The official Hot Stove League Thread 2025-26 Offseason

[Big_Maple]

Bichette is a Met I am hearing 3yr 126M

3 years, $42MM per year.

We would never do that deal, and I’m glad we didn’t. Don’t get me wrong. I’d love Bichette, but there’s no way I pay $40 million a season for him. Good for him for getting a deal like that.

[Sexymarinersfan]

Salary Cap will just mean the big market rich owner teams will spend less but the small market teams are still going to spend FAR less than them even with a floor. It won't fix shit in terms of parity. What would the floor be $100M? with a cap of $250M? But the $100M payroll teams are now on a level playing field as the $250M payroll teams???

So what would fix it then?

[D-train]

Bichette is a Met I am hearing 3yr 126M

3 years, $42MM per year.

We would never do that deal, and I’m glad we didn’t. Don’t get me wrong. I’d love Bichette, but there’s no way I pay $40 million a season for him. Good for him for getting a deal like that.

How is he worth only 70% of Tucker on a shorter deal though. That is weird.

[D-train]

Salary Cap will just mean the big market rich owner teams will spend less but the small market teams are still going to spend FAR less than them even with a floor. It won't fix shit in terms of parity. What would the floor be $100M? with a cap of $250M? But the $100M payroll teams are now on a level playing field as the $250M payroll teams???

So what would fix it then?

I don't think it is broken but you would have to implement a floor that is closer to the cap. Maybe $150M and $250M but the small market owners would never go for it.

[bpj]

They aren't the problem - their FO doesn't act like they are a single parent on a tight budget. They realize that if they win the teams value goes way up so it pays off in the long run - not to mention that if they are billionaires they could afford to lose 50mill/year worst case no worries. Sadly, most of these billionaires act like they are afraid to lose 10 bucks so they set strict salary guidelines.

That's not entirely fair. They don't have to act like single mother on a tight budget because they have a TV Deal that pays them $330 Million per year. M's were making about 100 Million from Root before everything imploded. Thats $230 Million more without even considering that the Dodgers probably have significantly higher revenue from every other stream as well. Ticket sales, merchandise etc. That's not even factoring in that Forbes has Mark Walter's Net worth listed at 12.5 Billion and John Stanton's listed at 1.0 Billion

The Dodgers opening day payroll in 2025 was $175 MIllion more than the M's. So relative to revenue and net worth, the amount of risk the Dodgers are taking isn't even as aggressive as the M's.

I certainly agree that the M's could afford to open the wallet a little more but lets not act like they would ever have the ability to do anything remotely close to the dodgers without sustaining massive financial losses. I don't blame the Dodgers for doing what they are doing, but A system that enables one team to have triple the resources as everyone else is definitely a problem.

How about we don't compare ourselves to the Dodgers and compare ourselves with our 2018 payroll which was $162M. Just to match that in 2026 dollars we would need to be at $212M right now after adjusting for inflation. We are currently at $157M. Wow we could easily sign Bichette for that.

And here is the funniest fun fact. Since 2018 they have saved $309M and counting which they promised they would spend but have pocketed every last penny.

They got a failed tv network and a corner restaurant with the money....

[Big_Maple]

So what would fix it then?

I don't think it is broken but you would have to implement a floor that is closer to the cap. Maybe $150M and $250M but the small market owners would never go for it.

Without a salary cap, Major League Baseball increasingly rewards raw financial capacity rather than roster construction skill. Teams like the Dodgers and Mets can hoard elite talent, absorb bad contracts, and outbid the market with minimal downside, while smaller-revenue clubs are forced to operate with structural constraints unrelated to decision quality. The result is not just payroll disparity, but risk disparity: wealthy teams can miss repeatedly and still contend, while others must be nearly perfect to compete. Over time, this erodes competitive credibility and predictability across large portions of the league.

Sexy: A salary cap is not meant to make a $100M team “equal” to a $250M team; it is meant to cap advantage, not eliminate difference. Even if some clubs spend near the floor and others near the ceiling, the critical change is that no team can simply buy insurance against mistakes. A cap forces all franchises - especially the richest - to face real opportunity costs, make trade-offs, develop talent, and manage risk. That constraint is exactly what drives parity in capped leagues. The argument that “big teams will still spend more” ignores the core issue: today, they can spend limitlessly more when it matters most. A cap meaningfully narrows the competitive band, restores uncertainty of outcome, and shifts success from checkbook dominance to organizational competence.

Another concern is whether the players union will vote for it next year. In practice, the absence of a cap concentrates money among a small (elite superstars who capture massive contracts) while suppressing wages, job security, and roster stability for the majority of players. A cap paired with a meaningful floor and revenue sharing broadens earnings distribution, raises the median salary, and stabilizes careers league-wide. The union’s mandate is not to maximize the top 1%’s upside, but to improve outcomes for the other 99%, who bear the volatility and downside risk of the current system. I personally think they would be nuts to not vote for it unless their names are Tucker, Soto, Ohtani, and Judge.

Oh yeah. And fuck the Dodgers.

[Hy Feiber]

I kind of follow the modern game, but I’m not a fan, I couldn’t root for any of these high priced whores.

Free agency was great for the players and agents, no one else.

Killed the team concept.

These idiotic contracts destroy small ball, now they’re all swinging for the fences.

Bunting to move the guy along, hitting behind the runner, drag bunting, that fundamental game is just for sissies.

Now it’s major league softball.

[Captain 97]

Salary Cap will just mean the big market rich owner teams will spend less but the small market teams are still going to spend FAR less than them even with a floor. It won't fix shit in terms of parity. What would the floor be $100M? with a cap of $250M? But the $100M payroll teams are now on a level playing field as the $250M payroll teams???

That hasn't happened in the other 3 major sports. Everyone pretty much spends the same. There are no NFL teams with a 30 Mil Payroll because a cap effectively creates a floor as well. It keeps one team from hoarding all of the worthy talent and it eliminates the excuse of not being able to compete. It might need to come with some more revenue sharing as well but its a start.

[D-train]

So what would fix it then?

I don't think it is broken but you would have to implement a floor that is closer to the cap. Maybe $150M and $250M but the small market owners would never go for it.

Without a salary cap, Major League Baseball increasingly rewards raw financial capacity rather than roster construction skill. Teams like the Dodgers and Mets can hoard elite talent, absorb bad contracts, and outbid the market with minimal downside, while smaller-revenue clubs are forced to operate with structural constraints unrelated to decision quality. The result is not just payroll disparity, but risk disparity: wealthy teams can miss repeatedly and still contend, while others must be nearly perfect to compete. Over time, this erodes competitive credibility and predictability across large portions of the league.

Sexy: A salary cap is not meant to make a $100M team “equal” to a $250M team; it is meant to cap advantage, not eliminate difference. Even if some clubs spend near the floor and others near the ceiling, the critical change is that no team can simply buy insurance against mistakes. A cap forces all franchises - especially the richest - to face real opportunity costs, make trade-offs, develop talent, and manage risk. That constraint is exactly what drives parity in capped leagues. The argument that “big teams will still spend more” ignores the core issue: today, they can spend limitlessly more when it matters most. A cap meaningfully narrows the competitive band, restores uncertainty of outcome, and shifts success from checkbook dominance to organizational competence.

Another concern is whether the players union will vote for it next year. In practice, the absence of a cap concentrates money among a small (elite superstars who capture massive contracts) while suppressing wages, job security, and roster stability for the majority of players. A cap paired with a meaningful floor and revenue sharing broadens earnings distribution, raises the median salary, and stabilizes careers league-wide. The union’s mandate is not to maximize the top 1%’s upside, but to improve outcomes for the other 99%, who bear the volatility and downside risk of the current system. I personally think they would be nuts to not vote for it unless their names are Tucker, Soto, Ohtani, and Judge.

Oh yeah. And fuck the Dodgers.

Yep the Dodgers are just buying WS Titles. If there was a Cap they would be lucky to win 60 games.

Screenshot 2026-01-16 160902.png (642.34 KiB) Viewed 62 times

[D-train]

Its all moot because players will never agree to a Cap. They seem a lot smarter than the NBAPA and NFLPA.