this is dave's trade deadline acquisitions

36 minutes ago, iladelphxx said:

He's going around to different teams to get a feel for the pulse before the next round of negotiations.

This was highly publicized and multiple news outlets reported on it before and after

https://share.google/fWpHpDFTFBRrd9Bxh

Sources - Phillies' Bryce Harper cussed out Rob Manfred in meeting - ESPN https://share.google/6XE22HMvA7GAe9MV5

Manfred is a complete idiot in that case.

32 minutes ago, Blazehound said:

Manfred is a complete idiot in that case.

Yeah, but he's not wrong they need a cap and a floor. Grandfather previous contracts or have 45% of them count against the cap and save baseball. Yeah, the biggest names will lose money, but as a whole players will get more because the cheap owners will have to spend money.

For kicks I asked Grok if more teams would be closer to the cap or the floor.

"To determine whether more MLB teams, with their current payroll levels, would be closer to a hypothetical salary cap or a spending floor, we need to analyze the distribution of team payrolls relative to these potential thresholds. Since no salary cap or floor currently exists in Major League Baseball (MLB), we’ll make reasonable assumptions based on available data and industry context.

Step 1: Understand Current Payroll Distribution

MLB team payrolls vary significantly. According to data from Spotrac for the 2025 season, estimated payrolls (based on active roster, injured list, and other commitments) as of early 2025 are as follows (approximate figures in millions of USD):

• Highest payrolls:

  • New York Mets: ~$315M

  • Los Angeles Dodgers: ~$295M

  • New York Yankees: ~$280M

  • Philadelphia Phillies: ~$250M

• Mid-tier payrolls:

  • Teams like the Atlanta Braves, Houston Astros, and San Francisco Giants: ~$150M–$200M

• Lowest payrolls:

  • Oakland Athletics: ~$60M

  • Tampa Bay Rays: ~$80M

  • Pittsburgh Pirates, Miami Marlins: ~$90M–$100M

The league average payroll is approximately $160M–$170M, with a median likely around $140M–$150M, given the skew toward lower-spending teams.

Step 2: Hypothesize Cap and Floor Levels

Since MLB doesn’t have a salary cap or floor, we can estimate based on other major U.S. sports leagues (e.g., NFL, NBA, NHL) and MLB’s economic context:

• Salary Cap: In leagues with caps, it’s often set near or slightly above the league’s average team spending. For MLB, a cap might be set around $180M–$200M to balance competitiveness while allowing flexibility. Let’s assume a cap of $190M, roughly 10–15% above the current average payroll.

• Spending Floor: A floor is typically set to ensure teams invest in talent, often at 70–80% of the cap. For a $190M cap, a floor might be $135M–$150M. Let’s assume a floor of $140M, which aligns with the median payroll and ensures most teams spend competitively.

Step 3: Analyze Payrolls Relative to Cap and Floor

Using the assumed cap ($190M) and floor ($140M), we categorize the 30 MLB teams based on their proximity to these thresholds:

• Teams above the cap ($190M): Mets (~$315M), Dodgers (~$295M), Yankees (~$280M), Phillies (~$250M), possibly Astros (~$200M). That’s roughly 5 teams.

• Teams between the floor and cap ($140M–$190M): This includes mid-tier teams like the Braves, Giants, Cubs, Red Sox, and others, with payrolls in the $150M–$180M range. Approximately 10–12 teams fall here, based on the distribution around the league average.

• Teams below the floor ($140M): Teams like the Athletics (~$60M), Rays (~$80M), Pirates (~$90M), Marlins (~$100M), Guardians (~$110M), and others with lower payrolls. Roughly 13–15 teams are below $140M, as many small-market or rebuilding teams keep payrolls low.

Step 4: Determine Which Threshold More Teams Are Closer To

For each team, we calculate the absolute difference between their payroll and the cap ($190M) versus the floor ($140M):

• High-payroll teams (e.g., Mets at $315M):

  • Distance to cap: $315M - $190M = $125M

  • Distance to floor: $315M - $140M = $175M

  • Closer to cap.

• Mid-tier teams (e.g., Braves at $160M):

  • Distance to cap: $190M - $160M = $30M

  • Distance to floor: $160M - $140M = $20M

  • Closer to floor.

• Low-payroll teams (e.g., Athletics at $60M):

  • Distance to cap: $190M - $60M = $130M

  • Distance to floor: $140M - $60M = $80M

  • Closer to floor.

Given the distribution:

• Only 5–6 teams (high spenders) are closer to or above the cap.

• The remaining 24–25 teams are below $190M, with most closer to the floor:

  • The 10–12 mid-tier teams (~$150M–$180M) are generally closer to the floor ($140M) than the cap ($190M).

  • The 13–15 low-payroll teams (~$60M–$130M) are significantly closer to the floor, as their payrolls are often $50M–$80M below the floor.

Step 5: Conclusion

More MLB teams, with their current payroll levels, would be closer to the spending floor (~$140M) than to the salary cap (~$190M). Approximately 20–25 teams (mid-tier and low-payroll) are either below or nearer the floor, while only 5–6 high-spending teams are closer to or above the cap.

This reflects MLB’s current payroll disparity, where a few big-market teams spend heavily, but most teams operate at or below the league average, aligning closer to a hypothetical floor. If a cap and floor were instituted, most teams would need to increase spending to meet the floor, while only a few would need to cut to comply with the cap.

Final Answer: More teams would be closer to the spending floor than the salary cap."

That's kind of what I thought as well. There are more cheap owners in baseball, so a majority of the players would probably benefit from a cap vs the few big names who would be hurt.

Just to be safe I asked Grok that as well

"More players would be helped than hurt by a salary cap and floor. The spending floor would force ~half the league’s teams to increase payrolls, creating opportunities and higher salaries for mid-tier veterans, arbitration-eligible players, and young talent—roughly 500–800 players. The cap would hurt fewer players (~200–300), primarily high earners and some mid-tier free agents, by reducing top-end contracts. The net effect is a broader distribution of payroll to a larger number of players, especially those in the middle and lower salary tiers."

With clase off the market and Bautista hurt, means price for Duran and Jax going to be ridiculous. I bet they do something like Bednar and maybe bring back Seranthony Dominguez.

So not getting Duran…

JFC we got cuzzi again

1 hour ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

So not getting Duran…

A starting piece

All good things must come to an end

R.I.P.

I was a big cubs fan back in the day when they had all those ex Phillies

R.I.P. to Ryne Sandberg. With that being said, what a pathetic loss against a pathetic team. Guess we will have to accept the fact that they will be a wildcard team this year.

Setting the over under on 2.5 other guardians pitchers get busted on this

I don’t really want Robert jr unless it’s a mid tier prospect but this is why the white Sox are a badly run franchise and continue to be bad. Unless of course they are playing us

2 hours ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

I don’t really want Robert jr unless it’s a mid tier prospect but this is why the white Sox are a badly run franchise and continue to be bad. Unless of course they are playing us

I have mixed feelings on him. He's talented. He's a CF, which is the ideal fit. He's a fantastically capable fielder with some concentration issues. And as a hitter...enigmatic. Nice swing, nice talent...but he's freaking hitting .205. But there is more ability and talent there to optimize (if one thinks the Phillies can do it).

It's all about price. They want an organization's top 10 prospect? Gabriel Rincones Jr. is the Phillies 9th ranked prospect. He is a 24 year old outfielder hitting .220 in AAA. He is n-e-v-e-r going to be an every day MLB player. They want an organization's top 10 prospect? I'd serve up #9 for Luis Robert Jr. in a heartbeat....and would still try to trade for Suarez.

Just now, eagle45 said:

I have mixed feelings on him. He's talented. He's a CF, which is the ideal fit. He's a fantastically capable fielder with some concentration issues. And as a hitter...enigmatic. Nice swing, nice talent...but he's freaking hitting .205. But there is more ability and talent there to optimize (if one thinks the Phillies can do it).

It's all about price. They want an organization's top 10 prospect? Gabriel Rincones Jr. is the Phillies 9th ranked prospect. He is a 24 year old outfielder hitting .220 in AAA. He is n-e-v-e-r going to be an every day MLB player. They want an organization's top 10 prospect? I'd serve up #9 for Luis Robert Jr. in a heartbeat....and would still try to trade for Suarez.

I’d be really surprised if the white Sox were looking at riccones and that’s why the deal didn’t get done. When it is says top 10 I’m guessing it’s closer to top 5 then it is 10. Been rumors they wanted Mets 3b and a top 10 prospect. Which mean you are likely giving up something like Abel or Tait or Escobar

4 minutes ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

I’d be really surprised if the white Sox were looking at riccones and that’s why the deal didn’t get done. When it is says top 10 I’m guessing it’s closer to top 5 then it is 10. Been rumors they wanted Mets 3b and a top 10 prospect. Which mean you are likely giving up something like Abel or Tait or Escobar

Absolutely. My point was just that, for really every franchise, once you get to prospects 8-9-10...unless they are 18-20 year olds in A ball...there is almost no upside to them. Technically, a back end top 10 prospect is a pretty low price to pay for any veteran that is going to play for you. But Abel/Tait/Escobar for a guy that might come in there and hit .200...that's too rich for me. Some combination of 23 year olds a little further down the rankings that will never do anything...sure why not?

Imagine going:

C Realmuto

1b Bohm

2b Stott

SS Turner

3b Suarez

LF Harper

CF Robert Jr

RF Castellanos

That's a LOT of added power in the lineup and...IF they can right the ship with Robert Jr a bit....it leaves Stott as the only automatic freebie in the lineup for pitchers.

9 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

Absolutely. My point was just that, for really every franchise, once you get to prospects 8-9-10...unless they are 18-20 year olds in A ball...there is almost no upside to them. Technically, a back end top 10 prospect is a pretty low price to pay for any veteran that is going to play for you. But Abel/Tait/Escobar for a guy that might come in there and hit .200...that's too rich for me. Some combination of 23 year olds a little further down the rankings that will never do anything...sure why not?

That’s not always true last year when the mariners made the trade for arozerena their top 10 had more depth as it was one of the best farms systems in baseball. so really their back end of the top 10 was closer to what the Phillies top 4-6 prospects were. Again if riccones was what it took his trade would’ve been done already. The white Sox don’t want the Phillies 9th/10th best prospect. They want higher.