Lock out?

[PatG]

Will the players be locked out after the 2026 season and are the Pohlads getting ready for this?  I read on "some social media site" that the owners want a salary cap and will lock out the players till they get it.

 

[T.O.]

Hopefully someone with better info than me will answer but the current Collective Bargaining Agreement between the MLB and the players expires at the end of 2026. I don't know what actual inside info is out there and how much is supposition but the owners have wanted a salary cap for decades. The biggest attempt was 94-95 when they locked out the players. They were not successful. 
The general buzz is that a lockout is a certainty. If this is where things are going it's fairly certain the owners are getting together and  building a strategy. The Pohlads would certainly be a part of this. Since the Pohlads are salary averse I would think a salary cap would be less important to them but the owners may well try to implement other forms of salary control.
A lot of comments I have read here talk like a lockout wouldn't be all that long but I think solidarity would be tight on both sides and both sides would be unwilling to make concessions. 

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

[T.O.]

Up till now this is the only kind of Salary Cap we've seen.

[tony&rodney]

The usual nonsense talk preceding any talks. MLB has a ton of problems, specifically with managing media deals in various small to mid market clubs. A lock out would cause massive financial problems for too many teams.

A cap would need to be accompanied by a floor for each team. The clubs who are below $200M would never agree to a $150-200M floor. The Dodgers are already committed to $300M. Where does a cap begin? When MLB bailed out the Dodgers and gave them exemptions from sharing much of their media revenues, the genie escaped the bottle. 

A salary cap and floor conversation is a waste of time. MLB needs to get its house in order with media money, product promotion,  and resolve revenue sharing.

There are 2 MLB clubs below 40% in wins. Last season there were 5 teams in the NHL, 7 teams in the NBA, and 11 teams in the NFL that finished with records below a 40% win record. It can be hard to argue competitive disadvantage in MLB when the team with the best record is 23rd in payroll. 

MLB has problems but a cap and floor seems very unlikely and actually unnecessary. Developing and sharing all media monies seems much more important. 

[sampleSizeOfOne]

On 9/6/2025 at 10:42 AM, T.O. said:

Up till now this is the only kind of Salary Cap we've seen.

Is the celery actually swinging a stalk?

That is... part of him. Seems weird.

Trying to come up with something i can understand analogous to that...

 

Meh, who am i to imagine more than a year from now.

[Twins_Fan_in_NJ]

I could be wrong - I usually am - but I can't see any scenario that involves a salary cap and if the Pohlad's are banking on that - they're worse than I thought.

[Cory Engelhardt]

I'm hopeful there is a 2027, but I wouldn't bet on it being a full season by any means. Hopefully 2028 is a full season. I guess we'll see.

[Brock Beauchamp]

On 9/6/2025 at 9:05 AM, PatG said:

Will the players be locked out after the 2026 season and are the Pohlads getting ready for this?  I read on "some social media site" that the owners want a salary cap and will lock out the players till they get it.

The owners aren't going to get a salary cap unless they're ready to give up a loottttttt of concessions. Which, given the general bastard nature of baseball owners, likely won't happen. But I think the players would agree to a salary cap if the following criteria is met:

1. A salary floor accompanies the cap, and a high floor, like $130m.

2. Both the cap and floor are tied to revenue as a percentage, around 50%.

3. Young players either make a lot more money (such as arbitration after year one) or reach free agency earlier.

Do those things, and I think the players would accept a salary cap. The problem there is that the owners absolutely will not agree to those things, as the players make more money under that arrangement, probably a lot more.

[Irishman]

I am all for hard salary cap for MLB, but I know players and MLBPA wouldn’t accept a hard salary cap.    It is not fair for small market teams.   Salaries are out of control.   I blame on those fans who keep coming to stadiums.   
 

if the players don’t want any deal including a hard salary cap, then I’m done with the baseball.    These players are currently greed.   Agents are greedy, too.  
 

I wish them the good f**k luck.  I had a great memories to watch twins games in 1960-1990.   

[Mike Sixel]

5 minutes ago, Irishman said:

I am all for hard salary cap for MLB, but I know players and MLBPA wouldn’t accept a hard salary cap.    It is not fair for small market teams.   Salaries are out of control.   I blame on those fans who keep coming to stadiums.   
 

if the players don’t want any deal including a hard salary cap, then I’m done with the baseball.    These players are currently greed.   Agents are greedy, too.  
 

I wish them the good f**k luck.  I had a great memories to watch twins games in 1960-1990.   

So you'd rather the owners get all the money? Not the players?

[jctwins]

4 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

The owners aren't going to get a salary cap unless they're ready to give up a loottttttt of concessions. Which, given the general bastard nature of baseball owners, likely won't happen. But I think the players would agree to a salary cap if the following criteria is met:

1. A salary floor accompanies the cap, and a high floor, like $130m.

2. Both the cap and floor are tied to revenue as a percentage, around 50%.

3. Young players either make a lot more money (such as arbitration after year one) or reach free agency earlier.

Do those things, and I think the players would accept a salary cap. The problem there is that the owners absolutely will not agree to those things, as the players make more money under that arrangement, probably a lot more.

Re #2. Percentage of team revenue or league revenue, then distributed among the teams pro rata (either equal or maybe proportional)? Does that require or force disclosure of team revenues? No way some times bite on that.

[USAFChief]

MLB is the only major pro sport in the US without a salary cap system in place. 

It's long past time for one. It's the single best method to ensure league wide competitiveness.

Whatever it takes, get one in place. Make it firm, fair, and enforceable. Give a fair percentage of league wide revenue to the players.

Just implement it. Let the players revolt. They'll come crawling back in short order. 

[nicksaviking]

4 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

The owners aren't going to get a salary cap unless they're ready to give up a loottttttt of concessions. Which, given the general bastard nature of baseball owners, likely won't happen. But I think the players would agree to a salary cap if the following criteria is met:

1. A salary floor accompanies the cap, and a high floor, like $130m.

2. Both the cap and floor are tied to revenue as a percentage, around 50%.

3. Young players either make a lot more money (such as arbitration after year one) or reach free agency earlier.

Do those things, and I think the players would accept a salary cap. The problem there is that the owners absolutely will not agree to those things, as the players make more money under that arrangement, probably a lot more.

That won't work and the players won't and shouldn't go for it. Just like every other functional pro team, the cap and floor have to be within 10% of each other. But the owners know this is the only way it will work or get accepted, so I (possibly naively) have to think that the commissioner talking caps now, long before this possible lock out will happen, means they have come to terms with the NFL/NBA/NHL model.

The Yankees and Dodgers won't like it, but like what should have happened 30 years ago, there are enough middle and lower market teams to vote them down. Not that I think they'll have to because really, I think what the owners actually want is the expansion teams and the reported 2 Billion expansion fee per club. As much as they like to talk, they can't add two new markets that are smaller than the ones that are already crying poor. Not with the current media/revenue model. Raleigh? Salt Lake City? Those are AAA markets, the only reason they could possibly want them is because the league is drooling over the big, fat upfront payoff.

And a full revenue share of media rights isn't as big of a sacrifice as we'd think; it means way more to the small markets than the big ones. The last figures I see are that the Yankees made 143M from Yes Network in 2022, that's a lot, but only 20% of their overall revenue that year of 657M. So if there really will be 4B plus in expansion fee revenue, letting the big market teams take a bigger chunk of that pie in exchange for near-full media revenue sharing could offset some of that lost revenue, meanwhile despite their size, the newness of the expansion clubs are going to help buoy the overall media pool. 

 

[tony&rodney]

MLB has an exemption from the Sherman Anti Trust Act. If they do not negotiate in good faith as determined by an arbiter, it is very possible to lose that sweet little deal. I think this may be important. Some people may not think it important.

Those calling for a cap are up against some hard realities already built in to a few future contracts. What exactly (at least a range) do those in favor of a cap feel is a number worth discussion? Again, there will be disputes on this figure. Is $350M a cap to live with in MLB? Keep in mind the Dodgers have a CBT salary number of over $400M this current year. Is it $400M? $300M? Fourteen teams are over $200M using the CBT numbers this year (2025). 

No cap can even be discussed without a floor. What is the floor? Is it $150-200M?

Using the numbers and percentages of revenue sharing from NFL(complex but floor is 89% of cap ...),  NBA (complex but floor is 90% of cap), and even NHL (I think $65M floor and $88M cap for last year) leagues seems very unlikely in MLB.

For those who are fed up with people making crazy high salaries, I'm with you. Can our POTUS issue an executive order limiting all wealth/income? Does Carlos Correa make too much money? Sure, let there be a limit of $10M per year for anyone, salaries or investments, and so forth. I mean that is a s$*t ton of money. Right?  Yah, not happening. 

I understand some people think the owners will make a stand and that there will be a protracted strike. People will have firm thoughts on this matter which is naturally expected and fine. I do not expect anything other than a short delay that avoids those miserable April games where attendance is low. The owners are not going to open their books to public examination. Or is there a consensus that the MLB owners will make their books public? They will also not risk any further damage, which is already substantial, to their image and compromise media deals. There will be some changes but most will be minor in nature.

As far as competitiveness goes, this depends on how one views that term. Is it the ability to win games? What is it? Look at the records of NFL, NBA, NHL, and MLB teams and you will see that in terms of winning percentage, MLB is more competitive than the other leagues. I will grant that people have a different view on what is or is not competitive.

[tony&rodney]

40 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

ust like every other functional pro team, the cap and floor have to be within 10% of each other.

How do the Dodgers escape their 2026 contracted salary commitments of $260+M for 12 players, not including benefits? 

90% of $250M is $225M. How do the Marlins, Pirates, etc. reach that figure?

How do you get the MLB clubs to open their books? 

[nicksaviking]

8 minutes ago, tony&rodney said:

How do the Dodgers escape their 2026 contracted salary commitments of $260+M for 12 players, not including benefits? 

90% of $250M is $225M. How do the Marlins, Pirates, etc. reach that figure?

How do you get the MLB clubs to open their books? 

I'd imagine it would work similar to what happened in the NFL in 1994. Teams were forced to shed salaries and  some of those bigger contracts ended up on teams that previously wouldn't pay them. Not to mention the two new expansion teams looking to make an impact with big named players. Additionally, teams will finally be forced to pay young players accordingly. Maybe there's no more arbitration and pre-arb players.

Or they could have a grandfather clause which I believe the NBA had in 1984.

As for opening their books, the players are going to demand that regardless even if it's an arbiter who sees the numbers and not them. We're long past the days of the union taking the owners word about their earnings.

[tony&rodney]

3 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

So you'd rather the owners get all the money? Not the players?

There are 780 players on 30 MLB teams at any given time. These guys are the top in their profession globally. One could look at any number of industries and see that the average salaries for MLB players lags behind some others, say CEOs. 

In the United States there is not a ceiling on receiving money. Why anyone believes that MLB players should be accepting less is confusing. I'm all for a ceiling any type of compensation annually or in net worth for everyone for that matter if it makes the world a better place, but I also don't see that occurring. In fact in my lifetime the ratio of top to bottom pay has been stretched out to the max. At one point it was quite common to have a ratio of somewhere between 10-20% from lowest to highest pay in companies. Earn $10,000 at the bottom and the CEO or guy at the very top made $100,000-200,000. In 2025, if the guy at the bottom makes $50,000 (they don't), does the CEO or one at the top receive total compensation of $500K-$1M? Good luck finding a major Fortune 500 company where the CEO makes $500,000.

Why exactly should MLB players accept any deal that levels or reduces their incomes? They are already severely restricted in workplace options. Yes, MLB pay is a good gig but in consideration of their excellence they may be severely underpaid relative to other industries.

[tony&rodney]

2 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

I'd imagine it would work similar to what happened in the NFL in 1994. Teams were forced to shed salaries and  some of those bigger contracts ended up on teams that previously wouldn't pay them. Not to mention the two new expansion teams looking to make an impact with big named players. Additionally, teams will finally be forced to pay young players accordingly. Maybe there's no more arbitration and pre-arb players.

Or they could have a grandfather clause which I believe the NBA had in 1984.

As for opening their books, the players are going to demand that regardless even if it's an arbiter who sees the numbers and not them. We're long past the days of the union taking the owners word about their earnings.

These are complex ideas and discussions. I don't expect much change because the owners are doing just fine. If they were struggling, they would sell.

I also do not think that either the NFL or the NBA are useful comparisons because one (NFL) has far superior income and the other (NBA) has recently surpassed MLB in income and is growing at a rapid rate globally. The NBA is the rage on all inhabited continents. 

I haven't look much at the NHL, so perhaps their model might be worth an examination.

[nicksaviking]

17 minutes ago, tony&rodney said:

There are 780 players on 30 MLB teams at any given time. These guys are the top in their profession globally. One could look at any number of industries and see that the average salaries for MLB players lags behind some others, say CEOs. 

In the United States there is not a ceiling on receiving money. Why anyone believes that MLB players should be accepting less is confusing. I'm all for a ceiling any type of compensation annually or in net worth for everyone for that matter if it makes the world a better place, but I also don't see that occurring. In fact in my lifetime the ratio of top to bottom pay has been stretched out to the max. At one point it was quite common to have a ratio of somewhere between 10-20% from lowest to highest pay in companies. Earn $10,000 at the bottom and the CEO or guy at the very top made $100,000-200,000. In 2025, if the guy at the bottom makes $50,000 (they don't), does the CEO or one at the top receive total compensation of $500K-$1M? Good luck finding a major Fortune 500 company where the CEO makes $500,000.

Why exactly should MLB players accept any deal that levels or reduces their incomes? They are already severely restricted in workplace options. Yes, MLB pay is a good gig but in consideration of their excellence they may be severely underpaid relative to other industries.

Because there's only a handful of 'CEO' players and the vast majority are at or near your bottom tier? Yeah Bryce Harper won't like it, tough luck because there are 10x more Kody Clemons who would see their pay increase exponentially. 

If you took a poll at the workplaces of those Fortune 500 companies and asked if the workers would be in favor of limiting CEO raises so there was more money for everyone else, it would overwhelmingly pass in favor of the working class. At those companies the worker bees get no vote, with the MLBPA, they all should, even if I suspect those with the most money try to silence them.

[nicksaviking]

2 minutes ago, tony&rodney said:

These are complex ideas and discussions. I don't expect much change because the owners are doing just fine. If they were struggling, they would sell.

I also do not think that either the NFL or the NBA are useful comparisons because one (NFL) has far superior income and the other (NBA) has recently surpassed MLB in income and is growing at a rapid rate globally. The NBA is the rage on all inhabited continents. 

I haven't look much at the NHL, so perhaps their model might be worth an examination.

The owners are doing fine and can sell if they'd like? You have been following our latest ownership saga I presume? I'd be happy to be in their position, but I'm quiet sure that many are not seeing the ROI and appreciation they were used to.

And yeah, the NBA has passed MLB in every meaningful demographic, which certainly has to at least be raising the alarm bells of any owner that does want to see the league continue. I admit there may be no such owner; I suspect plenty only care about immediate profits over long term health. But I also believe there are angles to this immediate profit that may spur change in favor of a competitive equality.

[tony&rodney]

1 minute ago, nicksaviking said:

Because there's only a handful of 'CEO' players and the vast majority are at or near your bottom tier? Yeah Bryce Harper won't like it, tough luck because there are 10x more Kody Clemons who would see their pay increase exponentially. 

If you took a poll at the workplaces of those Fortune 500 companies and asked if the workers would be in favor of limiting CEO raises so there was more money for everyone else, it would overwhelmingly pass in favor of the working class.

Agree with the second paragraph. 

I understand the massive separation between the top and bottom of MLB players, but remember that hundreds of teams full of players exist all over the world. Only the very best are on MLB teams. There are nearly 3,000 billionaires and the talent in that pool is pretty inbred. I'm not thinking MLB players are underpaid at all and the MLBPA should be fighting for more rights for their middle and bottom members, but I'm also not seeing any decrease in salaries happening. Neither do I expect ownership to open their books. They will growl and grumble and a few items will change with the status quo more or less preserved. It is the consummate good old boy's club.

[USAFChief]

12 minutes ago, tony&rodney said:

 

I also do not think that either the NFL or the NBA are useful comparisons because one (NFL) has far superior income and the other (NBA) has recently surpassed MLB in income and is growing at a rapid rate globally. The NBA is the rage on all inhabited continents. 

 

Or maybe one reason both leagues have left MLB in the dust is because they have sensible salary caps that allow for competition. 

 

Your "40% W/L" comparison is a bad one, BTW, due to the nature of baseball. 162 games, all low scoring. Relatively small advantages, smoothed over by a six months play every day schedule. 

Money wins in baseball. The Yankees have zero losing seasons since 1992. The Dodgers two losing seasons since 1998, and have had winning percentages over .600 in 7 of the last 9 seasons, assuming they don't this year. On and on. Payroll wins.

That's got to change. Teams should win or lose based on factors other than money. 

[tony&rodney]

3 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

You have been following our latest ownership saga I presume?

I was never too convinced that the Pohlad family was selling. There are likely some cracks in agreements within the family but they all have plenty of dough to pass around still. From my seat the Twins do not have the profit forward possibilities of the Tampa Bay franchise. I know nothing about the inner discussions or interest in the Twins but I suspect the offers were a straight $1.5B, take it or leave it. We have seen how accomplished the current generation of Pohlads are in business. They decided to wait. We will know in a few years how this shakes out. I really only care about the baseball.

[tony&rodney]

3 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

Or maybe one reason both leagues have left MLB in the dust is because they have sensible salary caps that allow for competition. 

 

Your "40% W/L" comparison is a bad one, BTW, due to the nature of baseball. 162 games, all low scoring. Relatively small advantages, smoothed over by a six months play every day schedule. 

Money wins in baseball. The Yankees have zero losing seasons since 1992. The Dodgers two losing seasons since 1998, and have had winning percentages over .600 in 7 of the last 9 seasons, assuming they don't this year. On and on. Payroll wins.

That's got to change. Teams should win or lose based on factors other than money. 

I do not understand your take on competitive. You will need to define competitive. It doesn't work to demean one thought if you don't have another to replace it. I'm not firm on my definition and the 40% win margin just stands out. I can accept a better definition easily.  I have also stated repeatedly in posts that I do not believe that there are very clean comparisons to make across MLB, NFL, NBA, and NHL. I see more blowouts when I look over scores (which I don't often do because I really only follow baseball) in NFL or NBA games. 

Money is the only important thing in our culture, not by any of our personal choices but rather by the collective whole of how the country proceeds. If you can devise a system where money doesn't win, I'm all in and will join you.

Lastly, while money does rule, there are numerous factors in baseball which lead to winning. The Milwaukee Brewers have the best record in baseball and have been in the playoffs numerous times in the last decade. They are accomplished at scouting, developing, and coaching. These are not expensive parts to an organization. The Yankees have loads of money but likewise, with very little cost, they scout, develop, and coach. 

MLB does need to take a look at how they can increase revenue in general and revenue sharing specifically. Controlling players choices of where to work, their career timelines, and salaries is not a starting point. There are zero ways to break the MLBPA. There will be an agreement precisely because all make money, but we might not like it.

[SteveLV]

The biggest step is true financial transparency from ALL the owners.  Lay all the money cards on the table.

Then agree on a fair split, at least 50-50.

Then put together a package that puts more money in the Players' pockets at an earlier stage of their careers, including in the minors.

Then negotiate a hard cap and hard floor that accommodates those figures with earlier free agency eligibility.

Bottom line:  More players in the bottom 80% get more money, earlier.  Big markets take a haircut, but mid and lower market teams MUST pump the shared revenue back into their teams instead of pocketing it.

If 80% of the players make more money, you will get the votes to overcome the top 5% that rake in too much money proportionately, along with their agents.

Tough sell will be the big market owners, but this is where a strong Commissioner is needed to ramrod this type of agreement to save the frickin' League. One selling point is that expansion franchises under this new system would be worth a King's Ransom.

It will never happen.

But I can dream of MLB that is fair and balanced like the NFL.

[The Great Hambino]

48 minutes ago, tony&rodney said:

MLB has an exemption from the Sherman Anti Trust Act. If they do not negotiate in good faith as determined by an arbiter, it is very possible to lose that sweet little deal. I think this may be important. Some people may not think it important.

Those calling for a cap are up against some hard realities already built in to a few future contracts. What exactly (at least a range) do those in favor of a cap feel is a number worth discussion? Again, there will be disputes on this figure. Is $350M a cap to live with in MLB? Keep in mind the Dodgers have a CBT salary number of over $400M this current year. Is it $400M? $300M? Fourteen teams are over $200M using the CBT numbers this year (2025). 

No cap can even be discussed without a floor. What is the floor? Is it $150-200M?

Using the numbers and percentages of revenue sharing from NFL(complex but floor is 89% of cap ...),  NBA (complex but floor is 90% of cap), and even NHL (I think $65M floor and $88M cap for last year) leagues seems very unlikely in MLB.

For those who are fed up with people making crazy high salaries, I'm with you. Can our POTUS issue an executive order limiting all wealth/income? Does Carlos Correa make too much money? Sure, let there be a limit of $10M per year for anyone, salaries or investments, and so forth. I mean that is a s$*t ton of money. Right?  Yah, not happening. 

I understand some people think the owners will make a stand and that there will be a protracted strike. People will have firm thoughts on this matter which is naturally expected and fine. I do not expect anything other than a short delay that avoids those miserable April games where attendance is low. The owners are not going to open their books to public examination. Or is there a consensus that the MLB owners will make their books public? They will also not risk any further damage, which is already substantial, to their image and compromise media deals. There will be some changes but most will be minor in nature.

As far as competitiveness goes, this depends on how one views that term. Is it the ability to win games? What is it? Look at the records of NFL, NBA, NHL, and MLB teams and you will see that in terms of winning percentage, MLB is more competitive than the other leagues. I will grant that people have a different view on what is or is not competitive.

The more I've thought about this, the more I think we're headed towards a soft cap of some sort.

The players will not allow for a hard cap.  From the players perspective, all a hard cap will do is take away spending power from the teams willing to spend.  The owners have proven through their actions that this will not be made up by the teams that have previously been unwilling to spend, and no amount of revenue sharing will change that.  Ultimately it's just straight up salary suppression without a mechanism to make them spend  And if the owners are actually stupid enough to try to impose one unilaterally, then they'll get destroyed in court, just like they did in 1995.  That precedent has been set.  That is not an option.

The only thing that will force them to actually reinvest in salaries would be a hard floor as outlined above by t&r.  And that's where I doubt the owners will be able to get on board.  The leaches at the bottom of the revenue ladder aren't going to want to give up their guaranteed profits and actually have to try to compete, while those at the top probably won't be willing to share as much as would be required to make it work.  If they can't come to an internal agreement, they certainly won't be able to come to an agreement with the players.  They won't learn the lesson from other sports that a robust national product lifts all boats.  That even though small markets like Kansas City and San Antonio were able to build dynasties, that didn't prevent the Giants and Lakers from hitting $10 billion-with-a-B franchise valuations. The owners also should expect to give up some major concessions regarding minimum salaries and service time and other things if they want to win something as paradigm-shifting as a hard cap, and ultimately it just seems like too much for them to get a consensus on what to give up in order to get it.

So what will keep this from being a long, drawn-out stoppage?  The impending expiration of all media deals after 2028.  These deals will be getting brought to market in 2027, and doing so during a work stoppage would be catastrophic for everyone.  Just ask the NHL.  As a result, they will find a soft cap (and a lower floor) to be a livable compromise.  Both sides will have gained something in that the owners will have trojan-horsed a cap structure of some kind as a basis for future negotiations while the players can claim they once again avoided a hard cap, on top of whatever other concessions they get (if the owners get a cap of any kind, then every other bargaining point will surely be moving in the players' favor).

This is not to say that I want a soft cap, or that I think it's the best solution.  There's no reason an NFL-style hard floor/cap can't work in a vacuum.  The tricky part is how to implement it with guaranteed contracts and structures already in place.  If they got creative they could find a way to phase it in over several years - say starting with a harsh luxury tax that transitions to a soft cap and eventually the hard cap.  Maybe there's some sort of two-tiered system for the few teams that actually have their own successful RSN.  Maybe that's the trade-off for licensing their RSNs for use in Manfred's dream of an all-encompassing broadcasting platform.

If I'm the players, I make it be known that they will listen on a hard cap IF AND ONLY IF the owners open their books and allow the help of a third party to determine the revenue figures caps and floors will be pegged to.  Call the owners' bluff.  Are they willing to do their least favorite thing in order to get their favorite thing?

 

[SteveLV]

As far as existing contracts are concerned and how to handle those if a cap is negotiated, there are lots of creative ways to make that work.  I would not think this would be a meaningful impediment to the overall negotiation.  Grandfathered in, single one-time exemption, limited number of one-time exemptions, etc.

And the deferred contracts being handed out by the Dodgers?  Just monetize those to present value to account for them under the new structure.

[Major League Ready]

1 hour ago, tony&rodney said:

There are 780 players on 30 MLB teams at any given time. These guys are the top in their profession globally. One could look at any number of industries and see that the average salaries for MLB players lags behind some others, say CEOs. 

 

Two-thirds of the MLB teams generate less than $400M.  The 500th ranked company in the fortune 500 generates $7.4B.  Put another way, the 500th ranked business generates 10-X the revenue of the highest revenue team and 20X the average.  The 200th ranked company generate $21B which is alost double all the teams combined.  I don't think we can compare the responsibility associated with the CEO of a $7B or 21B or $50B company to a baseball player.  The most important person in a $400M company probably makes $1M so the $30M annual salaries even for teams that generate $600M is an extremely high percentage of total revenue.  Professional athletes good enough to stick on a roster have the greatest gig on earth.

I don't know how the solve the floor/ceiling equation given the massive difference in revenue.  The bottom teams simply can't make a profit at $150M payroll.  That would render those franchises to have virtually no value or arguably no value.  Even if it was a $150M, what would the players accept as a ceiling?  there is no way they can get it to a 10% difference as has been suggested.  I doubt if they could get it to 50% meaning something like 300/150.   Any floor that would allow for a floor/ceiling difference that would make a difference.  It will be interesting to see what they do.   The most feasible to me is to redistribute revenue sharing based in greater part to spending on payroll.

[Irishman]

Regardless of win-loss records Pohlad family may never sell team and make money.  Pohlad does not care about winning or losing seasons. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

18 hours ago, nicksaviking said:

That won't work and the players won't and shouldn't go for it. Just like every other functional pro team, the cap and floor have to be within 10% of each other. But the owners know this is the only way it will work or get accepted, so I (possibly naively) have to think that the commissioner talking caps now, long before this possible lock out will happen, means they have come to terms with the NFL/NBA/NHL model.

The Yankees and Dodgers won't like it, but like what should have happened 30 years ago, there are enough middle and lower market teams to vote them down. Not that I think they'll have to because really, I think what the owners actually want is the expansion teams and the reported 2 Billion expansion fee per club. As much as they like to talk, they can't add two new markets that are smaller than the ones that are already crying poor. Not with the current media/revenue model. Raleigh? Salt Lake City? Those are AAA markets, the only reason they could possibly want them is because the league is drooling over the big, fat upfront payoff.

And a full revenue share of media rights isn't as big of a sacrifice as we'd think; it means way more to the small markets than the big ones. The last figures I see are that the Yankees made 143M from Yes Network in 2022, that's a lot, but only 20% of their overall revenue that year of 657M. So if there really will be 4B plus in expansion fee revenue, letting the big market teams take a bigger chunk of that pie in exchange for near-full media revenue sharing could offset some of that lost revenue, meanwhile despite their size, the newness of the expansion clubs are going to help buoy the overall media pool. 

 

The absolute best solution is more equitable revenue sharing, yes. 100% agreement. I don't think it needs to be entirely fair, I'm fine if the Dodgers and Yankees get more. They're more popular, it's better for the sport if they have a leg up on others.

But things are dire when the Dodgers are getting $250m from television and the Padres are literally getting around $15m. They play in the same division. That's untenable.