Manfred's player relations initiative...

[The Great Hambino]

...is going exactly how you thought it would go

[Vanimal46]

It will be more surprising if there isn’t a lockout at this point in time. I’ve got to remember to enjoy this season and next season. Because after that, there is a ton of uncertainty in the sport. 

[Mike Sixel]

23 minutes ago, Vanimal46 said:

It will be more surprising if there isn’t a lockout at this point in time. I’ve got to remember to enjoy this season and next season. Because after that, there is a ton of uncertainty in the sport. 

Which world make any buyer nervous, I'd think. 

[Vanimal46]

9 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

Which world make any buyer nervous, I'd think. 

For sure. The Rays and Twins new owners could be losing money in the first year or two if games are lost due to a lockout.

On the other hand, It’s a reasonable gamble for the mid market and lower tiered teams to buy in now and bank on better revenue sharing, salary floor/cap, etc with a new CBA. 

[Mike Sixel]

2 minutes ago, Vanimal46 said:

For sure. The Rays and Twins new owners could be losing money in the first year or two if games are lost due to a lockout.

On the other hand, It’s a reasonable gamble for the mid market and lower tiered teams to buy in now and bank on better revenue sharing, salary floor/cap, etc with a new CBA. 

 

For sure. But people hate risk..... Generally. 

[nicksaviking]

I got to say, the fact that one of the highest paid players in the league was the one who flipped out about a potential salary cap isn't a good look for the players.  Wow, shocking that the guy making 350M is screaming to protect his money while the guys at the bottom of the wage scale, who would significantly benefit from salary caps and floors, have to keep their mouths shut or they'd incur the ire of the super stars.

[Mike Sixel]

22 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

I got to say, the fact that one of the highest paid players in the league was the one who flipped out about a potential salary cap isn't a good look for the players.  Wow, shocking that the guy making 350M is screaming to protect his money while the guys at the bottom of the wage scale, who would significantly benefit from salary caps and floors, have to keep their mouths shut or they'd incur the ire of the super stars.

 

I think lesser players, like most workers, are afraid to rock the boat. If anything, my take was the opposite of yours. He was standing up for them too. 

[ashbury]

On 7/29/2025 at 7:32 AM, Vanimal46 said:

It will be more surprising if there isn’t a lockout at this point in time. I’ve got to remember to enjoy this season and next season. Because after that, there is a ton of uncertainty in the sport. 

I had put the threat of a lockout/strike out of my mind.  During the recent trading flurry, it was reminded to us.  If 2027 is a faint likelihood, it puts into better perspective the trading away of important players with 2 years of control remaining - perhaps in reality it's only 1 year.  If the FO judged that serious pennant contention wasn't possible for 2026, then my preference to use the 2025 trade deadline to "sell and reload for 2026-27" wasn't so good.

In a lockout, are the minor leagues shut down too?

[Dave Borton]

10 minutes ago, ashbury said:

...

In a lockout, are the minor leagues shut down too?

No, MiLB is not under the MLB CBA. It has its own CBA which runs through the 2027 season.

 

https://www.mlbplayers.com/_files/ugd/4d23dc_0a4c30c6387a4d8dbbf1707e7c4d6e2c.pdf

[nicksaviking]

On 7/29/2025 at 3:17 PM, Mike Sixel said:

I think lesser players, like most workers, are afraid to rock the boat. If anything, my take was the opposite of yours. He was standing up for them too. 

A bit late checking back in on this, but every other pro sports league shows that the non-elite players will see their income grow significantly with salary caps and floors. Top end players likely get less growth in what they can earn until the league figures out a balance, but the floor will rise a ton.

I'm sure the MLBPA, which will always look out for the top end players, will TELL all the players that salary caps are bad for everyone, but that's a flat out lie. Just like in the real world, something that's bad for the elite but good for the rest of the population will get soapboxed down as evil.

[ashbury]

1 hour ago, Dave Borton said:

No, MiLB is not under the MLB CBA. It has its own CBA which runs through the 2027 season.

 

https://www.mlbplayers.com/_files/ugd/4d23dc_0a4c30c6387a4d8dbbf1707e7c4d6e2c.pdf

In that case it looks like Falvey's gearing up for contention in 2028 and beyond.

Problem is, they can't be alone in this POV.

[The Great Hambino]

15 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

A bit late checking back in on this, but every other pro sports league shows that the non-elite players will see their income grow significantly with salary caps and floors. Top end players likely get less growth in what they can earn until the league figures out a balance, but the floor will rise a ton.

I'm sure the MLBPA, which will always look out for the top end players, will TELL all the players that salary caps are bad for everyone, but that's a flat out lie. Just like in the real world, something that's bad for the elite but good for the rest of the population will get soapboxed down as evil.

In theory, yes.  A cap with a high floor benefits the rank and file at the expense of a few elites.  But if I'm the players, I'm not trusting that the owners at the bottom end of the spectrum will all of a sudden start investing in their teams if there's a cap in place.

I've yet to hear Manfred or anyone associated with the owners mention a salary floor, outside of the obscenely insulting $100MM floor they proposed in the last round of CBA talks.  The NFL and NBA have salary floors approaching 90% of the cap.  Their proposal was less than 50%

If I'm the players, I agree to a cap (most of the league is treating the luxury tax like a cap anyway, might as well make it official).  But I tell the owners that it must come with a similarly high floor.  With a high floor, higher minimum salaries and a shorter path to free agency are necessary.  Revenue sharing would have to be reformed to make that happen, but if I'm the players, I tell the owners to share revenue however they see fit as long as they meet the parameters of the cap and floor.  If the owners want the players to give in on a cap, then the Pirates of the world can no longer be allowed to act the way they do.  

[TheLeviathan]

Yeah....this isn't a good look for the players.  It makes Manfred look sympathetic and the majority of fans are going to want the owners to win on the salary cap and revenue sharing issues.  Harper being aggressively the opposite of that isn't going to play well.  

The league needs shared media revenues, a floor, a cap, rebuild the arbitration system, more money for minor league players, and probably a dozen other things.

I expect to miss a season of baseball and I expect that I will feel terrible in that I mostly will side with the owners if the players settle on "no to any proposal with a cap"

[nicksaviking]

22 minutes ago, The Great Hambino said:

In theory, yes.  A cap with a high floor benefits the rank and file at the expense of a few elites.  But if I'm the players, I'm not trusting that the owners at the bottom end of the spectrum will all of a sudden start investing in their teams if there's a cap in place.

I've yet to hear Manfred or anyone associated with the owners mention a salary floor, outside of the obscenely insulting $100MM floor they proposed in the last round of CBA talks.  The NFL and NBA have salary floors approaching 90% of the cap.  Their proposal was less than 50%

If I'm the players, I agree to a cap (most of the league is treating the luxury tax like a cap anyway, might as well make it official).  But I tell the owners that it must come with a similarly high floor.  With a high floor, higher minimum salaries and a shorter path to free agency are necessary.  Revenue sharing would have to be reformed to make that happen, but if I'm the players, I tell the owners to share revenue however they see fit as long as they meet the parameters of the cap and floor.  If the owners want the players to give in on a cap, then the Pirates of the world can no longer be allowed to act the way they do.  

Right, obviously there has to be a salary floor and one the lower half teams wouldn't typically come close to touching on their own. But certainly the owners aren't going to talk about it as that's an obvious concession they will have to make; they'll need the MLBPA to make that part of their demands. If the owners already acknowledge that as an obvious balance to the cap, they'd lose the leverage that comes with giving it up.

[The Great Hambino]

5 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

Right, obviously there has to be a salary floor and one the lower half teams wouldn't typically come close to touching on their own. But certainly the owners aren't going to talk about it as that's an obvious concession they will have to make; they'll need the MLBPA to make that part of their demands. If the owners already acknowledge that as an obvious balance to the cap, they'd lose the leverage that comes with giving it up.

I suppose that's true.  I guess I don't have much faith in the owners to a) bargain with the players in good faith, seeing how their commissioner is has been trying to subvert the players under the guise of outreach, and b) be able to come to an agreement on revenue sharing within their own ranks

It seems like Manfred has almost embraced a lockout as a negotiating tactic, but a protracted lockout in 2027 doesn't pair very well with shopping all your media contracts for a 2028 renewal.  I don't think media companies were super stoked about NHL TV rights coming out of their lost season.  Is Roku the new Outdoor Life Network?

[Squirrel]

4 hours ago, Dave Borton said:

No, MiLB is not under the MLB CBA. It has its own CBA which runs through the 2027 season.

 

https://www.mlbplayers.com/_files/ugd/4d23dc_0a4c30c6387a4d8dbbf1707e7c4d6e2c.pdf

But I think it affects all players in the 40-man whether or not they’ve seen any or little MLB?

[Dave Borton]

16 minutes ago, Squirrel said:

But I think it affects all players in the 40-man whether or not they’ve seen any or little MLB?

From the MiLB CBA:

"In making this Agreement, the Association represents that it contracts for and on behalf of all players employed by a Club and signed to a current Minor League Uniform Player Contract, but excluding players who (i) are members of the Association’s existing bargaining unit of Major League players (i.e., players on a 40-man roster of a Major League Club or on one of its Major League injured or other inactive lists)..."

[nicksaviking]

18 hours ago, The Great Hambino said:

I suppose that's true.  I guess I don't have much faith in the owners to a) bargain with the players in good faith, seeing how their commissioner is has been trying to subvert the players under the guise of outreach, and b) be able to come to an agreement on revenue sharing within their own ranks

It seems like Manfred has almost embraced a lockout as a negotiating tactic, but a protracted lockout in 2027 doesn't pair very well with shopping all your media contracts for a 2028 renewal.  I don't think media companies were super stoked about NHL TV rights coming out of their lost season.  Is Roku the new Outdoor Life Network?

For sure, there will be no good faith negotiations from the owners; I'm definitely not on their side. 

But the league isn't going to survive much longer without caps and floors so on this one issue, I'm with them. Even if their base reason for discussing it is to ultimately make them more money.

[tony&rodney]

Hard for me to see how anyone who is not a billionaire sides with the owners .... but still it happens. Harper knows that his signing bonus money that included an MLB contract was done away with in subsequent years. He also knows that his team, the Philadelphia Phillies, pay out handsome salaries to compete while also doing well financially at the same time as several franchises have low payrolls but turn losses. I'm going to guess that Harper is thinking of all players when he speaks down to Manfred. Full disclosure on my part - Manfred is a clown.

All that above aside and easily ignored completely (please do), what are the odds that the owners are going to adopt a 50% lowest to highest payroll much less a 90% figure? Fangraphs has the Marlins at $69M and the Dodgers at $396M. Uh, that means Miami pays about 17+% of the Los Angeles Dodgers. Meanwhile the Dodgers are locked into payrolls well above $200M for the next half decade and we could reasonably expect nothing less than $300M for their base. If one thinks 50% is doable this means about half of the franchises need to substantially increase their payroll.

MLB is a mess because they have operated with a group of owners who direct a commissioner to rule in the interest of a few with scant notice and no apparent interest in the long term health of the game much less any reasonable legacy. 

So the owners want a cap. Ok. What will that look like? The players counter with a minimum. What does that look like? 90%? Say the players go as low as 70%, which would be incredibly generous given the comparisons to other sports leagues. The Dodgers sit at $396M. This means that 26 clubs would currently be in violation of reaching 70% of the ceiling in payroll. 

Naturally, then, this comes back to revenue sharing in some form and what are the chances that MLB opens the books.  Ownership of a team is restricted to those accepted by the current owners. Just a reminder that Carl Pohlad was the only one of the 4 or 5 groups attempting to buy the Twins in 1984 that was accepted.  The only path forward without a lengthy strike is for honest revenue sharing, which then could mean both floors and ceilings. Does anyone else wonder how the owners will manage that conversation?

There was a relevant article published last January concerning this topic that you may have read. It is worth a read. Owners are very good at manipulating others and selling through many channels to the public.

Does the MLB Revenue-Sharing Model Require Adaptation?

By Jake McKibbin                                                     January 30