2026 MLB (Non-Tigers) Thread

[gehringer_2]

so just skimming through ESPN's MLB page and I came across this report from the owners meeting:

"Manfred says all 30 teams are on board to split TV revenue -- yes, even the Dodgers

The Los Angeles Dodgers -- and other high-revenue teams -- would surrender a competitive advantage under MLB's proposal, which would require them to share all of their local television revenue (they currently share 48%)."

That would pretty much be the news of the century for MLB wouldn't it?  So I read this as the way that the rich teams will get the poor teams to be willing to lock out the players over the hard cap. Without full revenue sharing, what would the poor teams care about the cap when their salary totals stay well below any cap?

[monkeytargets39]

Carlos Carrasco has got to be the record holder for most times signed by a team and then DFAd within the following two weeks.

[guy incognito]

https://www.threads.com/@flankthomas/post/DZa3FMoAufo?xmt=AQG0C6ngv93zgeNuxhRx-76s2Cr6CCSV3G33MIOLG19xbBB5yNJRymn9xi6YPzECOMCVUrI&slof=1

[Tigermojo]

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2026/06/phillies-to-acquire-derek-hill.html

Just to stir the pot. Center fielders do get traded. DD > Harris 

[Tigermojo]

16 minutes ago, Tigermojo said:

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2026/06/phillies-to-acquire-derek-hill.html

Just to stir the pot. Center fielders do get traded. DD > Harris 

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2026/06/tigers-claim-james-outman-waivers-twins.html

Harris counters.

[theroundsquare]

seems like a good name for a pitcher

[casimir]

1 hour ago, theroundsquare said:

seems like a good name for a pitcher

He certainly hits like one.

[IdahoBert]

On 6/8/2026 at 10:58 AM, chasfh said:

Speaking of Bregman … 

 

Glad it’s someone else’s problem. 

[IdahoBert]

OHTANI leaves game with Piirates with left knee inflammation. 

[chasfh]

11 hours ago, IdahoBert said:

Glad it’s someone else’s problem. 

Harris dodged a bullet here on that one, didn’t he? 😉 

[NorthWoods]

7 hours ago, chasfh said:

Harris dodged a bullet here on that one, didn’t he? 😉 

He still should have signed him then at least he would have done something.

[monkeytargets39]

Yordan Alvarez hit a 2-run homerun AND a grand slam in the first inning today

[Tiger337]

6 hours ago, NorthWoods said:

He still should have signed him then at least he would have done something.

 

13 hours ago, chasfh said:

Harris dodged a bullet here on that one, didn’t he? 😉 

He might have won a championship with him last year.  Would it have been worth it?  He didn't appear to make a bid this year.  

[chasfh]

On 6/8/2026 at 10:48 PM, gehringer_2 said:

That would pretty much be the news of the century for MLB wouldn't it?  So I read this as the way that the rich teams will get the poor teams to be willing to lock out the players over the hard cap. Without full revenue sharing, what would the poor teams care about the cap when their salary totals stay well below any cap?

The idea that higher salaries means better players which means more wins which means more revenue, and that a salary cap would mean they would have a better shot at getting and keeping better players to help them get more wins and more revenue?

[chasfh]

 

 

[gehringer_2]

5 hours ago, chasfh said:

The idea that higher salaries means better players which means more wins which means more revenue, and that a salary cap would mean they would have a better shot at getting and keeping better players to help them get more wins and more revenue?

I was working on the premise that it's the rich owners that want a hard cap, most of the mid-level and small market team don't spend to the limit now since they don't have the revenue, so it's not a issue they would got to the wall for against the players. But give them a full split of all TV revenue as part of the deal, and now you get them motivated into solidarity with the Dodgers/Mets et al on the cap issue because they are going to have enough money that it could begin to matter to them.

 

[chasfh]

43 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

I was working on the premise that it's the rich owners that want a hard cap, most of the mid-level and small market team don't spend to the limit now since they don't have the revenue, so it's not a issue they would got to the wall for against the players. But give them a full split of all TV revenue as part of the deal, and now you get them motivated into solidarity with the Dodgers/Mets et al on the cap issue because they are going to have enough money that it could begin to matter to them.

 

It's not necessarily either or.

[gehringer_2]

3 minutes ago, chasfh said:

It's not necessarily either or.

Until I saw Manfred's claim, I didn't think the chance of a stoppage was all that high, mainly because I didn't see a hard cap as an issue to enough owners (for the reasons above) for that to be front and center in owner demands. But if the teams that want the cap have found a way to make all the owners want the cap, to me that multiplies up the chance of a stoppage to somewhere closer to a certainty. I think in the end the revenue share is needed to maintain the viability of MLB, but it could come at huge short term cost to the fans.

[Sports_Freak]

On 6/8/2026 at 11:48 PM, gehringer_2 said:

so just skimming through ESPN's MLB page and I came across this report from the owners meeting:

"Manfred says all 30 teams are on board to split TV revenue -- yes, even the Dodgers

The Los Angeles Dodgers -- and other high-revenue teams -- would surrender a competitive advantage under MLB's proposal, which would require them to share all of their local television revenue (they currently share 48%)."

That would pretty much be the news of the century for MLB wouldn't it?  So I read this as the way that the rich teams will get the poor teams to be willing to lock out the players over the hard cap. Without full revenue sharing, what would the poor teams care about the cap when their salary totals stay well below any cap?

The poor teams would care about a cap to try to stop the rich teams from buying all of the better players. Even the playing field..at least...I would assume so.

[Sports_Freak]

2 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

I was working on the premise that it's the rich owners that want a hard cap, most of the mid-level and small market team don't spend to the limit now since they don't have the revenue, so it's not a issue they would got to the wall for against the players. But give them a full split of all TV revenue as part of the deal, and now you get them motivated into solidarity with the Dodgers/Mets et al on the cap issue because they are going to have enough money that it could begin to matter to them.

 

The lesser teams will have a floor of a certain amount of money they have to spend.

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, Sports_Freak said:

The lesser teams will have a floor of a certain amount of money they have to spend.

I hope the object is to get all teams spending to the cap - a la the NFL. If the cap is tied to media revenue, then that combination more or less guarantees the players get a consistent cut of those dollars, which seems a fair way to do things.

[Sports_Freak]

9 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

I hope the object is to get all teams spending to the cap - a la the NFL. If the cap is tied to media revenue, then that combination more or less guarantees the players get a consistent cut of those dollars, which seems a fair way to do things.

My big question is what are the rules going to be for teams already way over the cap? Are the Dodgers going to have to trade several expensive players? Or will current contracts be grandfathered in, somehow?