Outfielder Trent Grisham is accepting his $22.025MM qualifying offer and will return to the Yankees in 2026, reports ESPN’s Jorge Castillo. Players who accept a QO are considered free agent signings and are thus ineligible to be traded prior to the following June 15 unless they consent to the move.
It’s at least a modest surprise, as Grisham is coming off a breakout year at the plate which saw him club a career-high 34 home runs. He slashed .235/.348/.464, thanks in no small part to a career-best 14.1% walk rate and a 23.6% strikeout rate that stood as the second-lowest in his career. Between that production, the fact that Grisham only just turned 29 earlier this month, and a thin outfield market in free agency, the stars seemed to align for him to pursue a weighty multi-year contract this winter.
Instead, Grisham returns to the site of his breakout and will hold down a key role in an outfield that’s also currently slated to include Jasson Dominguez and Aaron Judge. The Yankees are interested in re-signing Cody Bellinger, have been linked to Kyle Tucker and also have DH Giancarlo Stanton at least loosely in the outfield mix. (He played 132 outfield innings in 2025.)
Grisham’s return muddies the waters a bit, but GM Brian Cashman said recently that even if he accepted, it wouldn’t impact the team’s pursuit of a new deal with Bellinger (link via the New York Post’s Greg Joyce). The Yankees wouldn’t have made the QO to Grisham if they believed his acceptance was a roadblock to bringing back Bellinger or signing Tucker. They’re surely glad to have him back. Even though his defensive grades took an unexpected downturn in ’25, he has the best defensive track record in center of the Yankees’ in-house options.
While Grisham could have looked to cash in this winter, he’ll instead take a hefty one-year payday in what amounts to a bet on himself. Though he’s a left-handed bat, his power output was hardly a product of Yankee Stadium’s short right field porch. In fact, Grisham hit just .195/.326/.376 at home this season, compared to .254/.364/.506 on the road. If he can replicate this year’s huge power production, he could hit the market next offseason on the back of consecutive plus seasons at the plate and without the encumbrance of a qualifying offer. A big enough showing this year could realistically position Grisham for a $100MM+ contract — particularly if his defensive grades rebound, too.
The looming potential for a work stoppage is one other wrinkle to consider, but if anything, today’s glut of QO decisions suggests that players aren’t necessarily going to shy away from short-term deals that put them on the open market next year — at least not en masse. Grisham is one of four players to accept the QO, joining Gleyber Torres, Shota Imanaga and Brandon Woodruff in that regard. In a vacuum, any one of the four accepting his QO wouldn’t be considered a major surprise — but all four accepting in the same offseason is downright atypical. This marks the first time since the inception of the qualifying offer that more than three players have accepted a QO.
With Grisham back in the fold, the Yankees’ projected payroll for the upcoming season jumps to about $263MM, per RosterResource. They’ll now have about $286MM of luxury tax obligations, placing them just over the third penalty line. That means that the Yankees’ top pick in the 2027 draft will drop by 10 places, unless they’re able to sneak their luxury count back under $284MM. Given the wide swath of offseason dealings that’s likely still on the table for Cashman & Co., that doesn’t seem to be a very likely outcome. In all likelihood, the Yankees will wind up in the top CBT penalty tier, just as they’ve done in each of the past three seasons.
Turning to the rest of the league, Grisham’s early removal from the free agent market — to a team that didn’t clearly need to retain him, no less — subtracts arguably the top center field option from the market. Bellinger, of course, can still play center but barely did so in 2025. Most teams probably consider him more of a corner outfielder/first baseman who can play occasional center field. Harrison Bader and Cedric Mullins are the two most notable options still on the market, though the former has been more of a part-time player and the latter is looking to bounce back from an awful 2025 showing. The market was light on center fielders to begin with and is even more so now, so teams looking for help at the position might be more inclined to turn to the trade market to address that deficiency.
He’s back.
This was the most obvious “accept” for me, at least this year.
Same
I would have thought Gleyber. I had Grisham at 50-50.
I thought Trent Grisham should accept, but I didn’t think he would
Agreed. My list was Gleyber, Grisham, no one.
As a Yankee fan I’m cool with him back on a 1 year deal. I don’t know if it was the hammy but his D really fell off. Hopefully he comes in playing elite CF. He seems too young for his modest speed to be gone.
It’s a weird day for me when it comes to my baseball mind. I feel glad that Grisham, Imanaga, etc. accepted their qualifying offer. But then, I’m kinda angry a Dana Brown for not protecting some prospects.
[Ryan O’Neil has entered that chat] And strained a lat in the process. Will be out 3-4 weeks.
Acting is hard work. Too bad Tyler strained an eyeball reading this!
Ouch
@gwynning. This might be the year you dont want a pick attached. Best to take the one year deal. Next year might not be better just feel like he was going to get squeezed out regardless.
You’d prefer to be an unpaid FA during a Lockout? No spotlight on you or wrong answer, Huds… just saying.
@gwynning. No worries. Just saying i have a feeling he would get screwed if he didn’t accept it. Probably next year as well depending on how long the lockout goes.
He wont hit 10 home runs in 2026, after is PEDs wear off.
He’s hit more than 10 homers several times in his career with the Padres.
Players are definitely taking the money upfront over 2-3 year deals because of the possible lockout
Seems counterintuitive? I’d rather sign a 3yr/$50MM than a 1yr/$22MM if there’s an imminent Lockout… then again, nobody’s holding my feet to the flame!
Nah because if they get zero next year getting the money upfront helps more
3yr/$50MM would be guaranteed. Lockout or not.
If they miss games because of a lockout they aren’t being paid
Well, they can… just depends on your contract. Deferrals still get paid, even in a Lockout. Just have to be creative in your approach, but I’m not passing judgment on their 1yr approach. Good for all the players!
I do not believe so. If, say, the league loses an entire year, than the players lose that year as well.
That’s if a lockout happens. Other than that, beyond speculation, there’s no risk of a lockout, no matter how much you want it to happen, Simm.
Deferrals are absolutely guaranteed. Neither lockouts nor natural disasters can erase a deferral contract.
@Gwynning You are a very fair person and would make an awesome teammate. You put the rest of us to shame. Cheers my brother, may your Padres be stalwarts of the offseason!
Back at ya Iggy! Good luck M’s.
😎🤙🏽🍻
they don’t get paid for games that arent’ played
Thank me later when the “Shohei still Collects the Bag in ’26” articles come out, but no sooner please. 🍻
There will be a lockout, almost zero question about it. The only question becomes will they miss games. I think they miss at least 25. Just another unexpert opinion.
You think a player strike will last an entire season or more?
No, I dont. Either way ybc. (strike vs. Lockout)
Nobody will sit on the Golden Goose for a full 162… but both sides will posture on “lost games” to swing the pendulum.
When it comes to a salary cap, a lost season is absolutely on the table.
Well, not debating you per se Chicky, but that’d be silly. A lost season wouldn’t guarantee any sort of Cap or Floor… and the rift created would be tumultuous at best.
They wouldn’t cancel a season over a pandemic, they aren’t going to cancel one over greed on either side. The financial losses would be catastrophic and not even a steroid infused Home Run chase would be able to save them this time around
Players and agents are preparing for a lockout. Manfred has stated that the game need both a floor and a cap, supposedly listening to fans of small market teams. Until MLB shows what the Nuttings and Fischers are taking home year after year, the players have no reason to accept either.
Chicken, zero chance there is a cap without them showing the books.
Even with a lockout I don’t see a cap being the result.
Not really disagreeing with you Chicky, but I think “most” players would just settle on a new de facto CBA… and resume the paychecks.
Floor=125MM
Cap=350MM
Gwynning, I see some changes but mainly around the luxury tax. Teams can alter it to me more like a cap. The players will likely take a bit of a hit doing so.
With that said the players will also get some things they want in return. Perhaps like eliminating the QO. They can remove the loss of picks while still giving teams picks for losing players.
There are many different items that can be given and taken. An actual cap seems to be off the table. Which means they will eventually come to some sort of a deal. Could see a shorter season or schedule modification
But I still feel like a cap is bad.
1. Reduce the sharing amounts from 48% to 25%/Add Floor
2. Keep most rules and stuff
3. Add a structure for pre-arb players.
Astros- zero chance they have a floor that high and a cap that high.
NFL doesn’t even have a cap nearly that high.
To have a cap they first would be looking at revenue sharing.
Okay. Thanks for the feedback.
Concur on almost all your points, Simm. For the life of me, I just can *never* see the League opening their books up, and that would be a Player’s Union requirement. Ain’t happening… but after some give and take, back and forth, some games lost… both sides will proclaim that they fought for their rights and “won” the battle. Until the next CBA, ad infinitum.
Interesting. But the next thing we are looking at is 3:00 on the west coast, 4:00 for the mountain, 5:00 for the central, and 6:00 to the east. 40 man deadlines.
I get what you are saying but Grisham took the 22 and change and will try to reproduce something similar. If he doesn’t it’s not such a loss for him with the QO in the bank, if he does he be rightly paid. Win win for Grisham lock out or not.
Yeah. He probably thought of that last second or maybe agent told him
Well Chris, the counter-argument is Grish turns back into a pumpkin and never comes close to his “current” strong bartering position. Moot point now, I know. But in that case, definitely not a win/win for Grish and he impacts his future earnings potential.
Caps and floors are within 20% of each other.
Interesting. It will either favor the high paying teams/low paying teams/middle paying team
Not sure how smart these owners are but it would be so easy to get a salary cap and it would be the players demanding one. Unless they are stupid and they may be but if not this salary cap talk is just a negotiation tactic. The owners could easily make the players go on strike until they get a cap. I don’t think much of owners intelligence though so have no idea. Biggest battle probably between the owners. Once they fight things out the players union will fold like always.
Why would the players want a cap? They don’t want one because it will lower their salaries.
espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/45747008/mlbpa-opposed-ins…
If the owners were smart and if they wanted a cap they could make it so the players would be demanding a cap. Literally whining and begging for a cap. They would make a ton more $ in that scenario.
So tell us of this scenario where the owners would have the players union begging for a salary cap. I’d love to hear this.
Yes
A salary floor would never ever work. It would make the problem worse. When teams have to overpay for the 25th, and 26th men on the roster, the star players are going to take those numbers into contract negotiations. And then the 2nd tier players are going to take those numbers into contract negotiations, and arbitration, and so on. A salary floor is absolutely the worst idea ever talked about. And I say talked about because nobody really thinks about the ramifications of the idea.
The devil’s argument would be that you can’t have a Cap without a Floor. Players will definitely counter with this in mind.
The players are NEVER going to accept a cap. It is not going to happen. They will strike for years, and there will be no cap. A cap makes no sense in any sport. 1 million dollars is worth more in Texas, and Florida than it is in NY, and California. A cap means that you put your biggest drawing franchises at a spending disadvantage. And a floor also put a team that is rebuilding, or is fiscally responsible under the gun. What is the penalty going to be for not meeting the floor? Fines? Loss of draft picks? The players won’t counter with a floor because they are never going to accept a cap. The owners asking for a cap is a non starter for the MLBPA.
Agree. The players would want a floor because their salaries could be higher. However, they won’t want a cap because their salaries will be lower. I don’t know who said it, it got lost in all the comments, but whoever said that, your insane. @Jdt8312, I totally agree.
Yes there will be a cap Min/max. The union doesn’t have to accept it, if the owners decide they can make more money than the short term loss then they lockout for the season. At some point if the players want to get paid they will take it.
NFL NBA NHL all have a floor and are doing just fine. Actually doing fantastic. Players love it. They get a guaranteed share of league income vs mlb which players depend on what owners are willing to pay.
What product are they going to sell if the players won’t play? There will not be either. There especially won’t be a salary floor. That is the absolute dumbest idea anyone has come out with. A salary floor will drive up salaries for all the players, and the cap will cut them off at the knees. They will never agree to a cap or floor. God bless Curt Flood.
Players will gladly accept cap. Where else are they going to make that kind of $? Sure they will sit out in a desperate hope to not get it but eventually they will gladly play baseball because 700 grand to 700 million is better pay than fast food retail Uber driver etc.
I didn’t say players would hate a floor.
It’s simple. A few teams literally can just be 2 decide we can’t keep up with LA. Or we want a cap. All they have to do is stop spending 300 million and only spend 200 million. That’s 200m players will no longer be getting that they know used to be available to them. They will want that $ and in order to get it they will have to agree to a cap.
If owners actually want a cap all they have to do is stop spending $.
The luxury tax was the perfect excuse to cap spending. Owners just blew right past it though. That tells me those owners aren’t interested in a cap and all this cap talk is just to use in negotiations. If owners actually want a cap all they have to do is stop spending $ and players will go on strike until they get a cap because they would get a ton more $. Owners won’t be able to pocket as much as they want they will have to give the players their portion. It’s around a 50 50 split in other leagues. Right now mlb players get around that but only because owners choose to not because they are forced too.
Oh really? Since 1985 only 11 different teams have won an NBA Championship. The players do not love anything that caps the amount of money they can make. Give me a break…players love it, my tuchus they do. The owners in other sports may have broken those unions. The MLB owners have yet to break the MLBPA. And they won’t. Because they know it isn’t going to help. Baseball is different than all those other sports. And I’m glad it is. Because those other sports don’t recognize that different financial conditions apply in different cities. Small market teams don’t have the high taxes big market teams have. And if you think having a payroll disparity legislated at $200 mil is going to bring some kind of parity to the league, you’re fooling yourself. The only people that are going to wind up paying more is us, the fans. Because small market teams now have to come up with that money. Guess where their getting? You, and me. So good luck with that salary floor stuff. You’ll have done nothing but made the sport less attractive to more fans.
It doesn’t matter what the players want. Owners just negotiate to make things quicker easier. But if they truly want something they will get it down. Owners can make $ until they are 80 90 100 years old. Players have a window to make $. How long are they prepared to refuse to play vs getting paid getting their service time getting their free agent contract. Greed will make players fold fairly quickly.
And as I said above. If owners just cut back their spending the players will be the ones demanding a cap. Why I don’t believe the owners even want a cap. Will explain why if anyone is interested in that.
Dude, I need some of what you’re smoking. You obviously didn’t live through the Kurt Flood period, or the 1994 strike. And you couldn’t have heard how Bryce Harper cursed out Manfred for coming into the Phillies clubhouse taking about a cap. Not gonna happen, bro.
Players would love a floor if it came without a cap. That would drive their salaries through the roof, and if you think it’s expensive now, just wait. But it won’t happen.
That would be called collusion, and it’s illegal, and the MLBPA would sue them in federal court. We have labor laws in this country. Teams can not, under federal law, collude to stop spending that money. That needs to be collectively bargained with the union.
Have you ever heard of a strike? Look up the MLBPA strike of 1994. Have a nice day.
Go back to your cave. We can search it up elsewhere. Tell me if anyone wants your junk.
I don’t think you understand what a cap means. a cap is the limit in which a team can spend. the players are never going to want a cap. No league that has a cap has players that want it. The owners can not just decide, as a group, to stop spending so much. That is called collusion, and it’s illegal. All spending caps need to be negotiated with the union according to federal labor laws. Again, look up the 1994 players strike.
They sell mlb baseball with the best players on the planet. You actually think the players are going to get regular jobs instead of taking mlb pay? They’ll hold out sure but eventually will play. And all the lost revenue from games missed owners will just pay the players less in free agency until they make it up.
So you don’t like having a discussion? You just want people to agree with you? How do test you theories? How do you know if what you think will stand up, or meet it’s doom? You get to a point of understanding by talking about things, present facts, and come to a conclusion. You telling me to leave tells me you don’t really have anything logical, or productive to add.
The other leagues players didn’t want a cap either but guess what they got one.
Yeah, because multi multi millionaires need regular jobs. You really need to do your home work on the MLBPA. You don’t know how well funded they are, and how they take care of their own. But I guess you’ll learn when we don’t have baseball for 2 season, and we come away with no cap, or floor.
You can’t prove collusion unless it’s a bunch of idiots doing it. Which the owners might be. But they could collusion all they want as long as they are aren’t doing it stupidly like via phone email etc.
No need for collusion though. You just need 2 or 3 owners to lower spending. Maybe Cardinals Padres are heading that way. No need for collusion though. Just 2 owners thinking they can’t compete and just give up or decide they want to make more $. Or lower payroll to sell team. Nutting Fisher etc couldn’t spend less $. How many teams never spent over luxury. How many never spent over 200m? 150m? No need for collusion as majority of teams aren’t spending anyways and not enough to move the needle. Just takes 1 or 2 big boys and all the sudden players want that cap.
The other league’s player don’t belong to the MLBPA. MLBPA is one of the strongest unions in the country.
Oh really? Then why did the MLBPA get 4 different settlements from the owners for collusion between 1987 and 1990? You can prove collusion, and it cost the owners, at that time well over $300 million dollars. Probably close to 1 billion in today’s money. What owners are going to agree to that? The Dodgers? The Mets? Nope?
Most players aren’t multi millionaires. And ones that are want more. It’s cute you think these players would stand strong and never play again because they are so determined. I like that fantasy too. But they are going to want to make $. No matter how much $ you already have you always want more. For most people. When you get into the billions I suppose it’s easier to stop caring about although most people want to climb the world’s richest man list or use it to try to change the world how they see fit or give to charity. I don’t see too many saying I am good. No need to make any more $.
sabr.org/journal/article/the-empire-strikes-out-co…
I wasn’t around back then. They must have got sloppy. And they could again. Most criminals are stupid. Why they get caught.
All unions are weak. Being the strongest of unions doesn’t matter. I ain’t impressed with mlbpa. They wanted that draft lottery and it worked out exactly as I thought it would.
baseball-reference.com/bullpen/1994_strike
You’re kidding yourself if you don’t think this union is gonna dig in, and take it to the owners. This union is stronger, and more fortified than they were even in 1994. Most players that have been in the league for more than 3 years are millionaires. They would have made 2.1 mil at league minimum, and have agents who deal with their finances. They are well invested, and can live their lives off of the money, and investments they’ve already made.
It’s not sloppy. When your finances are a matter of public record, they are easy to track, but you’d see that if you read the article.
Completely irrelevant. That was before huge local TV deals and sponsors. You didn’t have teams at 300m and teams at 100m. Free agents cost millions a year not 20 30 40 heading towards 50 a year.
There’s no risk of collusion now because most teams can’t pay players less. They are rock bottom or near it. You have teams if they paid any less would lose revenue sharing. Majority of teams can’t if they wanted to. And I am not suggesting it. Just saying if just 2 big market owners want a cap that’s all it takes. No need for collusion. Just a independent decision. Sure in the 80s it probably was collusion. Now it wouldn’t be. Many teams couldn’t spend less even if the wanted to.
Payroll will probably be going down anyways because revenue will be going down. Maybe players will want cap then. How many fans are going to keep supporting this wide gap in teams payrolls?
But you think instead of playing under a salary cap these players will just never play baseball again?
Appreciate the discussion guys.
@Ignorant Appreciate that you appreciate it. I don’t care how they cut up the pie. Owners can get 90 percent of the $ or the players can. Doesn’t effect me any. If they never play baseball again I don’t care. I moved on to other hobbies. This just replaced the video games I used to play on phone or social media. No baseball I’ll find another time killer.
Someone will cave. I figure the players. Owners are better situated to wait it out. If owners actually wanted a cap they could just make it so players will want it. Maybe owners are stupid though. But I don’t know if they even want a cap. Do they actually care about winning? TV ratings are better with NY LA etc in playoffs world series. Is parody better? To get a floor the rich teams would need to give the poor teams more $. Poor teams won’t get richer because they $ will go to the players. Revenue has gone up with the current system. Would every team being on a equal playing field create more revenue than current system? I don’t know. In markets with lower attendance if cap would make those teams win more attendance will increase. But there is also value in teams having big star power. Having a villain to root against. Many people want to go to the games where Dodgers Yankees come to town or root for Milwaukee Cleveland to beat them in playoffs. I’ll let the owners and union work it all out. I just provide food for thought lil devils advocate lil trolling to all the owner and player fan boys. Like I said I don’t care who gets what or if they ever play baseball again. I do enjoy observing people though that’s why I come here. That and grading trades!!!!!!
Players will NEVER want a cap. It put a CAP On HOW MUCH THEY CAN EARN!! That is why they fight it every time it comes up. They know what the owners make, and they want their share of it. This is their business. Their careers are only so long. They don’t even get a pension unless they last 10 years in the majors. I don’t know how you think payrolls are going to go down because revenue will go down. MLB made over 2 billion dollars for the first time in the history of the league. They have more revenue streams than ever before. They have tapped foreign markets, and market the sport more internationally than ever before. Payrolls were relative to the value of the dollar at the time, so talking about how much money was spent on players back in the 80’s and 90’s is a moot point. Collusion is collusion no matter when it’s done. I don’t think the players are going to need to worry about it. The owners make millions right now. Do you think they are going to want to pay staff, and rent on stadiums, and supplier problems over this? They are currently in the black as far as most owners are concerned. Steve Cohen lost money on purpose trying to build a winner, and he’s not done yet. But he is the outlier. All I’m saying is if the players don’t play, they don’t get paid. If the owners don’t let the players play, they still have bills that they can’t not pay. So tell me who gonna last in that battle?
What supplier problems are there? Players don’t have bills?
Why don’t players have bills but owners have bills and they can’t pay them? And explain it to me in ALL CAPS so I can better understand.
AI GM. You’re not making much sense. The rich teams are giving the poor teams enough money. The poor teams just aren’t using it. MLB is fine right now, a cap and floor could help it. This is how they do it.
Each team pools 48% of the revenue, that is then split equally. Poor teams are teams that get more than what they put in. Look, your being ridiculous and we’re trying to talk sense into you. I don’t know what your a fan of and I hope your just showing extrem fan biased.
I just figured if the ownwrs wanted a salary cap they would have prepared themselves to bunker down so they could wait out the players who don’t want it. But you are telling me they are so generous to the players that they can’t afford to not play baseball. The owners are living paycheck to paycheck. If baseball stops they are finished because they are broke.
Okay. Then why do you ask people to ask you about it. They get your nonsense. I’m about to explain it to you in all caps.
THERE IS SOMETHING CALLED PAYROLL. A PAYROLL IS THE TOTAL AMOUNT A OWNER IS SPENDING ON THEIR TEAM. A CAP LIMITS THAT, AND A FLOOR MAKES YOU HAVE A PAYROLL GREATER THAN THE FLOOR AMOUNT. WHAT A CAP WILL DO IS THAT IT WILL LIMIT THE AMOUNT OWNERS CAN SPEND ON THEIR PLAYERS. I HAVEN”T READ ALL THE NONSENSE YOU POSTED SO I DON’T HAVE EVERYTHING. THE PLAYERS GET PAID TO PLAY FOR THE TEAM. LEARN YOUR MLB MARKETING.
@astros what doesn’t make sense is if these poor teams are just pocketing the $ instead of investing it to make more $ then why do the rich teams keep giving them the $? They just nice? I personally would want something in return. Like buy some players so your attendance and viewership increases.
Not always. Some have other businesses. Each team generates revenue through tickets, concession, merchandise, etc sales. That’s a business to them. They might want a salary cap, but the players don’t.
I’m a fan of myself. I don’t give a rats as about ownwrs and players. Whatever they make doesn’t do anything for me.
Payroll cap floor ceiling. You lost me.
Of which team?
None. I get no satisfaction or disappointment out of watching other grown men’s success or failure.
Good to know. What do you think of Astros scandal? (Just curious)
Players don’t spend all their money. They invest. They live within a certain means they can sustain for the rest of their lives. Supply problems include getting enough food produced to open up a stadium, You don’t think that a work stoppage doesn’t affect other businesses? Pepsi, and Coke no longer have to produce the amount of soda they would if the stadiums were open. So they then lay off workers. They can’t just ramp it up in a day. And they can’t just stockpile good that expire. This goes for ice cream, hot dogs, hamburgers, beer, souvenirs, and on down the line. When they do get it going, it’s going to take those companies time to ramp up. And who knows? It may only be for half a season. Everyone loses in this. The players lose. The owners lose. The fans lose. The suppliers lose. People in the media lose. A strike/lockout benefits no one. they need to avoid a work stoppage at all costs. But if they don’t, the owners aren’t going to like where they end up. Because if the fans do move on, the players will retire. But the owners are going to lose everything they have invested, and it will be decades before any municipality will front the money for a new stadium.
Of course players have bills. But they also have big salaries, and if they are living within their means, they’ll survive.the union also has money to help out rookie, and short time players get through the work stoppage. Owners have the rent due on stadiums they have had built for them by thew municipalities they operate in. And that is due to the taxpayers whether there is baseball, or not. Now I’m sure Francisco Lindor has a mortgage. But I can assure you he has the money to pay it off if need be. But The folks in Minnesota probably don’t have the money to pay off the money they owe the taxpayers on hand. And if the money’s not coming in, it’s gonna be rough. The Mets owe NYC for Citi field still. Citi field cost $850 mil to build. $650 of that was publicly funded. That is just one example.
No kidding. And I’m telling you that a floor means that there is a penalty for not spending enough. If the penalty isn’t any big deal, why have one? If the penalty is a big, teams will spend more on the 25th, and 26th players on the roster. When they do that, the star players will take those salary numbers into contract negotiation, and drive up their price with it. 2nd tier players will do the same thing, and raise their salary. And we will get to the point where payrolls will need to go up because we’ve allowed the floor to raise the salary of mediocre players, and thereby driving up the price of good, and great players. If you haven’t read what I’ve written, why don’t you go back and read, because I’ve already answered this multiple times. If you have no intention of reading what I’ve written, how do you know it has no merit?
They keep giving them money because it’s in the Collective Bargaining Agreement that they all agreed to. It’s as simple as that.
Teams wouldn’t just dump an overpay on the 25th and 26th players… they would restructure their “stars” to get a small bump that season in order to make the Floor. In theory, of course.
You’d also see some bad contract trades. Like, again in theory and this is really just a speculative dart throw… Pittsburgh would trade for Montas and his contract and rehab him.
And again, it depends on what the penalty is. If the penalty is nothing, why have a floor? If the penalty is significant, it has the potential to wreak havoc on the sport.
Baseball isn’t like other sports. We have many different kinds of markets. All present their obstacles. But that doesn’t mean you can’t win in any particular one. You have to manage the franchise within your means, and promote the sport in your area to bring up revenue to better compete. Small market teams need to draft better. Winning is what brings people out. But not the only thing. Civic pride, and other things like this. But these franchises need to at least try to build. Pittsburgh is the classic example. Great history, but mismanaged for so long, no one remembers it.
Before we get even deeper in the weeds… well, too late. Haha! I suspect there would be tiers of penalties, and they would have to cost more than the delinquency. Just pure speculation here, of course, but if your payroll was $10MM short of the floor then the financial penalty s/b… idk… double? Do we start docking Draft picks for subsequent years of Floor dodging? This would absolutely force teams to spend to the floor. Extensions/raises for younger players would become more common, too. All in all, I think the sport could and would benefit from a Floor/Cap structure. As far as parity… well, that’s a wives’ tale in disguise. LA and NY will always have particular advantages, but the League Office could take a medium step in the parity direction with a well-thought out CBA plan. Remains to be seen, of.course! Good chats Jdt, always appreciate the wide open baseball talk here! 🍻
We need to be special. We need not be like the others. We are MLB, we are our own, we work on our own, we live like our own. We are MLB, and we are great. So, we need not change for the sakes of ideas!
Any clue how to improve the 1700’s talk?
Well if Lindor has the $ for his mortgage why wouldn’t Cohen have the $ for his? And if he didn’t have the $ then he wouldn’t attempt to get a salary cap since he doesn’t have the $ to see it through. Am I missing something?
I doubt these owners are worried about coke Pepsi well being. And if by the time the contract is nearing completion and practice and exhibition games are played isn’t enough for previous suppliers to make beer and hot dog buns etc why not find someone who can? Or serve different foods where someone can produce what is needed. Maybe find companies with logistic managers who know what they are doing? I’m sure during pandemic coke Pepsi weren’t selling as much with no sports in any league or concerts or amusement parks etc etc etc but they made it through that. I never been anywhere I couldn’t get coke. I’m sure they can handle 1 single sport stoppage.
I think every team should have cheated since there was absolutely zero punishment for the players. Says to me it was no big deal.
Well, for starters Congress needs to burn the Antitrust Exemption. This anomaly creates so much gray area that MLB can skirt around and essentially “do whatever they want” without having to open the books up for anybody. This single aspect is continually what gets the players all riled up in a tizzy; Owners feign “financial ambiguity and losses” but have never shown how, why, when, etc. Open the books, revenue share with the players and show good will towards the League in general. But here we are, debating legal maladies that seemingly will never be resolved, one way or the other. Instead, Players and Owners just tiptoe around in-between ratified CBAs and the game continues with relatively minimal work stopages.
“What product are they going to sell if the players won’t play?”
Scabs.
It’s says in there they have to spend 300 million or more? Why is there luxury tax surcharges then? If it says they have to keep giving them all this $ why penalize them when they do? Why does NY LA have to give them 300m while Miami Pittsburgh only give them 100m?
Players will play. It’s alarming how many people believe we made enough $ already and will just miss out on making 10s 100s of millions more because we will not play with a cap. If they are so strong in their beliefs good riddance. Plenty of college high-school grade school and fetuses coming to take their place. I’m sure someone will sign on for 700 800 grand a year starting minimum wage with potential for 50 million based on performance.
Won’t be any Coke or Pepsi though. Sources tell me Bob Nutting is already working on 3 Rivers Ice Tea! Water straight from the local river. Do you really want to live in a world without Coca-Cola?
I personally like the system as is. It’s entertaining to see teams with 100m trying to compete with 300m. It’s not fair at all but if you were making 100 grand a year and your brother in law was making 30 grand a year would you want to make 60 so your brother in law Bob Nutting could make 50? Heck no I want to keep my TV $.
I think biggest issue is the owners fighting over what they want. Players can play with a cap like every other sport or go play in Saudi Arabi.
Didn’t they talk last time about a 100 180 cap? That was ridiculous. Teams are already spending 100. I get starting low but it has to be somewhere close.
Players should take all this $ they are making and stockpiling and start their own league. Saudis like golf how about baseball? China? Maybe they got Coca-Cola there.
Because they are a private business, and operate in their own market, which has it’s own set of circumstances.
The players are going to sit out until this talk of a cap goes away. And you’re not going to pay MLB prices to watch college kids play. And those college kids are not going to want to cross the picket line of this union. The replacement players from the 1994 strike were never allowed into the MLBPA. You really ought to read about this. It’ll give you perspective on what you’re talking about right now.
I’m telling you right now that if the owners go for a cap, we are going to be without baseball for a very long time. And that would be a shame. You keep mocking this, but you refuse to read about the history of the MLBPA, and the lengths they will go to to stop a cap. Just because the players unions in other sports weren’t strong enough to last, doesn’t mean this union isn’t.
Didn’t work the last time. None of the replacement players from the 1994 strike was allowed to join the MLBPA.
I would also like to add to this that a “star player” would have to be amenable to reworking his deal. Is he going to do that if it doesn’t financially benefit him, or other players? His agent sure wont be in favor of it. His union leaders sure won’t be in favor of it. Reworking a contract to let owners pay another player less money probably isn’t going to happen.
I think you’re not translating all points as I intend them, Jdt.
In a Floor situation where Team A has 38 rostered players but need 40 *and* they’re short of the Floor amount by $10MM, then they’re not going to overpay Players 39 and 40 the rest of the $10MM to reach the floor; they’ll disperse the money in raises to “every” other player they choose. Or maybe extend a Jackson Merrill or Gunnar Henderson and use the $10MM that way. Or trade for a “bad” contract and sit on it. Your manufactured situation(s) of “overpaying” the bottom tier of last-signed players and enraging the rest of your roster (affecting future contracts and Arbitrations) would NEVER happen. Never. Teams would get much more creative in rounding out to the floor.
Furthermore, you asked what would the Owners sell if the Players revolted, went on Strike, retired, etc. The answer is scabs. The Owners would carry on with, yes, those MiLB/NCAA/NPB/KBO guys that want to play in The Bigs. We all know it would be a watered down version of baseball, and perhaps a death knell to the League as we know it, but Owners would not sit on vacant stadiums for very long.
Take into account that I’m just playing Devil’s advocate here, and I don’t think any sort of hypothetical work stoppage would last very long. 20 games max? 40 at the outer limit?? IDK, but if Owners are going to push all-in on a Cap, then rest assured the Players will go all-in on a floor. 100%. Natural and prescribed negotiating tactics.
@Jdt8312. I don’t know that much about this thing, and I wasn’t alive back then, and I suspect I’m pretty new compared to some people. I love this information and I enjoy reading and learning through your posts.
But if you extend a player, you are contracting them for years in the future, how ever many you extend them for. How would that apply to the year in questions payroll floor? That would have to be bargained with the union, and I don’t think, if they did consent to a cap and floor, they would allow that stipulation. They would have already hurt their ability to negotiate a contract too much to make that kind of stipulation.
Scabs didn’t work in the strike in 1994. None of those players were ever allowed to join the MLBPA. Although some did make it to the majors, none was ever allowed to have union protections, or a pension. I don’t think young players who have a real chance at a career in MLB would risk that. this time around.
69 regular season games and the entire 1994 post season were lost between 1994-95. So 80 games, approximately, were lost due to the strike last time
I appreciate you playing devils advocate. It gets the information out there, and it’s forcing me to go back, and reread things from the past. Many of the people taking part in this conversation don’t understand the labor history of MLB, and how the union had to fight for free agency, and fair salaries. Many players from the early 70’s back needed to work an off season job. Roger Maris worked for Busch beer as a salesman in the off season back in the 60’s. Mickey Mantle worked in coal mines, ran a truck for an oil company, and did exhibition tours playing baseball in the off season. I doubt that the owners are going to go all in on a salary cap. MLB topped 2 billion dollars in revenue last year for the first time in it’s history. They are making money hand over fist. They all are. Yes, I know my team reported losses of $350 mil. But we all knew this was part of the plan. Those of us who actually listened to what Mr. Cohen has said about the finances of the team, know it’s not going to last like this forever, and the move to sustainable winning will be brought on by our minor league system. I don’t mind people challenging me, and what I say, as long as it’s done with the intent to learn from each other, and not to just call someone names for disagreeing. Thank you for playing devil’s advocate.
Thank you for that. If you are new to all this, MLB has a rich history of good, and bad. There is a wealth of knowledge to be gained by going back, and reading about these issues, and conflicts in this sport. If you don’t necessarily have time to read much, I use audible to listen to books because I drive long distances for a living, and it keep my mind engaged. Remember, you also have Google, and other ways to search articles on these subjects. Information has never been so easy to get. I hope you have a great day, bro. I appreciate you..
Therein lies the million dollar question… we all know they’re making money hands over fists, but how much? The books are closed and the Players “feel” undercompensated. Hence the constant CBA woes.
You can spread money out on an Extension however the two parties agree upon. If Gunnar was being extended, the O’s could say “well, here’s a $10MM signing bonus” to “get us to the Floor”… subsequent years have no bearing on *that* year’s payroll outside of equating the average contract amount to the CBT rules. All good Jdt! Love talking baseball especially in the Offseason when there’s none to watch! Haha Enjoy your day braddha 🤙🏽😎🤙🏽
The way a signing bonus works currently is that it is spread across the length of the contract, so it affects every year of the contract. So if you were 10 mil short of the floor, under the current rules, you’d still be 7.5 mil short after a 10 mil bonus for a 4 year contract. That is the way it is calculated for luxury tax purposes.
And thank you for the great conversation too. I appreciate you bro!
JDT- likely if they put in a cap/floor they may remove the entire luxury tax. If they do we could see a system where how the bonus a signing bonus counts per year change.
I think there is a bigger issue getting a cap than getting the players to agree. That is getting the owners to agree to 100% revenue sharing.
The amount of money is so massive between the dodgers/yankees than the lowest revenue teams. I get they share 48% now but 100% would drastically change the landscape. The rich would no longer be rich. My guess is they like being rich. While the dodgers and Yankees lead the way there are several others that have big revenue advantages.
Then you have the issue of how do you put in a cap when teams have tons of future money already spent. What are they gonna do start it in 2034. Heck a guy like Tucker may sign a 10-12 year deal this offseason. Most of these contracts are back loaded as well. Even if you give teams some exceptions for a while they would still need the large revenue to pay current future payrolls for the next 8-10 years.
If you change the revenue sharing to more than 55%, I guess the owners will strike.
I agree that if they got rid of the Luxury Tax system, they would have to move to a different kind of revenue sharing system. I mean, lets make small market teams spend more, then remove a chunk of their revenue? That would seem counter intuitive. I do not think that big market teams are going to agree to 100% revenue sharing. I also don’t think most big market teams would want a salary cap, for the same reason. And that reason is the advantage they have by being in a big market, increased revenue, would go away under 100% revenue sharing, and they would lose the advantage they have in overcoming contract value because of the high tax states/cities they operate in. And to be completely honest with you, I am a Met fan. I finally have an owner that wants to spend, and not play second fiddle to other big market teams, I don’t want to institute a cap either.
My guess on the “future money” aspect is that they would have to bargain that with the union, and make a stepped approach to the cap. have the penalties for going over the cap increase to a point, over time, to compensate for money already spent. Then they would have to outlaw any “future money from being spent, or a system within the cap where both sides are amenable to the way “future money” or “deferred money” is spent. This is why I do not think it’ll happen in MLB. the MLBPA stands to lose too much of it’s bargaining power, it’s ability to function the way it has, and it’s overall power to get it’s members the best contracts they can.
Yeah it’s just hard to see a drastic overhaul of the system. When the players don’t want it and the big markets taking a hit as well. If we are being real the league itself wants big markets taking teams consistently playing in the playoffs because that’s how they draw better national tv ratings. Which allows them to get more cash from the networks.
I’m not sure how they fix the system. Perhaps it’s just a greater tax, greater revenue sharing (not 100%). A high enough tax penalty would eventually work the same as a cap. Though if they increase revenue sharing they would have to put in a floor. Can’t just reward owners for not spending.
My guess is there will just be minor changing to the current system. One thing I’d like to see change is the ability to trade draft picks. This I think would increase trades plus team that are lower revenue need a group of young players come up around the same time. If they can trade for picks they could stack the ability to do this and perhaps decrease the time it takes to compete again. They may need to cap how far out you can trade picks but could you imagine a guy like Preller being able to trade drafts picks (all picks). Even the draft itself would be more interesting to watch.
I think being able to trade draft picks is an excellent idea. We already have “Competitive balance” picks being able to be traded. Albeit in limited fashion. Why not just let teams use picks as trade capital? There are already enough minor league FA’s to fill every team through free agency. I think this may help small market teams more than raising the CBT. Being able to stock players in your minor league system who are ready for the majors will provoke trades, and give small market teams trade capital to get a major league player when they are able to take on payroll to be competitive enough to make it into the playoffs. Can you imagine if the Reds had had a fully stocked minor league system, due to being able to trade draft picks, and made moves at the deadline? How far could they have gone? How much better would they have been against the Dodgers, instead of basically being non-competitive? I think that would increase the overall competition in the league without having to do much to the structure of the finances. Great idea!!
It could just be one prime season. We’ll see next season
Lockout for as long as it takes. The evidence suggests the have nots are not making money anyway. Sitting it out might be saving them money.
@foppert3 What evidence? Only the Braves have their books wide open for public view. Non-competitive organizations don’t necessarily need to make YoY profits. Team valuations will continue to rise as long as the MLB economy is churning.
Yeah I’m not really sure what he means by have nots? You talking the Pirates? Who most reports say are making money.
The reason for a cap is to even the playing field. To do so it would require 100% revenue sharing. It’s less about who is among and not making money. More about who can afford certain players and still make some money.
If they do 100% revenue sharing I don’t even care if someone goes over the cap and pays another 100% tax on the overages. It would either eat up the owners remaining profits or have the owner dip into their own pockets. Which is fair either way to me.
With that said I still don’t see a cap. I actually don’t even think you need one if you do 100% revenue sharing. You would need a floor in that case though.
All these owners are brilliant business men, or have at least learned all the tricks that worked for Daddy and Grandaddy. Even if they are owners of teams with not much interest in winning, they at least want to make a buck. Even these crap-a$$ owners didn’t buy into the MLB to lose money.
Owners saying they aren’t making money and cutting payroll or having stagnant payroll. Good enough for me as evidence. I’m not the “hating rich people” type.
Valuations might be rising but it’s no use if no one’s buying. It’s just a number on a piece of paper. Twins couldn’t sell. Angels couldn’t sell. White Sox couldn’t sell. Padres are selling because they are maxed out on debt and the owners don’t want to keep throwing in their cash for the holy grail quest.
Lockout is likely. I’m guessing even the Dodgers, Yankees and Mets recognise the plight of the have nots. Despite the self entitled fans “pocketing millions” claims, these guys are all in it to win it. It’s why they buy a sports team. No reason to put yourself through that otherwise. You are already loaded.
The disparity has gone too far. They are smart enough to recognise that and do what it takes to move the game forward. Maybe then some of them will be able to sell it and cash in.
I’m on owners holding very firm indeed.
Fop- the issue is the mlb cash cows are the Yankees and dodgers. They drive the big tv ratings and that makes the league money.
Baseball has become such a local sport that without the mega markets in the big games the ratings just aren’t very good nationally.
So having this big markets out spend and be in the playoffs regularly is actually good for the tv deals.
Not so much for the med/bottom revenue teams. So I’m not so sure how much parity mlb even wants. It’s really the teams in the middle that get hurt the most. You can have small market teams not spend much and turn a profit. When a small market team tries to spend they end up hurting financially. Padres and twins are good example of this with the debt and cash calls to spend at even a decent level.
I just can’t buy the being in it to turn a year to year profit. It makes no sense to me when you consider the work involved and the sh&t you are putting yourself through. Much much easier options out there if building more and more cash is your thing. I’m 100% on they all want to win.
I think they all recognise greater parity is required than what exists at the moment. How do they that is their call. Cap, differant revenue sharing arrangement….whatever. But something needs to change. The competition is going in the wrong direction when it comes to starting on an equal footing.
Your right. The Padres are a classic illustration of the problem. Did everything right. Sell out every night, really good drafting and development, going above and beyond when it comes to handing out cash to FA’s. Awesome. What have they got for that effort ? Maxed out debt and cash calls.
The other thing that I see is that the only team that has sold recently, is the only low revenue team that has mastered the art of being in the hunt with a low revenue and therefore a low payroll. They are a bit of a unicorn.
We will see what happens.
Yes, thank you. Well written and I agree 100%. For the first time in my life I am for the lockout just to get parity. I will gladly find something else to do in 27.
100% in agreement with Simm here. I think without looming labor issues, there’s no way he accepts a QO after the season he just had. He was looking at at least $60-80m in FA.
Bank on the early boatload of cash, bet on the future non-QO-attached Free Agency to unravel however it may, murky time period or not. I get it, and more power to him!
That really ruined my week. thank you cashman for offering it to him
You signing the checks now?
He is a horribad player. Below average in every way
14% walk rate, 23%k rate, 34 homers, and decent defense is below average?
Well this is awkward
I told you so
yeah, so? This shouldn’t surprise anybody, really. If he reverts to what he was before last season, yankees have never been shy about cutting guys loose on 1 yr deals.
It sure did when he was extended the QA. Many thought there was no way he’d accept it. There was a discussion on it. I was surprised the Yankees extended the offer to him in the first place. But they can’t even trade him until June 15th without his consent. There is no way they are eating a prorated 22 mil contract after they sent DJ LeMahiew to the showers early. I didn’t think there was any way he didn’t accept the offer. It’s more, in one year, than he’s made his whole career.
Ooh, I don’t think the Yankees really wanted that.
they didn’t do it for the 5th round draft pick compensation.. he’s overpaid but for one year its fine.
If they didn’t want that, they shouldn’t have offered it. They will forever have QO remorse! Another bullseye by a GM where the games has passed him by
@Yanks
There’s no pleasing Yankee fans. Cashman got 60 homers out of 3 guys no one even expected would make the team or have a big impact like Rice and Grisham. Got Beli who many thought was washed. Traded for Jazz who became a 30/30 guy, yet yall still have so much doubt. Grisham was a former 1st round pick who showed flashes of ability (multiple years of double digit homers) that maybe, maybe is realizing his potential. Give him a shot to prove himself and if he fails then it’s only money and you key him walk. If he had another great start and Spencer Jones forces himself to get called up then that’s what’s none as a “good problem” to have.
1 year 22m NY $ is nothing to find out of he can do even close to what he did again. If it’s roids and he gets suspended it’s fine because it’s 1 year.
Grissshhhh!
Still available for your trade offers to me… and before we get too deep in the weeds regarding other players involved, I’m still probably rejecting all proposals. 🤪🍻🤣
Settle down! It’ll come. We’re neck deep right now with the Rule 5 draft looming.
How much for that Spencer Jones in the window? And no we’re not taking Grish as a balancer… 😆
Lmao since “Settle down!” 🤣
So Grisham in CF, sign Belli for LF, and then what happens to Jasson? Bench/platoon? Chances are, Stanton will get injured and ABs will open at the DH spot.
Jasson seems like the most obvious sell piece now to help them out elsewhere IMO (likely in a package). I personally think he’s being undervalued by most fans and folks here based off previous comments
He is less than MLB average. It was his first season but there isn’t much to get excited about with him. No power decent base stealer, terrible fielder. Get what you can for him.
I think Rice is a goner too, but Yanks will get a nice piece for him in return. Clearing 1B for Alonso or Bryce Harper.
Harper isn’t going anywhere and why trade s young cheap guy coming into his own for an older more expensive guy likely on his decline looking for a long term deal that will likely take him into his mid 30s.
I know it doesn’t make sense, but it’s the Yankees. There are some I believe who still think Harper should have been signed as a free agent few years back. Some people feel the Yankees are entitled to all the best free agents so it will be righting a wrong to bring Harper to NY to pair with Judge like it was supposed to go.
@Ignorant
They absolutely should have signed Harper instead of trading for Stanton. But Jeter was the GM, doesn’t like Cashman, and worked out the trade with Randy Levine and traded him in a pure salary dump.
Jeter was never the GM. He was CEO of the Marlins
Thank God
4 QO accepted today
thats gotta be a record for 1 offseason
Think I just heard there’s only been 14 accepted ever and 4 are this offseason.
Bellinger definitely not coming back. Trade Dominez and others for Kwan. it’s only tuesday and my week is ruined. so much for him wanting long term security.
That “long term security” was probably offered at a less cumulative rate than one year of the QO
$22mm in one year means he nets $10mm+ after taxes and agent.
That sure sounds like long term security to me, especially after making $13.6 mm over the past three years (which should have paid for a nice house, college for any kids, and $1mm+ retirement savings at age 29)
Geez I didn’t make my first 22 million until at least year 5 or 6. The kids these days don’t know how to work, put in the least amount of effort. I had to walk five miles in hip-deep snow just to meet my Car Pool back in the day.
you are taking this way too hard,. a one-year contract is never a big deal for anybody
I was thinking they would go after Tucker but am now leaning towards Bellinger.
It is
Money’s not there. This is a HUGE red flag for the rest of the class.
Or just an accepted likelihood that these guys were looking at 2-3 year deals, with one of those years likely being lost to a lockout.
“with one of those years likely being lost to a lockout.”
Scares me to think actual human beings comment these things.
Qualifying Offer Chart
Kyle Schwarber-
Kyle Tucker-
Framber Valdez-
Dylan Cease-
Michael King-
Ranger Suarez-
Bo Bitchette=
Edwin Diaz-
Zac Gallen=
Trent Grisham-Accepted
Gleyber Torres-Accepted
Shota Imanaga-Accepted
Brandron Woodruff-Accepted
Watch out for Gallen. He was really bad for much of last year and his market might not be there. Everyone else is a guaranteed no.
The deadline passed. The only one I would give the Astros a red alert is Zac Gallen and possibly Michael King.
mlbtraderumors.com/2025/11/nine-players-reject-qua…
I can’t tell if that Bo typo is intentional . . .
Did not see this happening.
Even Stevie Wonder saw this happening…
Awful news
I’d say he got screwed over by the qualifying offer more than anyone else this year.
That’s my problem with the QO… all the negative effects fall on a few free agents who are in that borderline area.
Also wasn’t the original point of the QO, and type A/B free agents before it, to compensate teams for losing HOME-GROWN players? Seems like that original purpose has been lost.
Yeah, getting upwards of $22MM to play some ball next year reallyyyy screwed him over…
Screwed over for 22 million when he shouldn’t even be making 5 million? Yeah, I think he’s good
Sad. The Yankees can now kiss goodbye any chance of reupping with. Bellinger. Food Stamps Hal has set his budget limits.
The GM for life got conned into believing an outlier season by a .235 career hitter was the real Trent Grisham — not the .213 hitter who averaged 11 homers in his previous six MLB seasons.
One more reason why other front office execs laugh at Brian Cashman.
Why would Steinbrenner be okay with offering him this in the first place??? a draft pick gamble
They’re still going to attempt to re-sign Belli.
If you ignore Grisham’s ’25 peripheral stats, you may be correct.
When the coach turns back into a pumpkin — or when Grisham reverts to being less than ordinary — the Yankees will be stuck with a $22 million benchwarmer clogging up the payroll.
Even worse, they’ll do it while watching Bellinger star for either the Dodgers or Phillies.
@Ct
Yanks cut Stroman and DJ last year without much of a thought. Funny that you think Grisham would “clog” things up. It’s a 1 year deal and I’m sure they’re willing to absorb the loss if needed.
Imho, the Yankees are taking the anticipated approach this year – they are going to re-establish last year’s team (or as close to possible), and not give out any longer-term contracts in anticipation of a work stoppage. They will then have a significant amount coming off the books in ‘28, and are planning on the possibility of getting their much-desired cap implemented.
Although Hal isn’t cheap in its truest sense, there are certainly valid questions about the amount he puts back into the team. For example, LAD is putting back roughly 73% of its revenue into the team, while the Yankees are putting about 47% back into the team, which puts them at 16th iirc.
To me, this is the true formula for Hal, not a specific number, ie, 300MM. Instead, I believe his direction is to remain under 50% of the revenue back into the on-field product.
Moreover, I’ve seen recent reports that “internal sources” have said Hal claims the Yankees are losing money each year. While I find that extremely far-fetched, I think it provides insight into Hal’s spending mentality.
It’s clear the Yankees have transitioned to a profit-first team, and only when that goal is achieved will they prioritize winning. The part of the formula Hal simply doesn’t realize is that winning will increase the probability that he raises revenue…
@Yankee
You are mental. Yanks offered Soto $700+ mil then turned around and gave a 3rd pitcher another huge contract. To say Hal doesn’t invest in winning is laughable. They were in the WS last year and if not for a bunch of underpeformance from their stars, could have won it all. Let’s stop acting like they’ve been a 82 win team barely making it to the last wild card slot.
I didn’t say any of those things. I simply said that his first priority is making a specific prophet over winning, with winning coming only after a specific profit margin.
I didn’t think it was a controversial statement. In fact, I’d argue that it’s pretty common knowledge. Relatively speaking, look at the players that they’ve need and have overlooked. Moreover, consider the Yankees are 16th or so in % they reinvest in their roster.
Can you show me where any of that is false? If he really wanted to win, like his father, he would stop at nothing (like the Dodgers) to make sure he had the greatest chance to win.
Plus, I don’t root for a sports team to be top 10. I root for them to win…. As in everything. There’s a reason this has been their second longest stretch in franchise history of not winning.
A profit first team wouldn’t offered Soto that contract like Knicks said. Or trade for Bellinger Williams. Sign Fried Rendon Cole. Seems Yankees heavily prioritize winning. Why make all those trades at deadline if winning isn’t important. They sold their season tickets and TV packages long before that. Had good enough season and Judge was fantastic so no worries of anyone not paying up for next year.
I agree, I believe they want to win. I just believe there’s a clear pattern established under Hal that they will invest up to 50% of their revenue to do so, and prioritize winning within that framework. They’ll have good teams though.
@Yanks
Can we PLEASE stop romanticizing Big George!!!! The last WS they won under him was back in 1978
Why does everyone forget about the horribly ran teams from 82 to 94??!! Or the prospects that were traded for over the bill washed players?.Or the 15 manag8 in 15 years (about)?? Yanks didn’t win until he was banned from running the team. And the Yanks have been better than a top 10 team bro. They were in the WS two years ago and tied for the best record in the Al this year. I get it. It’s win or die but let’s stop acting like like management hasn’t been ravaged by injuries and players choking of their best players. How many teams can say their ownership went out and got Gerrit Cole, Juan Soto, Max Fried and retained Judge? Or offered a guy $750 mil?
Aren’t they usually 1 2 3 4 5 in payroll? Why should would they spend drastically more than the other top 5 spending teams? I highly doubt they are pocketing 50 percent of their income.
It’s not romanticizing George’s administration… it’s honoring his commitment to winning. There’s no doubt that he was not the specific architect of the winning 90s teams; but he made sure the guys paying had everything they needed to get it done.
Regardless, yes they pay a lot of money, and I don’t disagree. But they don’t fill critical holes or they compromise in order to keep costs down. That is unacceptable in this franchise, given the revenue they have, and with the capability they have to spend.
Saying we should “be happy because they spend more than other teams” doesn’t do anything for me. Why? Because the Dodgers are spending substantially higher percentages of revenue and WINNING. Why should I accept anything other than the best? Mediocrity is pervasive in all sports and sports fandom now. But there is a strong remnant of us who refuse to say it’s “good enough.” Because it isn’t, and it hasn’t been for 16 years. Plus, it seems you’re suggesting they were getting Fried AND Soto, and that wasn’t the case. They admittedly pivoted to Fried after Soto.
I’m perfectly content that you’re satisfied with not winning. You’re satisfied to compare yourself to other fanbases, like the Pirates. That’s fine. But to tell me that my expectation of winning when this franchise makes more money than every other franchise in MLB, and consistently puts a product on the field with glaring weaknesses, is not acceptable.
If I wanted to keep make more $ I would never trade for Williams. Then I would have kept Durbin so I wouldn’t had to trade for McMahon. Huge waste of $ their.
I never seen a team try harder to win. Goldy Fried Bellinger. Very active expensive trade deadline.
They blown through $ at an insane rate and you want them to spend more? How do you want them to sign? EVERYONE!!!!!!!!!!!
To clarify two things before I continue:
1) You’re speaking about only last season and I think they did a commendable job pivoting from Soto, so we agree;
2) I don’t think their biggest problem is spending- their most glaring problem, imho, has been roster construction;
3) Because their roster construction and position-player-development hasn’t been great, they needed to supplement their weaknesses with their greatest strengths, eg, money. They have passed on innumerable players that would’ve been instrumental in winning, particularly since those same key players fit their needs at the time, ie: Harper, Realmuto, Machado, Seager, etc, etc.
So, for me it’s not about how much they spend, but when they have to address clear weaknesses, they can’t hide behind a self-imposed cap. It’s counterintuitive.
Hal often says he should be able to field a “championship team” with a $300MM payroll – I agree. But since his front office has not been able to do that, the personnel need to change, or he should allow them to spend in order to fix their clear weaknesses.
Overall, the money they have spent was wasteful. They avoid guys like Harper when he was desperately needed, only to spend as much, or more, on players that aren’t nearly as good. Last season? Yeah, they were good pivots.
Last I checked the Yankees and Dodgers and well 28 of the 30 teams don’t make their revenue records public. So are you the accountant of these 28 teams or just going off of some websites guesses to what they think these teams are making?
It’s been widely published that the Yankees make more than any other franchise, and despite the sarcasm, sites have calculated relative revenues for these teams based on past reporting. But none of that negates what I said anyway, so why do you have such a problem with my stance on the matter? Are you the accountant?
I don’t have a problem. If you want to believe these reports are accurate go ahead. I looked into them before and found they were completely useless as the reporter had no idea what they were talking about as expected because they didn’t have any financial records but even then some they weren’t intelligent enough on the subject matter.
@CT
So you think they’re laughing at him for getting 60 homers from two guys not expected too even start on last years team? Grisham and Rice were not expected to start at all and they got 60 homers for around $6 mil. Every GM wishes they wete in Cashman’s shoes and could afford to take a $22 mil risk on Grisham and STILL go after Beli or another FA outfielder with 23 Jasson Dominguez as the 4th OF and Jones in AAA. Money is Cashman’s greatest tool and I would say he likely will always have the green light to spend as long as it’s justifiable.
I’m good with this. I’d rather they risk overpaying Grisham for 1 year and bringing back Belli and Dominguez than entertain Tucker for anywhere near the $350-$400 they’ve been rumored to seek in free agency. Tucker hasn’t been elite level since 2023.
You didnt need to block your top prospect in order to overpay Trent Grisham. This also probably prevents Yankees from going after Belli (the better player) or Bichette
Yankees didnt need to go after Tucker, and this move still sucks.
Considering the recent injuries the Yanks have suffered in consecutive years in not sure why you think they couldn’t bring back Beli AND, inevitably find at bats for Dominguez. Rice gets hurt, move Beli to 1st. Stanton, Judge or Beli get injured, Dominguez to OF/DH. Beli decides to go elsewhere or pushes Cash to the limit of what he wants to offer, then they have 3 OF under contract. $$$$$ is Cash’s best tool. Make it rain.
not sure why some think bringing back Grisham means everything is now set in stone, And Jones is not the top prospect. With his swing and miss rates, he isn’t a top prospect at all, really.
@Mengis
The top 4 leaders in strikeouts collectively had 175 homers, 4 all- appearances and 1 top 3 mvp finish. The idea that Spencer Jones can’t succeed at the mlb level because he might strikeout 200x isn’t accurate. He did hand a walk rate of 15% and he might benefit from coaching at the mlb level and facing pitchers who might throw more strikes in the bigs. Still, I would temper my expectations more than others. I’d make him force his way on to the team. But he is absolutely a top prospect.
This team and everyone running it is an embarrassment. This guy was a one year wonder and Spencer Jones is 25 and still won’t get a shot in CF and he’s f they strike next year Jones will be 27 when he next gets a shot. Ridiculous just trade him. If your a prospect you have almost no shot on this team ever
Yankees could lose Spencer Jones in the Rule 5 draft unless they add him to the 40-man roster. His numbers at Double-A Somerset scream Dave Kingman.
I think Jones would be very fortunate to have Dave Kingman’s career. I can’t think of any guys who made it with his K rates in the minors..
There’s zero chance the Yanks won’t add him to the 40. He’s no 9th round pick that came out of nowhere. He was their #1 pick like 3 years ago haha.
And if they some how give you a shot, show promise they will screw you up by telling you to only try and hit HRs
@nyjoe
Look out for Volpe, Wells, Rice, Dominguez, Gil,Schmidt, Warren, Schlittler and Cabrera next time you watch a game. What are you talking about? Jones has only played 75 games at AAA. He had obvious flaws. Start him at AAA and make him force his way to the bigs. He’ll only be 25 in May. Relax. Grish is only signed for 1 more year.
it looks like when jones had went around the league more than once at AAA his numbers plummeted abysmally… I can only imagine what would happen at the big league level unless he improves.. Never seen so many ppl freaking out about a one-year deal.
Grisham had long enough to gauge the market and realize that everyone viewed last season as an outlier. Do it again next year and maybe, just maybe teams will think differently
yankees are coming into this offseason with 40MM in wiggle room if we go off of Hal publicly saying he wants to stay under 300MM
we just blocked Spencer Jones AGAIN for 22 million when we should he throwing the brinks truck at Bo Bichette
Spencer Jones ain’t even on the 40-man roster. You want a Three True Outcomes type to take up a space on the major league roster?
You never say anything smart Chucky. They just added Spencer to the 40 man and yes I want to see the orgs top prospect whos MLB ready play for cheap and have them spend money on actual roster holes than watch Trent Grisham lead off another game
I find it difficult to believe that once Jones had been around the AAA league once and his numbers plummeted that anyone can claim he is “major league ready”.. He hasn’t even proven himself at AAA for more than a few weeks, after which the league caught up to him.. They did that when promoting Volpe and now ppl want him gone at the same age Jones is already.
He had an .897 OPS in AAA at age 24. Im not sure where the “plummet” happened. Its ridiculous to suggest he should be shelved in AAA another year. Weirdly enough you claim they did that with Volpe despite you knowing Volpes the same age and just completed his 3rd MLB season and isnt shelved in AAA until 25 and did not have the success Jones has had at the plate in the minors. Volpe after 20ish games in AAA with a .236/.313/.404 slash at age 21 was not ready for major league pitching. Spencer Jones after 67 games with a .271/.342/.555 slash at age 24 is clearly more ready.
You keep replying to anyone talking about Jones pretending he is a bad prospect and im concluding this is because you dont know ball.
you can conclude I “don’t know ball.” You could also check the numbers for yourself. I have been following not only MLB but the minors for a very long-@ss time..
Volpe had good success in the minors up until AAA, but was promoted anyway. Jones was NOT shelved- he had to repeat AA as a 23-24 yrs old to see if his contact rate would improve, and despite his power surge his peripherals hadn’t really improved much, but I get promoting him..
Yes, Volpe was too young to be promoted- but has (or did) a much better chance to improve than an older Jones does.. So age works both ways. Simply b/c Jones is older doesn’t automatically mean he is more ready.
Jones was off the charts for about a month, then right as the trade deadline hit, his numbers did indeed plummet. He was horrifically bad in Aug/ Sept. Overall, the numbers are solid at AAA, but at the very least, his severe dip should be serious reason for concern,
I know I’ve been hard on Jones, I want him to succeed badly, but the way some talk about him really makes me wonder about their knowledge of ball as well.
I had all of these guys accepting along with King and Gallen. Surprised they didn’t honestly.
Sorry Yankees you are stuck with him. Bad gamble by Cashman
good for him, never gonna get that $$ in an offer, bad for the Yankees
22 million is a lot of money, 4 players accepting is a record. I think the Yanks still sign Bellinger,, Grish is only for a year. If they don’t get him they will still upgrade with pitching.
Just what they need another guy who hits .220-.240 even having a career year. This team biggest problem is they have 2 guys on the entire roster who can hit over .250
Batting average, how quaint. Now do RBIs!
Its really time to stop pretending that base hits arent valuable. Blue Jays, who just spanked the Yankees and almost beat the Dodgers lead the league in team batting average.
Is it everything? No. Is it nothing? No.
$22m is $22m. Grisham, Shota, these guys werent going to get $22M a year long term.
I still think Yankees re-sign Bellinger. I don’t think Grisham was worth the QO. Probably means the Yankees are trading either Spencer Jones or Dominguez with the crowded outfield now.
It makes sense for both Grisham and the Yankees. At worst (assuming no injuries) he’ll man CF decently, he has some pop. At best, he could repeat 2025. He’s going to be overpaid, but it’s one year. Grisham gets a check a lot bigger for 2026 than he could expect on the market, and a chance to go back into the market without the QO, and having banked a good payday. The Yankees can now focus on different things. They might be mildly surprised he took them up on it, but they wouldn’t have made the offer if they didn’t expect it.
Now they can focus on spending 22mm less and blocking young guys.
Two more teams out of Tucker sweepstakes: Yankees and Tigers! No way Yankees sign Cody and Tucker now.
NY was probably hoping he would not accept and they’d get a pick. Woodruff surprises me.
Interesting. It could’ve went either way with Grisham, but I had him going elsewhere (Phillies, even though they need a RHB). I secretly hoped he was too, as even though I enjoyed his contributions last season, I don’t know if I neccessarily trust it was real. I now know he doesn’t trust that either! Either way, welcome back I guess!
If a team CAN end up in the top tier penalty stage 4 years in a row, perhaps the penalty needs to be stronger.
I guess he wasn’t ready to ditch the moustache.
This sucks
I really wanted Jone and Jasson in the outfield not Trent
Sucks? Dude balled out down the stretch when Aaron was on the mend and Cody was doing Cody Spicolli things, letting fly balls bounce over his head. # entitled
Yep
This sucks
Ruin the future for jones or Jasson
I didn’t think he’d outright accept the QO, but I did think he’d negotiate some type of extension to return to NY.
I knew this would bite the Yankees in the butt. Let’s get ready for a 220 avg, 15 HRs and an OPS below 700. And his defense will surely decline. This off season is going to be another one of those “role it back”. Ones.
Except for the fact he mashed 34 and .812 OPS, you’re not very far off
No one trusts that based on his career stats.
Only one year..
Right, only one year. Funny how you identified the issue thinking it was helping your argument
Never seen many of his games so based on his stats, I assume he has stuck around MLB for his glove and finally managed to start hitting homers this past season.
Uh, what?
Good signing. Welcome back to the Firm.
Prepare for a very similar looking offensive product next season Yankee fans…lots of homers (vs Bad pitching), lots of strikeouts (Vs good pitching), and lack of timely hits and productive outs…also, I know you’re still waiting for the second coming of Trout/Mantle, Dominguez to have a real role on this team. Looks like you’ll have to wait some more or he’ll have a spot on someone else’s team so Cashman can trade for another all or nothing type of hitter…
Sorry, Yankee fans but there are only two things good about this deal: It’s only one season and it puts me at .800 through 5 picks in the FA contest!!!
From another angle, as a GM would you sacrifice a draft pick to sign Grish to a multi year deal? No freakin way. His agent knew that. Go back to NYY, post decent stats and hit the market next year.
….to sign a multi year deal for about $22M, lol
This kinda screws the whole offseason. What happens now? I like Grish but, don’t see how this will help outfield and blocks a lot of moves.
Well, there’s always 2027
Someone here gets it. Dominguez has no more role on this team and I would assume
Is trade bait at this point. Jones I has no path either and is 25. Horrible
Job
Teams weren’t going to buy in on his season and I think he and his agent knew that. Reality is he’s getting paid for two seasons in one. Win for him and a gamble for the Yanks. That’s money that could’ve gone elsewhere.
Some of my fellow Yankee fans are goofy. Baseball is filled with late boomers that took a few years to come into their own. Grish was a 1st overall pick and did have a few years of double digit homers. What I like was his walk rate and power. It’s a 1 year deal. No biggie.
Incorrect. He was not a 1st overall pick. And it’s a terrible deal. Limits them and blocks guys they’ve held onto for years swearing their untouchable in trades. They have enough power and swing an miss guys. This will be the same team as last season.
Yanks going to run it back another year older.
I called this scenario when it was brought up in QA thread a few weeks back. I wonder if I’ll get a prize?
Seems like win for both. Lot of bat for 22m and in NY and 1 year good value. Who wants to give up draft picks to sign this guy.
Gonna be the same lineup structure as last year with no chance for Dominguez to finally get a shot. Terrible job by the Yankees.
Yankees are throwing 38 million at Grisham and McMahon……
I’d like to see the Yankees sign FA Luis Rengifo, pay down McMahon’s 16MM by half and trade him to anybody who wants him. Rengifo is a switch hitter who can play 3rd AND/OR 2nd in case Chisholm moves on after this next year.