002-04 since it probably didn't even matter how brutal he was if Andruw would mostly cover for his range. They knew how good his defense was.

I agree fWAR allows us to retrospectively give him some of the credit he deserves, and this may ultimately result in a HOF induction that one may not have thought about during his playing days, but that's not to say that people didn't know just how good he was at defense, relative to his peers, even at the time.

Yeah - for me it was all about measuring just how much better he was than everyone else.  We all knew he was "the best" - we knew it was a generational defensive CFer.  But did I know he was like 4 times better defensively than Jim Edmonds?  I probably didn't, and without the advanced stats, I probably underestimated how good of a hitter he truly was.  

[Jonn]

 

Aura personified.

[Olerud363.354]

2 hours ago, Terminator said:

The Dodgers literally have to take the 46 million a year and put it in an escrow account that they can't touch though. I swear MLB thought of every possible loophole and closed it.

My understanding (correct me if I am wrong) is that only rich teams would do this, because the risk is interest rate fall and they have put almost all of the 70 million in.  I believe that when the 10 year rate was 5% it was 46 million they had to put in, now it's probably more like 53 or something, and if a crisis happened and 10 year fell (it fell to below 1 during Covid) they'd have to put 67 million in or something.  

 

[jaysblue]

15 hours ago, Spanky__99 said:

What does this mean?

[Stangstag]

16 hours ago, Terminator said:

This isn't true. The net present value calculations that are done essentially close off all potential loopholes that big spending teams could exploit. 

The only thing that needs to be addressed is that fans need to realize that the reported contract terms aren't that actual terms when deferrals are involved. The real dollar amounts are the net present value. 

Best example is Ohtani. He signed for a reported 10 years, 700 million but that number is all fugazi. He really signed for 10 years, 460 million, the terms of which fell in line with what he was projected to get. 

If MLB instituted a salary cap and got rid of deferrals, the Jays would be absolutely screwed and the Texas and Florida teams would gain a huge advantage. 

Answer me one thing, how much money is Ohtani actually receiving from the Dodgers by the time his contract is over and paid?

[Stangstag]

13 hours ago, Jonn said:

 

Aura personified.

That's my number 4 starter with a big personality 😍

[Jimcanuck]

27 minutes ago, Stangstag said:

Answer me one thing, how much money is Ohtani actually receiving from the Dodgers by the time his contract is over and paid?

The Dodgers will pay roughly 470 million.  The rest of the 700 million will be paid by interest earned on investments.