I guess I'm not explaining it very well. I'm saying teams need to have a certain minimum payroll to qualify which prevents owners from using these funds INSTEAD of their regular payroll. Then if a team goes over, then they pay a fine which is given to teams who don't go over but that money can only be spent on payroll. Let's say the minimum is $100M and the 3 CBT levels are $250 M / $275M / $300 M and the fines are $10%, 50%, and 100% based on the $250M threshold. I will look at 2026 payrolls and reply with the results.
Spotrac has 7 teams above $250M which would generate $454.895M divided between 21 teams. That averages to $21.662M per team they can add to their $100+M payroll to compete. Obviously there needs to be some tiers to avoid a team spending $249M and getting $21+M more when a team spending $251M getting fined and no additional funds. maybe maxing out the benefit at $250M total payroll instead of dividing it equally? The Guardians need to spend $5.252M to qualify as the 22nd. The Marlins are about $21.9M below. I am just going to have to write this as a blog, lol
Unless I'm missing something, wouldn't a team that had a $125MM payroll last year just keep the payroll the same and pocket the $22MM? At $100MM, $125MM, or $150MM, they still aren't competing with the Dodgers, so why spend the extra $22MM?
The system would require that money to be paid on salary. Thats the point: to reduce the gap between highest and lowest salary teams without a salary cap.
Baseball needs a hard cap and a hard minimum cap. $150-$275. That should be the range. No more deferrals. Of course, this will never happen. There is going to be a long work stoppage.
How do you decide which money is paid using luxury tax money? My team paid $125MM last year, but has some big contracts coming off the books so I'm at $100MM this year. If I didn't have the luxury tax money, I'd have spent money to go sign someone else for $25MM. Since I have the luxury tax money, I'll keep my $25MM I would have spent, and spend that money instead. There's no way to effectively segregate luxury tax payroll money and regular payroll money. The system can be gamed too easily.
There is no workable solution long-term for the health of baseball that doesn't include a hard cap. Right now you have 29 teams playing one way and the Dodgers getting to do whatever the **** they want financially. This is not sustainable much longer.
That was true 20-30 years ago with the Yankees outspending everyone by similar margins. And yet, baseball still exists.
In 2025, the Dodgers outspent the #2 team (the Mets) by 2%. They outspent the #5 payroll team (Blue Jays) by 37%. The outspent the #10 team (The Angels) by 67%. In 2005, the Yankees outspent the #2 team (Red Sox) by 69%. The #5 team (Angels) by 117%. The #10 team (Braves) by 142%. (these numbers are opening day payrolls https://www.stevetheump.com/Payrolls.htm )
Thanks for making my point. The rules changed so one team couldn't do whatever the **** they wanted. The Yankees still spend a lot but they also play under the current rules of the 28 other teams, and take into account the LT when making financial decisions.
Except the rules changed without a hard cap, which goes exactly against your point. Also, the Mets spend as much as the Dodgers so it's not 29 vs 1.
No, my point is that one team operating under a different set of rules than the other 29 teams is unsustainable. You pointed out that this happened with the Yankees 20-30 years ago, and MLB changed the rules for the health of the league overall. A hardcap would stop the Dodgers from being the Yankees 20-30 years ago. However, this all moot because the MLBPA is a ****ing mess right now. Clark is likely going to jail and he resigned today along with his top lieutenant.
Lots of puzzle pieces to put together. Payrolls aren't finalized until December after the season is completed, so the money would need to be spent the following year. I don't have any answer on how to separate the regular payroll from the designated CBT money. This is a complex issue but one that interests me. I'm open to discussion and suggestions.
Well, looks like the BBS is no closer to finding a solution than the rest of the world. Tony Clark stepping down from MLBPA leadership is a huge development that does not work in favor of finding a solution prior to a work stoppage.
Are there different rules though? Again, there are more teams spending below their means than above their means. Why? Because they all operate under the same rules (spend what you can).
Yes, the Los Angeles Dodgers keep significantly more of their local television revenue than other MLB franchises due to a unique, court-approved arrangement stemming from their 2012 bankruptcy sale. While most teams share roughly 34% of local TV income, the Dodgers only share a portion of their $334 million annual deal, allowing them to retain over $300 million.
I don't see Tony Clark as very reasonable. He doesn't want player salaries tied to revenue, but complains that players are shortchanged whenever revenue increases. Granted, the owners aren't very reasonable, either. The CBA always ends up weird with both sides trying to get more money by addressing all these random issues, except deciding on how much of the pie goes to owners and how much goes to players. I expect a lockout for at least 2 months of the season, if not much more. In the end, I expect veteran players and small-market owners to get something advantageous. Big market owners are ecstatic about making a ton of money again. Minor leaguers and controlled players get a small pittance, but are thrown under the bus to satisfy veteran players and small-market owners. I fully expect fans will still want to squeeze small markets while big-market revenues are increasing much faster than small-market revenues.
So Tony Clark was also banging his wife's sister, a MLBPA employee. https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/2026/02/17/tony-clark-mlbpa-sister-in-law/88730746007/
