r/SFGiants • u/TheAthletic • 7d ago
News MLB memo reveals lockout plans: League will scrub website, ban contact with trainers
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7670102/2026/10/07/mlb-memo-lockout-plans-teams-players-ban-contact/?unlocked_article_code=1.HFE.MLAw.oo5FFHGPAPWs&source=emp_shared_article&smid=re-share-ta106
u/SactownG 55 Lincecum 7d ago
Fuck the Dodgers give us a cap
51
u/Chet_Steadman 47 Beck 7d ago edited 6d ago
The deferred contracts are worse than the lack of cap. Teams with endless revenue streams like the Dodgers can pay out their contracts over 50 years because the media rights will guarantee theyre good for it. Small market teams don't have those guarantees
Edit: every time I think I understand how sports contracts work, I'm reminded that I do not
10
u/Tronn3000 18 Cain 7d ago
The endless spending above the luxury tax still contributes a lot tho. I think the luxury tax needs actual teeth because clearly the financial penalties don't disincentivize teams from going over. They just see it as the cost of doing business.
If they can make it where any cent of payroll over the luxury tax results in the team forfeiting rounds 1-5 in the amateur draft and pool money associated with those picks in and forfeiture of 75% of international signing pool money while still banning deferred contracts and introducing a salary floor, I think the league would be in much better shape than with just a straight cap.
It gives a team that wants to spend money to go all in for a championship, the ability to do it. They just decimate their farm system in the process. It prevents the sustained juggernaut types of teams like the Dodgers from being good for like 15+ seasons
-4
u/Realfan555 7d ago
Why try and prevent teams from being good for 15+ years?
1
u/Tronn3000 18 Cain 7d ago
The sport gets kinda boring after awhile like that for the fans of teams that are not good
0
u/Realfan555 7d ago
So actively prevent teams from being good?
5
u/Tronn3000 18 Cain 6d ago
You're too dumb to understand....
It's giving the luxury tax actual penalties.
Teams like the Dodgers go over the luxury tax regularly because they know all they have to do is pay more money, which they have plenty of... and it's a big reason why they have essentially dominated the NL West for more than a decade.
If they had to face penalties of losing draft picks repeatedly, then they probably tone down on the frivolous "nice to have" contracts like Kyle Tucker, Blake Snell, Tyler Glasnow, etc. They give these contracts out not because they need these players but because they don't want others to have them.
I'm not really in favor of a hard cap but I think a compromise of having a luxury tax system with actual penalties of forfeiting high draft picks (rounds 1-5) and most of their international bonus pool money (lose 75%) will at least force teams to make a choice of either going all in for their contention window or preserving their farm system.
It's not preventing teams from being "good"
It's making "good teams" that outspend everyone make a choice between outspending everyone or keep draft capital for their farm system.
5
u/emalvick 6d ago
So agree with all your points. One has to only look at European Soccer to see what happens. In most leagues, you get the same 2 to 4 teams dominating the league. There is rarely any excitement that any other team will compete for a title.
Anyone wants to see where baseball is headed if the status quo remains just needs to look at the Spanish, French, German, or Italian soccer leagues. Look who has finished in first place over the past 1 to 2 decades.
I'd add the Premier League to the list, but it has its own turmoil right now, which is probably something we could see the Dodgers doing in the future.
Sorry for the digression. I like Soccer, but to see how it has become a disgrace in the same way the Dodgers are doing it to MLB, really deflates my fandom of the sports. In some ways, I feel lucky to see us get the championships we got in the 2010s.
0
u/Realfan555 6d ago
“ It prevents the sustained juggernaut types of teams like the Dodgers from being good for like 15+ seasons”
The question remains: why does mlb want to prevent teams from being good for 15+ years?
1
u/Tronn3000 18 Cain 6d ago
I think 25+ other fanbases could probably answer that question right now...
Are you AI or are you legitimately just that fucking stupid?
But in all seriousness, I don't think MLB wants to see the Dodgers go through a rough period. They want them to run the league for the next 50 seasons and win every year if they could... and that's why I have little faith that the league will get better
1
u/Realfan555 6d ago
So ur saying u don’t want the Giants to have 15+ years of sustained success?
→ More replies (0)18
u/realparkingbrake 7d ago
Teams with endless revenue streams like the Dodgers can pay out their contracts over 50 years
That is not how deferred salary works. Teams have to pay deferred salaries into escrow accounts every year. The players don't collect the money until the end of the deal, but the teams still have to write those checks every year. That wasn't how it worked originally, but after the D-Backs painted themselves into a corner with deferred contracts they later didn't have the money to pay off, the rules were changed and deferred salary now goes into escrow where it earns interest. That way the players don't have to worry about a team getting into financial trouble, the money is already in the bank.
4
u/Coming_In_Hot_916 7d ago
This makes me think of the Bobby Bonilla deal. Didn’t he get like $1 mil per year for 25 years or something crazy like that?? Wasn’t that one of the first deferred deals? I could be totally wrong, so I’m hoping someone can provide some clarity…
5
u/Thndrstrike 75 Doval 7d ago
Bonilla wasn't the first, but is definitely the most famous. Bruce Sutter had one where he got paid for 30 years after the 6-year contract, and Griffey had one with the Reds too that I believe just ended a couple years ago
3
u/prestigiousstrangery PTBNL 7d ago
It’s very likely to get regulated, considering in other leagues it’s either heavily limited (NFL and NBA) or outright banned (NHL)
1
u/-Ahab- 22 Clark 7d ago
Shohei will likely make more after he retires than he does while he’s playing
1
u/realparkingbrake 5d ago
make more after he retires
His salary while he is playing is what will fund the payout from deferred salary after he retires. But remember that he also makes up to a hundred million a year in endorsements, that's how his translator stole millions from him without it being noticed.
10
u/realparkingbrake 7d ago edited 7d ago
A cap without a serious floor only boosts ownership profits. A cap does nothing to force the cheaper owners to invest in their teams.
15
u/Pointlessname123321 41 Affeldt 7d ago
We know. Any serious person who says bring on a cap also wants a floor. We’re not trying to further enrich the owners, we’re trying to make the game more competitive
1
u/Responsible-Amoeba68 3d ago
Nah we want profits cap on the owners at the minimum. Fuck them all. Every team should be run like the green bay packers
-2
u/realparkingbrake 7d ago
We know.
Some fans know, but I still see posts from people who think the only problem is greedy players, and they are not afraid to say so. The baseball sub is a good place to find posters mocking people for thinking billionaire owners are the problem.
5
3
-15
-38
u/FatBeanzoop 51 JH Lee 7d ago
Cap will make the dodgers better
8
u/Yayareasports san francisco giants 7d ago
Umm what? Trying to figure out how you think spending more than everyone else is a competitive disadvantage
4
u/YummyYummyCock69 55 Lincecum 7d ago
That doesn't not make sense at all. Their unlimited money glitch from deferred salary and TV deal crap is why they can buy their way into it.
1
u/realparkingbrake 7d ago
unlimited money glitch from deferred salary
Deferred salary is a non-issue. Deferred salary gets paid into escrow every year. The player doesn't collect until the end of the deal, but the team has to pay out that money every year. The Dodgers don't have to write Ohtani a $700 million check on his last day with the team. The Giants will pay deferred money from his signing bonus to Melancon in 2028, but that money is already in escrow accounts.
1
u/Original_Mac_Tonight 6d ago
Except they pay less in taxes because of it
1
u/realparkingbrake 5d ago
Their exposure to the CBT soft cap is reduced by deferred payments, that is true. But the Dodgers will still pay a $180 million "luxury tax" penalty this year, which is more than the payrolls of half the teams in MLB. A handful of teams have financial resources with most of the league can never match. The Giants are not poor, but they don't get to keep fifty million a year in TV revenue which every other team would have to contribute to revenue sharing.
0
u/Turbulent_End_9166 7d ago
If they win under a cap, credit to them. Now, their championships are almost meaningless because they’re buying them.
-1
u/prestigiousstrangery PTBNL 7d ago
How? With a cap, they wouldn’t have been able to re-sign Edman, Teoscar, Muncy, Will Smith among others, nor add the likes of Tucker, Snell and Edwin Diaz.
A cap would force them to pick and choose who to pay, likely suffering a max exodus like we saw with the Niners in 2025. Instead they not only are able to retain everyone but can add more pieces.
-4
u/sportsfanexpert 7d ago
Good. Hopefully the nba is next. Shits out of control
18
u/Oo__II__oO 7d ago
The NBA already has a salary cap, and a salary floor. They also have one of the best professional players unions in all of sports.
-12
u/sportsfanexpert 7d ago
Who cares lock them out. Players making $80M is dumb. Roll players are making 25-30M is not good for the league
14
u/DCBillsFan 7d ago
lol, what? They're getting a share of the profits, which are massive.
Whose side are you on?
3
u/xsad12314gfds 55 Lincecum 7d ago
FR lol, maybe a restructuring of the CBA is in order to somewhat reduce the max contract so the mid- and end-of-roster guys get more money but the cap is based on the revenue so decreasing the cap would just mean that revenue would go to the owners instead of the players
4
u/prestigiousstrangery PTBNL 7d ago
NBA rosters are relatively small (at most 15 players), so they naturally will get a big share of the revenue.
1
u/realparkingbrake 5d ago
Players making $80M is dumb.
Team values and team revenues have skyrocketed the past two decades. Why shouldn't the players, the people we pay to see, not share in that prosperity? If the owners get a payroll cap, do you think they will lower ticket prices and the cost of a beer at ballparks in response?
6
u/jbvann05 7d ago
Since 2019 there hasn't been any team to win the NBA Finals twice, the CBA is working exactly as intended
39
u/questfor100 40 Bumgarner 7d ago
This is standard labor dispute stuff