Bryce Harper
-
@The_Joneser_PSN let’s say the lockout/strike goes on for 2-3 years. Players get together and decide to do 12 teams of their own buddies and tour across the country for 80 games. Broadcast on YouTube. Make it 50$ for the season, all access.
The owners fill 30 teams of replacement players that never saw the bigs and decide to cross the picket line. Games on regular TV as is.
Let’s see where the fans money will go. Money will go to talent. The “risk” is a joke. The tough part is having the money to buy the team in the first place. Sports teams are an ego trip, toys and/or prestige symbol to flip in 20 years. They didn’t start their teams in their father’s garage.
It’s not like they paid for their stadiums out of pocket either.
Paying Harper 15 or 30M a year won’t change ticket prices for fans. Sales determine that.
-
All of that spoken like a fan who has enjoyed the spoils of a broken system for too long. Good news is none of us will determine this. Ultimately the MLBPA doesn’t have the power in this negotiation. As you clearly stated. Most owners aren’t making a living off their ego trip MLB team. They can easily absorb the cost because they won’t be paying 100million plus in baseball operations and will be paying zero for salaries during a lockout. They can ride it out easily.
As for the players, the truly great ones, are they willing to lose year(s) of their prime? The max contracts in most systems would still be around 40 million a year, not to mention signing bonuses etc. all I’m hearing are emotional arguments against a cap. Emotion isn’t winning this one.
What this system does is make every player affordable to every team. The Marlins and Tampa will be coveted places to play for some players under a cap. Why? No state tax and a roster that has the same chance as any other team to win. Pittsburgh will have a chance to lock Skenes down for a fan base that is passionate and has one of the best venues in the game.
Or you can be one of those fans who feel the best players should be in NY and LA and everyone else needs to trade their players to them.
-
@yankblan_PSN, first, let's hope it doesn't come to that. It likely could, and that would be terrible for everyone... and though I doubt your ex-MLB barnstorming scenario would happen, sure, I'd pay for that for a bit, but that's not something sustainable or desirable for the players... $50 for all access takes 520,000 subscribers to pay Bryce Harper his current wage. Based on his recent behavior, I don't think he'd be too happy about taking less.
You're right that it's incredibly tough to buy a team in the first place, but you're wrong if you think the money just rolls in for everyone. Sure, there's no risk if you've tapped into the Yankees or another major franchise, but there is definitely risk for many others. Take a team like Detroit; Forbes does their annual piece on the business of baseball, looking at the financial health of each team, and they put the Tigers at a loss of $29M for 2023, with an opening day payroll of $105M. That's not a small amount of money to lose.
Can you think of any business where it's okay to take a loss because you're somehow obligated to in order to keep your fans happy? How many years can that be sustained?
In 2024, they scaled payroll back to about $95M, and they were $17M in the black. People yell about the owner being a cheapskate, and maybe he is, but where does that money ultimately go? The Tigers opened 2025 with a payroll of about $131M, and it's paying off for them, so far. That could very well net them a nice loss on the year if things go to [censored] in the second half and interest dries up, driving sales down, etc. There's definitely risk, there.
And while fans may not notice much in terms of ticket prices, paying a single player $15M is a big deal to the team when it means potentially losing $45M (since you were losing money already), or much more. I know fans feel like they're owed this for some amazingly self-absorbed reason, but, again, no other business would operate like that. Sports teams are owned by the rich, and rich people don't become rich by throwing away money in the tens of millions, let alone the amount some fans think they're "owed" by the owners of their favorite sports team.
Somebody said that a cap would limit what some teams can pay but does nothing to force others to pay more, but I don't think that completely grasps the situation; it doesn't force them, but if the Dodgers can only spend $225M instead of $320M, that might inspire other teams to increase their own spend. If a team can spend $150M and get enough talent to potentially compete and peak the interest of fans, they might be more willing to do so, when before, the big teams have already gobbled up all the talent with money they can't match, and the inflated player prices that trail these outrageous mega-deals wouldn't yield a competitive team anyway without some forced parity, so why throw that extra $50M down the drain to field a slightly better but still losing team?
That isn't good for the fans. But that's what at least half of us get.
Again, I'm not beating the drum for salary caps, but I'm not dismissing it without thought, either. This is not just a matter of greedy owners getting over on players. The players (at least their reps) are greedy [censored], too, and they don't care if fans ultimately suffer so long as they get to maximize their salaries.
-
@LHUBison58_XBL said in Bryce Harper:
All of that spoken like a fan who has enjoyed the spoils of a broken system for too long. Good news is none of us will determine this. Ultimately the MLBPA doesn’t have the power in this negotiation. As you clearly stated. Most owners aren’t making a living off their ego trip MLB team. They can easily absorb the cost because they won’t be paying 100million plus in baseball operations and will be paying zero for salaries during a lockout. They can ride it out easily.
As for the players, the truly great ones, are they willing to lose year(s) of their prime? The max contracts in most systems would still be around 40 million a year, not to mention signing bonuses etc. all I’m hearing are emotional arguments against a cap. Emotion isn’t winning this one.
What this system does is make every player affordable to every team. The Marlins and Tampa will be coveted places to play for some players under a cap. Why? No state tax and a roster that has the same chance as any other team to win. Pittsburgh will have a chance to lock Skenes down for a fan base that is passionate and has one of the best venues in the game.
Or you can be one of those fans who feel the best players should be in NY and LA and everyone else needs to trade their players to them.
The owners couldn't ride it out easily though, not indefinitely, property taxes, utilities, and there are some salaried personnel that would have to be paid which would hurt more with no revenue coming in, a lot of operations would cease but not everything.
There is also the risk to the fan base, in 94 when it happened it took many years and the rampant PED use and homer record chasing to bring the fans back, a black eye that the sport still in some ways hasn't recovered from. -
@The_Joneser_PSN said in Bryce Harper:
@yankblan_PSN, first, let's hope it doesn't come to that. It likely could, and that would be terrible for everyone... and though I doubt your ex-MLB barnstorming scenario would happen, sure, I'd pay for that for a bit, but that's not something sustainable or desirable for the players... $50 for all access takes 520,000 subscribers to pay Bryce Harper his current wage. Based on his recent behavior, I don't think he'd be too happy about taking less.
You're right that it's incredibly tough to buy a team in the first place…
I intentionally cutoff the full quote so this doesn’t get way too long to read
The Numbers Don’t Lie
• MLB posted $12.1 billion in revenue in 2024, up 10% from 2023. Player salaries have barely kept pace.
• Revenue sharing already sends ~$110M+ per team from pooled local revenue. That’s not “no support” for smaller markets.
• The Tigers were not drowning. Forbes showed a $29M loss in 2022, then a $17M profit in 2023 with $306M in revenue — reflecting a rebound, not a revenue crisisNo Cap Required—Revenue Sharing Already Exists
• MLB already forces redistribution. If a cap would suddenly inspire teams to spend, why hasn’t that happened with guaranteed revenue sharing?
• Detroit’s issues weren’t about paying players— it was about poor ownership decisions. The moment they started competing again, revenue followed. The return to black shows the safety net exists.Rich Owners Still Reap the Rewards
• The Dodgers and Yankees pull in $200M+ annually from RSN deals. Even after sharing, they can bankroll other teams’ entire payrolls.
• Meanwhile, team values are skyrocketing—many franchises are worth $1–5 billion. This isn’t about operating profit. It’s about building assets. These franchises appreciate in value year after year—like CNBC’s 2024 numbers pegging franchise values in the $1‑5 billion range. They’re not playing for operating profit—they’re building sizable assets. Any “loss” is used as a tax loophole in their overall business ventures.Cap Would Cement Owner Control—Not Fix Spending
• A cap limits what players can earn. If Detroit only wants to spend $90M, they’ll keep doing that whether the Dodgers are capped or not.
• Worse, a cap gives big-market teams a ceiling they’d never approach, while still allowing them to outspend via signing bonuses and perks.
• If we want parity, start with a hard floor, not a ceiling that protects billionaires from their own bad decisions.This boils down to one point really, and this is what is pissing off the players, issue remains no enforcement of minimum spend. Owners should be forced to invest, not shielded by a cap.
Add in, there is a huge trap in all of this that needs to be determined (and would probably be the death of the negotiations) - current contracts are all fully guaranteed and absolutely CANNOT be cancelled - federal law in regards to a CBA.
-
@The_Joneser_PSN said in Bryce Harper:
@yankblan_PSN, first, let's hope it doesn't come to that. It likely could, and that would be terrible for everyone... and though I doubt your ex-MLB barnstorming scenario would happen, sure, I'd pay for that for a bit, but that's not something sustainable or desirable for the players... $50 for all access takes 520,000 subscribers to pay Bryce Harper his current wage. Based on his recent behavior, I don't think he'd be too happy about taking less.
You're right that it's incredibly tough to buy a team in the first place, but you're wrong if you think the money just rolls in for everyone. Sure, there's no risk if you've tapped into the Yankees or another major franchise, but there is definitely risk for many others. Take a team like Detroit; Forbes does their annual piece on the business of baseball, looking at the financial health of each team, and they put the Tigers at a loss of $29M for 2023, with an opening day payroll of $105M. That's not a small amount of money to lose.
Can you think of any business where it's okay to take a loss because you're somehow obligated to in order to keep your fans happy? How many years can that be sustained?
In 2024, they scaled payroll back to about $95M, and they were $17M in the black. People yell about the owner being a cheapskate, and maybe he is, but where does that money ultimately go? The Tigers opened 2025 with a payroll of about $131M, and it's paying off for them, so far. That could very well net them a nice loss on the year if things go to [censored] in the second half and interest dries up, driving sales down, etc. There's definitely risk, there.
And while fans may not notice much in terms of ticket prices, paying a single player $15M is a big deal to the team when it means potentially losing $45M (since you were losing money already), or much more. I know fans feel like they're owed this for some amazingly self-absorbed reason, but, again, no other business would operate like that. Sports teams are owned by the rich, and rich people don't become rich by throwing away money in the tens of millions, let alone the amount some fans think they're "owed" by the owners of their favorite sports team.
Somebody said that a cap would limit what some teams can pay but does nothing to force others to pay more, but I don't think that completely grasps the situation; it doesn't force them, but if the Dodgers can only spend $225M instead of $320M, that might inspire other teams to increase their own spend. If a team can spend $150M and get enough talent to potentially compete and peak the interest of fans, they might be more willing to do so, when before, the big teams have already gobbled up all the talent with money they can't match, and the inflated player prices that trail these outrageous mega-deals wouldn't yield a competitive team anyway without some forced parity, so why throw that extra $50M down the drain to field a slightly better but still losing team?
That isn't good for the fans. But that's what at least half of us get.
Again, I'm not beating the drum for salary caps, but I'm not dismissing it without thought, either. This is not just a matter of greedy owners getting over on players. The players (at least their reps) are greedy [censored], too, and they don't care if fans ultimately suffer so long as they get to maximize their salaries.
Your analysis misses the impact of the salary floor.
-
There are a lot of great points here. Another issue the owners are now dealing with is the downfall of the Regional Sports Network. This certainly may not affect teams like the Red Sox, Yanks, and others with the well known networks, but most of the teams considered smaller market are certainly losing out.
Revenue sharing should help offset the cost, but even trying to find how much teams are getting is somewhat difficult to find as a fan. Can you imagine turning on MLB Network and the hosts are analyzing the revenue sharing numbers received for small market teams. They could have an hour for each team prior to the start of the year. But, definately would not be in the best interest of the owners. Imagine being a fan of (just an example) of the Twins, and finding out they received 50 million in revenue sharing and did not put it back into the team via free agents. The larger market teams are sharing the wealth.
-
I just feel this shows you a strike is coming. this one could be a long one. There should be a salary cap and a salary floor. Players are against the cap and for the floor, and Owners are against a floor and for the cap. Bottomline, the start of the 2027 season will be very interesting.
-
@SavageSteve74_PSN said in Bryce Harper:
Revenue sharing already sends ~$110M+ per team from pooled local revenue. That’s not “no support” for smaller markets.
This needs to be talked about more.
-
@Wilbs715_XBL said in Bryce Harper:
@SavageSteve74_PSN said in Bryce Harper:
Revenue sharing already sends ~$110M+ per team from pooled local revenue. That’s not “no support” for smaller markets.
This needs to be talked about more.
This and your other posts are entirely on target. The luxury tax is providing revenues to the small market teams. A few are using it to improve player talent. However, other owners are pocketing the luxury tax shared revenue. Again, folks, this is where a negotiated salary floor will force these selfish owners to raise their payrolls to at least meet the floor, or if they refuse, then the league per the new contract could step in and take over the team.
The players have to look at this logically and Harper's vulgar threats to the commissioner don't help that process develop, and like Manfred or not (and I despise the man for what he did to Atlanta's All Star game in 2021) at least Manfred is trying to explain this to the players.
-
@PriorFir4383355_XBL said in Bryce Harper:
Again, folks, this is where a negotiated salary floor will force these selfish owners to raise their payrolls to at least meet the floor, or if they refuse, then the league per the new contract could step in and take over the team.
Problem with the salary floor is that are some occasions where an entire teardown is needed to build from scratch.
Take the 2013 Astros. They wound up with a $26 million payroll because they tore it down to the foundation. But that gave plenty of playing opportunities and empty roster spots for Jose Altuve, Carlos Correa, George Springer, Lance McCullers, Brad Peacock and Dallas Keuchel.
2 years later, they drafted Bregman, Tucker, and Daz Cameron (trade bait for Justin Verlander.)
2 years after that, Rings (and trash cans) for everyone!
Sometimes getting rid of everything and starting over is the right move. The issue is when you do hit on rookies and draft picks (like the Astros did), they backed it up by trading for Verlander, and spending money on Morton, Beltran, & Reddick.
Would the 2013 Astros been better off spending a bunch of money on Joe Blanton or Jonny Gomes or the dessicated remains of Torii Hunter and block up all those roster spots?
-
@SaveFarris_PSN look at examples of this exact scenario from NHL teams. When you do this in the nhl the rebuilding team will take on a few “bad contracts” to reach the floor, but the team dumping that contract via the trade usually has to send draft picks/or prospects along with the bad contracts. For MLB it doesn’t quite work as well as the teams can’t trade MOST picks. But it could work.
There are 1000s of things that will need to be sorted out both ways. Grandfathering in current contracts, contract length caps, arbitration, do you have restricted free agent years as a player? How long until you hit free agency, etc.
-
Good point, but I think MLB doesn't like the "tear it down" approach, and I know the players don't either. So, this is a compromise to be had, and one I think the owners would agree to in order to prevent losing the 2027 season. The Astros and the Braves both tore down and rebuilt and ended up winning World Series titles. However, other teams tried it and it failed and mired those teams in a decade of futility, eroded attendance, and angry fandoms.
I'm willing to sacrifice this option to tear down and rebuild in return for all teams being essentially mandated to put competitive teams on the field each and every season. The GM's and owners would have to be smart with the money they spend because the price of signing a player to a huge salary and losing them to injury or seeing their production crater would be far greater.
Right now, the teams like the Yankees, Dodgers, and Mets can make mistakes and eat the costs. They don't have to worry about a salary cap. But, the salary floor firmly prevents selfish owners from pocketing their profits vice invest in competitive player rosters -- precisely what Rob Manfred is wanting for the league, and he has the vast majority of the owners on his side in this.
-
said in Bryce Harper:
Good point, but I think MLB doesn't like the "tear it down" approach, and I know the players don't either. So, this is a compromise to be had, and one I think the owners would agree to in order to prevent losing the 2027 season. The Astros and the Braves both tore down and rebuilt and ended up winning World Series titles. However, other teams tried it and it failed and mired those teams in a decade of futility, eroded attendance, and angry fandoms.
I'm willing to sacrifice this option to tear down and rebuild in return for all teams being essentially mandated to put competitive teams on the field each and every season. The GM's and owners would have to be smart with the money they spend because the price of signing a player to a huge salary and losing them to injury or seeing their production crater would be far greater.
Right now, the teams like the Yankees, Dodgers, and Mets can make mistakes and eat the costs. They don't have to worry about a salary cap. But, the salary floor firmly prevents selfish owners from pocketing their profits vice invest in competitive player rosters -- precisely what Rob Manfred is wanting for the league, and he has the vast majority of the owners on his side in this.
In terms of blocking promotion, teams can always do what the Braves did and ID talent early and sign them to long term contracts before they hit arbitration, much less free agency. This may also force MLB teams to abandon this obsession with pitchers throwing every pitch with max effort, since injuries to starters and relievers would be far more acute if a salary floor and cap were in place.
-
@PriorFir4383355_XBL there would probably be a provision for this, like LTIR in the NHL. Another can of worms.
-
@yankblan_PSN agreed. The whole process will be lengthy and most likely involve a third party that specializes in the cap environments.
-
@SavageSteve74_PSN, I don’t mean to keep this thread alive, but just felt the need to acknowledge that yours was a thoughtful and well organized explanation.
I’d mentioned that I wasn’t an ardent supporter of a cap; having grown up an A’s fan in the East Bay and not having invested much time in looking into the issue as deeply as some, I was inclined to at least entertain the cap as a potential solution to flailing franchises… your response helped fill in some gaps for me with regard to the alternate perspective.
That’s going to give me some reading to do, now, but I appreciate the info and the way it was presented.
Cheers.
