I question those estimates. Does that also take into account the TV money revenue that is also required to be shared? With those teams drawing very view fans, having relatively low TV money revenue, and having no penalties for low spending, there has to be some viable source of consistent revenue (other than franchise values going up every year) to make it make sense. I also generally don't trust anything coming out of the small market owners complaint box. For years the mantra was "we just need a new stadium to compete"... then all these teams did get tax-funded stadiums, and it was still business as usual (or worse).
"No matter what it takes" is very concerning since players are saying the same exact thing about stopping a salary cap from happening. Fortunately. I think the owners are more divided and the ones who need the salary cap the most are also the ones who get hurt the most financially by losing games. But this is not any breaking news. I see the lockout stretching somewhere from late May until early July and then have a 75-80 game season.
If they have a salary cap, are the Dodgers forced to trade away players to get under the cap? Or are they exempt because they made this payroll before the potential cap? Maybe will be forced to trim a certain amount each year and have a certain year where they need to be under?
I don't see a scenario where any team is forced to trade or void deals already on the books. It's all based on negotiated agreement but the most likely scenario is certain designated contracts are grandfathered in. Furthermore there will likely be some concession where teams over the cap due to long-term deals are still able to continue to spend some to fill roster holes due to loss of players due to retirement, injury, or Freee agency. It will probably be 5-10 years before some contracts that are grandfathered are off of the books.
