MLBPA proposal thoughts?

[Trov]

First, I am not a fan of the owners and players using the media to release what they are proposing.  They both are trying to win the fight in the public eye, and really I doubt any fans care because they are fighting over amounts of money very few fans will ever see or can even think about.  It is also the fans money that is being fought over.  Personally, I wish there was a vast reduction in player's pay and a cap on what owners can take in as revenue and let the cost of attending games drop and all other costs, but that will not happen.  All that being said, Yesterday MLBPA sent their proposal for new CBA.  

The proposal highlights are this: Doubling the minimum salary for players on 40 man rosters; Shifting revenue sharing from increase in media sharing but decrease in ballpark revenue sharing; creating a tax on low spending teams(essentially a soft salary floor); increasing the cut off of the tax so big spending teams can spend more; getting rid of the qualifying offer, but still awarding comp picks for losing players in FA, or awarding teams for signing players in FA to large contracts; making players FA at age 30 with at least 5 years service time, but allowing a qualifying offer for a 6th year, of which then would be an arbitration year if player rejected the qualifying offer; Taking away any penalties for going over the tax level, other than the financial tax, right now teams will lose draft picks; Increase in bonus for pre-arbitration players that get awards; Increasing the super 2 pool of players; 

I mainly wanted to comment on how I feel this would help create a more balanced and competitive league.  Also, I am a fan of home grown players staying with their teams for most of their careers.  Does this proposal help meet those two things? For the second part it could help that, as the "floor" would cause teams to have to spend and they may spend it all on that home grown talent.  Also, there is incentive of signing a big contract for a player. 

Keeping the competition close though does not seem to be met.  First, they would raise the tax and have the floor half of the tax.  At first look that would say sure now teams will spend more and keep their FA or go out and try to get them.  However, the problem of a couple of teams spending crazy compared to other teams would not be fixed.  This would still make the top few players get the crazy high deals across the top 6 teams or so, and the mid and low market teams would be forced to spend more on the second tier guys, similar to how it already is. 

Really all this does is increase how much money teams spend on players, but does not cap how it is spent.  The top players will still earn crazy more than the second tier and the bottom tiers will earn more, but still relative to the rest will be much less.  Being my goal is to have parity in the league and keeping home grown players, I personally think something like the NBA soft cap, with restrictions of bring in players after you cross that cap would be better.  It could not be exactly like the NBA, but without restricting the top teams from just signing the top FA every year and trading for and signing all the top guys to long term deals, because other than loss of money, there is nothing to stop them from doing it you have no risk of getting it wrong.  Mid and small market teams have much larger risk of getting a big signing wrong as it may prevent you from signing someone else because you spent your money on a different player, you have to choose more wisely.  Big markets if they get one wrong, you trade them and pay for them to play else where, DFA them, or some other options and just replace with next one. 

Personally, without a soft cap of some kind, there will never be parity in the league.  I am not pro owners and them keeping money, I am pro parity.  I am all for the players getting paid fair share, but without a way to stop big market teams from taking all the top players the parity issue will never be fixed. 

[The Great Hambino]

I'm not sure how this is all gonna shake out.  But "competitive integrity tax" is a great name for the reverse-luxury tax the players have proposed on teams spending below the minimum threshold

[nicksaviking]

The owners have come out with their initial proposal, 240M cap but also a 170M floor. And 50/50 revenue split.

As anti-owner as I am, that has me encouraged. I thought the owners would go for a floor but make the MLBPA ask for it as a concession. And a 70M gap between floor and ceiling certainly make things more competitive.

 

[NYCTK]

22 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

The owners have come out with their initial proposal, 240M cap but also a 170M floor. And 50/50 revenue split.

As anti-owner as I am, that has me encouraged. I thought the owners would go for a floor but make the MLBPA ask for it as a concession. And a 70M gap between floor and ceiling certainly make things more competitive.

 

Worth reminding everyone that isn't a payroll floor and ceiling. That includes player benefits which are around $20 million. 

The owners proposed a salary cap of $225 and floor of $150 million. 

The players will reject a hard cap anyways, but the owners offer is presented in a way to propagandize the fans into backing them. 

Never trust a billionaire. 

[The Great Hambino]

These are initial offers.  They were never going to be something taken seriously by the opposing party.  This feels more and more like we're headed to something that blurs the lines between a luxury tax and a soft cap.   You could argue that a luxury tax is a form of a lenient soft cap anyway.

The owners will get some sort of formalized cost control in place and increased revenue sharing

The players will still get to say they didn't agree to a true cap and I'd imagine they'll get some meaningful concessions along the way - higher minimum salaries, quicker path to free agency, the effective removal of Marlins-style penny-pinching, etc.  

And neither side ultimately wants to sabotage the upcoming media rights deals.  Lower stakes obviously, but the same reasoning that kept the Americans and Soviets from nuking each other during the cold war

I wouldn't put money on it (never underestimate the greed of the rich and powerful), but I think we're playing regular season games by May next year with perhaps a 140-game season, at worst

[Trov]

4 hours ago, NYCTK said:

Worth reminding everyone that isn't a payroll floor and ceiling. That includes player benefits which are around $20 million. 

The owners proposed a salary cap of $225 and floor of $150 million. 

The players will reject a hard cap anyways, but the owners offer is presented in a way to propagandize the fans into backing them. 

Never trust a billionaire. 

As my original post highlighted, the fans should not care who had the better proposal, I do not care how the billions of dollars get split up, I want competitive baseball and not seeing all the top FA going to dodgers, yankees, mets, with a few exceptions of other bigger market teams, and the few splashes of mid-market teams.

Both sides are trying to "win" in the fans eyes, but the fans should not care how the money is split up in my opinion.  

[Trov]

41 minutes ago, The Great Hambino said:

These are initial offers.  They were never going to be something taken seriously by the opposing party.  This feels more and more like we're headed to something that blurs the lines between a luxury tax and a soft cap.   You could argue that a luxury tax is a form of a lenient soft cap anyway.

The owners will get some sort of formalized cost control in place and increased revenue sharing

The players will still get to say they didn't agree to a true cap and I'd imagine they'll get some meaningful concessions along the way - higher minimum salaries, quicker path to free agency, the effective removal of Marlins-style penny-pinching, etc.  

And neither side ultimately wants to sabotage the upcoming media rights deals.  Lower stakes obviously, but the same reasoning that kept the Americans and Soviets from nuking each other during the cold war

I wouldn't put money on it (never underestimate the greed of the rich and powerful), but I think we're playing regular season games by May next year with perhaps a 140-game season, at worst

When I saw the owners proposal and the players I thought similar no way will we see a full season next year.  The two are going to play the long game of chicken and see who swerves first.  The players will never just agree to a hard cap, and I doubt the owners will hold that strong on that either.  I think if a cap will be done, it will be a soft cap.  I would agree luxury tax is similar to that, but a soft cap and put rules in teams over it signing FA or trading for MLB rostered players and what they are making type of thing. 

It appears a floor will come into play.  The players will try to hold strong on the cap situation and push for that floor.  The owners if they want the cap, they will need to make concessions elsewhere.  The biggest area I think they could push the younger players to agree to a soft cap would be with agreement of earlier FA.  I would propose 5 years of service time, or 29 at conclusion of season or by start of the next season.  This will make it that they get to cash in a little bit sooner, and reduce chance of service time manipulation because they would be free agent at 29 no matter years of service.  The problem with the floor by itself is that money will be less likely to get spread out to the mid-tier players, but teams will just look to spend more on star player, and continue to use the youth to out work their earnings.  Even if you raise the minimum the dynamic will still remain the same. 

[NYCTK]

8 minutes ago, Trov said:

I want competitive baseball

We have competitive baseball. 

8 minutes ago, Trov said:

and not seeing all the top FA going to dodgers, yankees, mets,

Owners need to increase their revenue sharing which is solely an ownership battle, and then players do need to agree to greater luxury tax penalties. 

A Salary Cap is not needed for this. 

 

[Trov]

On 5/29/2026 at 12:33 PM, NYCTK said:

We have competitive baseball. 

Owners need to increase their revenue sharing which is solely an ownership battle, and then players do need to agree to greater luxury tax penalties. 

A Salary Cap is not needed for this. 

 

A luxury tax is essentially a soft cap without player movement restrictions.  If the players agree to a larger tax penalty, which they do not want, because they argue the same that a luxury tax is a soft cap.  They want even want to make it easier for teams to break the luxury tax by only making it a money thing, not any other penalty.  

Would increased  revenue sharing fix the issue?  I doubt it.  Unless you greatly overhaul how players reaching FA are managed right now.  The problem is if a mid or small market team makes a splash in FA and signs a big time deal, if that player gets hurt, or plays well below expectations, not rare for a player in mid-30's then you are stuck because you cannot go out and cut them paying them a ton to not play and pay a high money replacement.  The big market teams can when there is no restriction on player movements by going over the luxury tax.  

The only difference between a soft cap and luxury tax is what team penalties beyond money out the door is there.  Like in the NBA they have a soft cap with tax aprons that as you go too high above you are restricted on what FA you can sign, and what trades you can do.  Before that, you had teams willing to pay tons of money going over the tax.  Right now in MLB you have teams deferring tons of money on some contracts or signing players to super long deals to manipulate the tax level as well.  They know some of the players will not be playing until they are 43 years old, but they signed the deal paying them until then to save money now, knowing it will be worth less later. 

[NYCTK]

5 hours ago, Trov said:

Right now in MLB you have teams deferring tons of money on some contracts or signing players to super long deals to manipulate the tax level as well. 

Just because fans don't understand deferrals doesn't mean it's manipulation. Even though Ohtani is only making $2 Million this year, the Dodgers are getting taxed as though he is getting paid $44 Million. Deferrals are the least important issue in this CBA. 

5 hours ago, Trov said:

The problem is if a mid or small market team makes a splash in FA and signs a big time deal, if that player gets hurt, or plays well below expectations, not rare for a player in mid-30's then you are stuck because you cannot go out and cut them paying them a ton to not play and pay a high money replacement.  The big market teams can when there is no restriction on player movements by going over the luxury tax.  

They could, with greater revenue sharing. 

A salary cap is not necessary to fix the things people think needs fixing. And, most importantly, the players will not agree to a hard cap. 

[USAFChief]

On 5/29/2026 at 12:33 PM, NYCTK said:

We have competitive baseball. 

Owners need to increase their revenue sharing which is solely an ownership battle, and then players do need to agree to greater luxury tax penalties. 

A Salary Cap is not needed for this. 

 

So ridiculously wrong. 

[USAFChief]

The owners proposal is incredibly fair and addresses most MLB issues.

MLBPA proposal is ridiculous and does nothing to address those issues.

I hope MLB installs ownership's proposal. 80 or 90 percent of MLB players will be better off and I bet every professional baseball player outside the top 5-10 percent agree with me. 

Just install the system, go with AAA players to start the season,  and the MLBPA will cave within a month. 

Everyone will be better off, except a couple franchises and a handful of players.

Us fans certainly will be.

[NYCTK]

3 hours ago, USAFChief said:

The owners proposal is incredibly fair and addresses most MLB issues.

The dodgers, and mets, spending willy nilly is an issue and do think it needs attention. But I wouldn't consider proposing a salary cap fair at all. 

Nor do the players considering they have been very vocal about the fact they will not accept one. So, ask yourself how fair you'd feel an offer was when it included one provision you have been unwavering about. 

3 hours ago, USAFChief said:

MLBPA proposal is ridiculous and does nothing to address those issues.

Well, the players proposed a soft floor to go along with the already existing soft cap, so I don't agree that this doesn't address the issue you're most concerned with. You can say it's not good enough but it's, by any measure, a more good faith offer than the owners. 

3 hours ago, USAFChief said:

I hope MLB installs ownership's proposal. 80 or 90 percent of MLB players will be better off and I bet every professional baseball player outside the top 5-10 percent agree with me. 

There's quite literally no evidence of that. You're just saying **** because you want a hard salary cap. 

The fact is only the players proposed a pay increase for the half of the league on minimum contracts. And in existing salary cap leagues we often see the stars still get paid and the middle tier players get squeezed. The 90% you insist want a salary cap elect their union reps and the union is steadfast in their refusal to accept that restriction on their earnings. 

Like I said, I've tried to do my own research and seen it line up with other people's research that the players currently make about 52% of revenue in pay and benefits, meaning the owners offer is quite literally a pay cut. And, importantly, the escrow means their salaries are no longer guaranteed. If the owners start cheating revenue somehow, as we've seen often in Hollywood, the players would be cheated as well. 

3 hours ago, USAFChief said:

Just install the system, go with AAA players to start the season,  and the MLBPA will cave within a month. 

Everyone will be better off, except a couple franchises and a handful of players.

Us fans certainly will be.

I will fight for a socialist structure of MLB when we have public ownership of the teams. In reality, the billionaire welfare queens beg for our money all the time and then turn around and create propaganda campaigns to convince the fans that the players are the ones being greedy. 

That **** don't work on me. 

Since both my teams suck this year I'm becoming an annoying champion of the proletariat, knocking down ownership talking points whenever I see them. 

[TheLeviathan]

https://www-2.rotman.utoronto.ca/insightshub/finance-investing-accounting/salary-cap

The MLBPA is trying to be portrayed as the good guys is just silliness to me.  The owners are billionaires and they suck terribly...they will get no defense from me.  CBA negotiations are are not heroes vs. villains, it's villains vs. villains.  The owner's proposal should be a reasonable starting point, so much so I had to read it a couple times just to make sure it was legit.  The MLBPA as a white-cloak hero we all need?  Consider:

Your boss comes to you with two proposals at your work where 25 people make on average 70k a year.  Proposal one calls for 2k raises and the possibility that 1 person in your office building could get to 1 million and possibly more since there won't be a cap.  It'll only be one of you and the rest get small raises, but the one person who gets 1 million might be you!

Proposal two says that the new floor for all salaries will be 120k, guaranteeing raises for basically everyone but they're going to cap salaries at 200k to help make that happen. They also guarantee that these wages can increase because they will now be tied to profits.

It's obvious to me which one of those is the "right" call.  The loudmouth 1 million dollar folks (played in real life by Bryce "I can't brush my teeth right" Harper) are leading the charge to reject proposal two and sucker their coworkers into agreeing.  It's ALSO wrong.  Just as the billionaires have a dumptruck full of wrongs.

The MLBPA loves to argue that somehow having no cap on the possible salaries lifts all boats, but it really doesn't.  It lifts the boat of the elites, but not of your fairly solid, 30 something player.  It offers no change to the 6 years of indentured servitude that exists as a trade off for no cap. If you don't believe me, by all means go through this list and find out how many guys actually "cashed in".  Now look at the recent NFL and NHL free agencies.  Plenty of mid tier dudes getting absolutely paid.

As the article above says: No cap means that many teams simply don't try because they can't offer Shohei that contract.  Meanwhile, bidding wars happen in the NFL, NHL, and NBA because everyone from Tampa to New York are playing on an equal playing field.  The cap, combined with revenue sharing, a floor, and a necessary 50/50 split with players, will raise the pay of many major leaguers.  Even in a cap world there will be players who get huge raises (see: Kaprizov, Myles Garrett, Jaylen Brown, etc) but the mid and lower tier players will reap the rewards.  I'm here for those guys.

[NYCTK]

10 hours ago, TheLeviathan said:

Proposal one calls for 2k raises and the possibility that 1 person in your office building could get to 1 million and possibly more

Except proposal one calls for doubling your pay. 

10 hours ago, TheLeviathan said:

Proposal two says that the new floor for all salaries will be 120k, guaranteeing raises for basically everyone but they're going to cap salaries at 200k to help make that happen. They also guarantee that these wages can increase because they will now be tied to profits.

And proposal two did nothing explicitly for the half of the workforce, and importantly while if the company does well you can get a bonus, if the company does poorly you're getting your pay docked. 

10 hours ago, TheLeviathan said:

It's obvious to me which one of those is the "right" call.

Sure, when you make crap up it's very easy. 

10 hours ago, TheLeviathan said:

The loudmouth 1 million dollar folks (played in real life by Bryce "I can't brush my teeth right" Harper) are leading the charge to reject proposal two and sucker their coworkers into agreeing.

Sure seems like you're coming at this truly neutral! And importantly those loudmouths as you call them make up only a small percentage of the union voting body. The union are against it, not because they're stupid. 

10 hours ago, TheLeviathan said:

It offers no change to the 6 years of indentured servitude that exists as a trade off for no cap.

Fair, and fans of the Twins should realize a salary cap means players would be able to leave after 3 seasons instead of 6. Does that really help the Twins compete? 

10 hours ago, TheLeviathan said:

As the article above says:

The theory of more teams bidding, pushing up contracts was an interesting one, but the article was incredibly shallow with no actual analysis. A line graph showing team payrolls going up is not exactly noteworthy or convincing. 

 

10 hours ago, TheLeviathan said:

I'm here for those guys.

You can convince yourself of that, but ask yourself WHY the players should give up their greatest bargaining chip. Because Bob Nutting sucks, and therefore the players should agree to help him out? 

The owners will continue to cry about how it's necessary and then you look around the league and realize the issues are entirely the owner's own doing. Greater revenue sharing is entirely an owner issue. 

But like billionaires do, they'll cry through about how they need help, demanding socialism for them and their investments, while simultaneously working behind the scenes to screw everyone over. Spending millions to make sure the little guy is hurt if they think they can make millions +$1.

 

[TheLeviathan]

2 hours ago, NYCTK said:

Except proposal one calls for doubling your pay. 

And proposal two did nothing explicitly for the half of the workforce, and importantly while if the company does well you can get a bonus, if the company does poorly you're getting your pay docked. 

Sure, when you make crap up it's very easy. 

Sure seems like you're coming at this truly neutral! And importantly those loudmouths as you call them make up only a small percentage of the union voting body. The union are against it, not because they're stupid. 

Fair, and fans of the Twins should realize a salary cap means players would be able to leave after 3 seasons instead of 6. Does that really help the Twins compete? 

The theory of more teams bidding, pushing up contracts was an interesting one, but the article was incredibly shallow with no actual analysis. A line graph showing team payrolls going up is not exactly noteworthy or convincing. 

 

You can convince yourself of that, but ask yourself WHY the players should give up their greatest bargaining chip. Because Bob Nutting sucks, and therefore the players should agree to help him out? 

The owners will continue to cry about how it's necessary and then you look around the league and realize the issues are entirely the owner's own doing. Greater revenue sharing is entirely an owner issue. 

But like billionaires do, they'll cry through about how they need help, demanding socialism for them and their investments, while simultaneously working behind the scenes to screw everyone over. Spending millions to make sure the little guy is hurt if they think they can make millions +$1.

 

We can have a separate debate about the owners asking for taxpayer money and the other socialized costs we absorb for their profits.  I am 100% for tearing them out of those nests.  You're letting your feelings about billionaires blind you to the CBA issues.  Unless I missed something, the CBA isn't going to touch any of that.  So long as it isn't, every time you include t in your argument it is fallacious and pointless.  Read that again if it helps you focus.

The player side of the CBA is a microcosm of a problem we have in our politics where regular people regularly vote against their own self interests.  The Bryce Harpers of the world are your JD Vances of the CBA.  They got elevated and now they use that elevated status to pull others in their direction knowing full well that a cap does nothing for everyday folks. Harper, like Vance, isn't in the billionaire club, he's just a useful tool.  He profits greatly being the pied piper to convince regular people to vote against their self interests.  He knows full well most guys aren't getting paid.  It won't "trickle down" to the guy with a .700 OPS and good defense. It does nothing for minor leaguers.  It actively harms dudes like Paul Skenes.  In the NHL, a guy like Paul Skenes is about to look at a MASSIVE payday on a short 4-5 year deal with the potential for another payout when it expires.  MLB?  If he makes it through year 6 unscathed, he'll get one pay-day.  It might be huge.  For most it won't be. Read this part carefully so maybe, just maybe, you'll stop spamming the board with the same tired takes: "The cap is what makes us special in MLB, it allows players to claim their part in the game if they succeed.  Anyone can hit that big contract!" is the same goddamn argument as "America being free market is why anyone can become a billionaire - even you! - that's why we're fighting for a free market against socialism!"

It's the same f-ing thing.  No, Bryce Harper, that kid coming through AAA is probably not going to get that Shohei deal.  What he will get is 6 years of indentured servitude that he'll be lucky to survive and get a pay day.  Just like America isn't made to make billionaires, it's a slog that you hope you come out of and make a decent life.  It's a con.  It's always been a con.  The owners have their own versions of cons but those old, evil Bond villains actually put a floor on the table.  A fairly high one! The players should be offering a cap.  Then negotiate a high version of both with a contract structure for young players like the NHL does.

Instead?  Gotta protect Bryce Harper.  Anyone could be Bryce Harper!  Anyone!  Gotta have that cap just in case!  It's a toxic mentality against the middle and lower tier of baseball players.  Just like billionaires in real life.  And, just like in real life, even though the Bryce Harpers constitute a tiny part of the voting bloc, they convince the majority to vote against their best interests.  And, just like in real life, somehow it works even though it shouldn't.

Just because Bryce Harper's argument is a 10x scale lower doesn't make it any less ********.  You should stop falling for his elitist argument just like you rightly reject the billionaire one.

[NYCTK]

48 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

You're letting your feelings about billionaires blind you to the CBA issues. 

They're one and the same. 

Billionaires cry poor, run PR campaigns to further enrich themselves through the exploitation of others.

48 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

The player side of the CBA is a microcosm of a problem we have in our politics where regular people regularly vote against their own self interests. 

Half of the players or so are on league min contracts. I keep hearing from pro ownership fans (and yes that is your position by arguing for a hard cap) that the owners offer helps more players while the players offer only helps the top. 

But which offer proposed doubling the league minimum? 

48 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

The players should be offering a cap.

The players also offered a floor, a soft one, to match the soft cap they already agreed to years ago. We want to increase penalties, closer to the NBA? Great let's have that discussion but let's do so as honest brokers. 

 

48 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

You should stop falling for his elitist argument just like you rightly reject the billionaire one.

You're literally arguing to enrich the billionaires but have been convinced it's to better the game. 

Solidarity with the proletariat. 

[TheLeviathan]

25 minutes ago, NYCTK said:

They're one and the same. 

Billionaires cry poor, run PR campaigns to further enrich themselves through the exploitation of others.

Half of the players or so are on league min contracts. I keep hearing from pro ownership fans (and yes that is your position by arguing for a hard cap) that the owners offer helps more players while the players offer only helps the top. 

But which offer proposed doubling the league minimum? 

The players also offered a floor, a soft one, to match the soft cap they already agreed to years ago. We want to increase penalties, closer to the NBA? Great let's have that discussion but let's do so as honest brokers. 

 

You're literally arguing to enrich the billionaires but have been convinced it's to better the game. 

Solidarity with the proletariat. 

Your solidarity is with the Petite Bourgeoisie.  You've just falsely convinced yourself it is the proletariat.  Much like the proletariat are falsley convinced that they are one and the same.  Bryce Harper ain't Brooks Lee and he has zero interest in making things better for Brooks Lee.  His argument serves Bryce Harper.  Congrats, you got suckered by the low tier Bourgeoisie.

The CBA will do nothing to impact the way the owners manipulate the public.  Nothing decided in the CBA will impact those problems.  Nothing.  Repeating it only repeats your tendency to be off-topic.  You don't take on the actual problems, you have a side conversation that you then ham-handedly believe addresses the CBA issues.  You actively dodge every salient point making this about "f the billionaires!".  Cool.  I agree.  Now get on topic, because the CBA ain't that.

The players should continue to negotiate doubling the minimum.  I'm glad they're doing that.  It isn't, however, their primary argument.  It's the "no tax on tips" analog. You fall for that stuff in real life too?

The NBA's cap is a mess.  Their "soft" cap has been a huge issue for that sport.  They pay the mid tier really, really well thanks in part to the cap/floor, but the "soft" rules that invited aprons and all that other nonsense are why I prefer MLB has nothing to do with that.  The NHL did it right.  The NHL version of Skenes (Cellibrini) is going to get absolutely PAID by the time he is 20.  Somehow, the cap is no obstacle to that.  Funny, I'm told by you and Bryce Harper it is?

Which is why MLB should do the same.  Stop sacrificing several dozen Paul Skenes so that Bryce Harper can live like a king.  Stop carrying Harper's water at the expense of the ACTUAL proletariat.

 

[NYCTK]

40 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

Your solidarity is with the Petite Bourgeoisie.  You've just falsely convinced yourself it is the proletariat.

I suppose you could argue partial revenue makes the Petite Bourgeoisie as accurate, more freelance than working class but it doesn't change the class dynamics at play for me. 

The median MLB player ending their career in 2026 will have seen somewhere in the neighborhood of 2-3 million hit their bank account. Someone like Wallner but usually with a lower draft/international bonus. A nice head start but not wealthy. 

40 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

You don't take on the actual problems

Fair. But what "problems" face the MLB that are fixed by a hard salary cap? The ownership argues competitive balance, but as Twins fans we know the reason the team sucks is because the Pohlads suck and the front office sucks. It's not because the Dodgers gave Kyle Tucker $60 million or because Ohtani took a below market deal to specifically play for the Dodgers. 

If we want the teams like the Pirates and Guardians to have better opportunities to sign free agents that is fixable by owners better sharing their revenue amongst themselves. There's nothing to suggest a hard cap is necessary to address this issue at all. 

The only problem the hard cap fixes is the MLB franchise value problem. The owners are jealous that the stronger predictability of other leagues expenses means their assets are more valuable. 

40 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

The players should continue to negotiate doubling the minimum.

Well why are you pretending the owners offer is better for these half of players when we both know it's untrue? 

40 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

Stop sacrificing several dozen Paul Skenes so that Bryce Harper can live like a king.

I can guarantee you that Paul Skenes absolutely rejects a salary cap so you should probably quit pretending to care about him. 

The fact of the matter is, the league by and large is as healthy as it's ever been, with true issues that need to be addressed. But the owners are threatening to lock out the players for as long as necessary unless the players agree to a provision they've pointedly rejected for decades. What on earth are the owners offering that comes close to making this demand reasonable? 

Plus, none of this even mentions that the MLBPA claims, and I tend to believe them since I estimated something similar, that the owner's opening proposal was cutting $500 Million in player pay+benefits. Maybe we don't need to buy into the owner's arguments just because of fan emotion's and a desire to see our favorite team do well. 

[TheLeviathan]

35 minutes ago, NYCTK said:

Fair. But what "problems" face the MLB that are fixed by a hard salary cap? The ownership argues competitive balance, but as Twins fans we know the reason the team sucks is because the Pohlads suck and the front office sucks. It's not because the Dodgers gave Kyle Tucker $60 million or because Ohtani took a below market deal to specifically play for the Dodgers. 

I can guarantee you that Paul Skenes absolutely rejects a salary cap so you should probably quit pretending to care about him. 

The fact of the matter is, the league by and large is as healthy as it's ever been, with true issues that need to be addressed. But the owners are threatening to lock out the players for as long as necessary unless the players agree to a provision they've pointedly rejected for decades. What on earth are the owners offering that comes close to making this demand reasonable? 

One of the reasons why the league is doing well is because it is burying tired, old BS and being open to a new era.  The MLBPA should be doing the same.  By putting a floor out, the owners have actually taken the first step to that.  I'm as shocked as anyone.  I expected some flimsy, stupid "floor" in name only.  Instead....we got a real offer.  Why is that important and why is  cap/floor necessary?

The other leagues have implemented a salar cap and floor because they fundamentally drive the league towards equalizing the foundation for competition.  They makes it so that a team's success or failure is based on what it can control.  No matter what Kansas City does, $80 in KC ain't the same as $80 in LA.  Teams cannot control their market, the value of a dollar in their market, or anything related to revenues generated thereby.  Just like we don't have 14 kids from the cornfields play Edina on a regular basis, we shouldn't be setting up a similar mismatch in a professional league.  Nor have a CBA that enshrines such a ludicrious foundation for competition.  The league is national, by definition the markets across the nation are not equal.  You cannot create a truly competitive league without addressing that issue.  A league without the sense of true competition is a league doomed to failure because fans will see the product as rigged.  

Revenue sharing is a huge part of that.  It has to happen.  Consolidating revenues is also better for players, that way they're getting their part of the full pie rather than whatever the owners determine is the pie.  Other leagues make sure it's all pooled, thereby eliminating shenanigans.  What does a cap/floor do?  It forces owners to invest in their product.  In current MLB there are basically 5 or so teams that are truly bidding for players.  A lack of bidding is, by definition, bad for players.  The cap prevents the same teams from always bidding and the floor prevents some teams from always sitting out.  What you get as a result is a pretty steady supply of buyers in the free agent market.  Buyers that are not just interested in the highest tier of players, but also your Pius Suters.  Your Will Fries.  Your Myles Turner.   Without a cap/floor and limited buyers, players are beholden to whether the few handful with money actually want them.  Which is exactly what we see in MLB.  It's why the offseason has dried up so much in our lifetimes.  Essentially, the cap and floor are the guardrails for a healthy ecosystem of free agency. 

I'm sure Paul Skenes would not want a cap, but you know some players that would've benefitted much more from it?  Bo Bichette.  Go ahead and look up the seasons he would've been having in MLB under the NHL program where he would've been paid after year 3.   Cody Bellinger comes to mind.  A whole host of players who are basically the worst kind of cheap labor you can imagine all at the behest of "no cap".  How many players between seasons 4-6 see their value dip enormously when they should be on the open market?  All for "no cap"

And how do we argue that the current system is "fine"?  Oh...right...we use a small sample size in October!  Of course!  What could be a wiser, more perfect way to diagnose the problem then to zoom in a small two week stretch and ignore all the other data available in larger samples!  Dodgers lose 4 out of 7 to the Giants in June?  Meh.  They lose 3 games in a row to the D-backs in one random week in 2023 and we declare the system is working!  

No, my friend, that's just the fact that the game of baseball is weird.  The outcomes are weird in small samples.  On the larger sample the competitive advantage money has is plainly obvious.  It's bad for a league long-term for it's foundation to be that poorly structured to allow market sizes to impact competition.  It looks rigged.  Without a cap and a floor there are no guardrails to keep the game healthy and bidders active.  

MLB has done so many things well and they have an opportunity to really rocket themselves back into relevancy with this CBA.  Another one based on luxury taxes and other nonsense will only damage the efforts made so far.

Oh...and taking it to the owners for their tax breaks, team values, and other BS?  I'm all for that fight.  It just isn't the CBA.  That fight is bigger and goes beyond baseball.  We can have that one too, but the MLB CBA is the misplaced location to have that fight.

[NYCTK]

5 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

By putting a floor out, the owners have actually taken the first step to that. 

Players also proposed a floor....

7 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

A league without the sense of true competition is a league doomed to failure because fans will see the product as rigged.  

I just fundamentally disagree with this. This is nothing but theory. There's no reason to believe the league is on shaky grounds right now. Nothing in league wide attendance or TV viewership suggests this is true. 

Ironically, not even Twins fans are signaling disaster to the Pohalds. Attendance is only down about 150 per game from last season YOY, despite their refusal to even pretend to care about the product. 

11 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

you know some players that would've benefitted much more from it?  Bo Bichette.  Go ahead and look up the seasons he would've been having in MLB under the NHL program where he would've been paid after year 3. 

The owners aren't offering free agency after 3 seasons. Until they do, we shouldn't pretend they're offering it. I do think, in the extremely unlikely scenario where we end up with a hard cap, that this will be the case though. 

12 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

And how do we argue that the current system is "fine"?  Oh...right...we use a small sample size in October!

TV. Attendance. General Fan Interest. 

I have seen absolutely no evidence (outside of anecdotal belly aching) that the league has real issues that need immediate addressing. 

14 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

MLB has done so many things well and they have an opportunity to really rocket themselves back into relevancy with this CBA.  Another one based on luxury taxes and other nonsense will only damage the efforts made so far.

I ask you again, what are the owners offering commensurate with the huge demand of a salary cap? A demand so strong that they're threatening to kill the very sport they are arguing to protect? 

The players have fought for decades to refuse a salary cap, and the owners have offered very little and are instead leaning on fan sentiments and emotions to fight the battle for them in the public arena. All in a ruse of competitive balance. 

[TheLeviathan]

24 minutes ago, NYCTK said:

I ask you again, what are the owners offering commensurate with the huge demand of a salary cap? A demand so strong that they're threatening to kill the very sport they are arguing to protect? 

This.  This right here is why I'll be ending my part with this post.  You're just not being serious or good faith.  You are so stuck in this hero vs. villain dichotomy that you aren't having a good faith discussion.  You completely glossed over the value a cap/floor have for free agency and go right to this plainly false question.  So I'll answer, then I'm out.  

The owners offered a floor.  One that would force half the teams in the league to spend to reach it.  A hard floor with no wiggle room.  And they offered to pool all resources and give the players a 50/50 split.  Would I love for the players to push for 51/49 or 55/45?  Hell yeah.  But the owner proposal absolutely offered something more than commensurate with the demand.  For you to pretend otherwise is just so ridiculous.

So I'm done, but look, I'm going to try to help you one last time to get off the "MLBPA are the heroes!" campaign.  Once you abandon that plainly ridiculous stance you'll see the CBA for what it is: the necessary step for a league that desperately needs the structure of a CBA that equalizes markets and gives every team a chance.  There are no heroes at the negotiation tables.  But there is an outcome that is better for the sport and, unfortunately by my measure, the owners are closer to that mark than the players.  But hey, let's do a quick hypothetical on your vaunted white knights:

How long did your heroic MLBPA fight to keep minor leaguers from voting?  For such a gallant crew it seems odd they left those folks to their own devices for so long.  The true proletariat....voteless for decades.  Odd White Knight behavior right there.....

Second question - your oh-so-valiant MLBPA, how do they react if you and I started touring the minor leagues pushing for quadruple the MLB and MiLB minimum and restricted free agency after three years as our main CBA pushes?  Clearly those are much more proletariat friendly.  Would they rally to our cause?  Or would a fleet of high priced union lawers with Bryce Harper as their front face coming barreling down to the minors to talk those players out of our proposal and re-emphasize the importance of "no cap" as the primary push of the union?

Yeah.  I know which one would happen.  You aren't fighting for the little guy.  You're just a "no tax on tips" sucker vote at this point.  Cheers.

[NYCTK]

2 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

This.  This right here is why I'll be ending my part with this post.  You're just not being serious or good faith.  You are so stuck in this hero vs. villain dichotomy that you aren't having a good faith discussion.  You completely glossed over the value a cap/floor have for free agency and go right to this plainly false question.  So I'll answer, then I'm out.  

The owners offered a floor. 

Just because you disagree doesn't mean I'm not discussing this in good faith. In no way do I, or the players, view this as at all commensurate with giving up a salary cap. And one that removes the guaranteed nature of the contracts they sign. 

7 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

the necessary step for a league that desperately needs the structure of a CBA that equalizes markets and gives every team a chance:

So say the owners. Nothing in the evidence even shows this to be true.

The owners are demanding it, and threatening to kill the sport so they can get it, but we are under no obligation to believe them. 

35 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

Your White Knight MLBPA - question - how long did they fight to keep minor leaguers from voting?

I don't know why you're attacking minor league representation by MLBPA, as if they didn't basically double their standard of living in their very first CBA. The Major League CBA and MiLB CBA are different agreements so we will see in another year how much the union is able to win from the owners then. 

46 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

Yeah.  I know which one would happen.  You aren't fighting for the little guy.  You're just a "no tax on tips" sucker vote at this point.  Cheers.

Sure buddy. 

[tony&rodney]

On 6/2/2026 at 4:25 PM, USAFChief said:

Just install the system, go with AAA players to start the season,  and the MLBPA will cave within a month. 

Help me out here - when was the last time the PA caved?

[USAFChief]

1 hour ago, tony&rodney said:

Help me out here - when was the last time the PA caved?

The last time isnt important. Its the next time. 

And if their members arent getting paid while while the season is in progress they'll cave. Quickly. 

And if they don't? Who cares? In a few years you won't know the difference and we'll have a chance at a competitive, balanced league. 

Just implement the MLB proposal and say take it or leave it. 

Edited 19 hours ago by USAFChief

[tony&rodney]

2 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

The last time isnt important. Its the next time. 

And if their members arent getting paid while while the season is in progress they'll cave. Quickly. 

Just implement the MLB proposal and say take it or leave it. 

Take it or leave it sounds pretty severe. Someone will have the numbers but I thought I read the PA has about 2-4 million dollars set aside for their guys. One wonders if the players can get by on a million per year for several years. I think cooler heads will prevail.

[TheLeviathan]

Just now, tony&rodney said:

Take it or leave it sounds pretty severe. Someone will have the numbers but I thought I read the PA has about 2-4 million dollars set aside for their guys. One wonders if the players can get by on a million per year for several years. I think cooler heads will prevail.

The Savannah Bananas are going to rake it in while the MLBPA drags their feet.

[Vanimal46]

MLB's initial offer to MLBPA showed their cards that all of the owners, like the Pohlads, crying poor over supporting a $125 million payroll is complete BS. MLBPA has brainwashed fans for 60+ years that a salary cap isn't good, yet every other major sport in this country has one. 

[TheLeviathan]

29 minutes ago, Vanimal46 said:

MLB's initial offer to MLBPA showed their cards that all of the owners, like the Pohlads, crying poor over supporting a $125 million payroll is complete BS. MLBPA has brainwashed fans for 60+ years that a salary cap isn't good, yet every other major sport in this country has one. 

And players in those leagues make a ****-ton of money despite it.  I wish more of then had a 55-45 split, but the cap in no way has put them in the poor house.

[Vanimal46]

Not concerned about the primary Mets fan here demonizing the billionaire owners. He's holding on for dear life that the Mets can still buy whoever they want, because if the financial playing field was actually leveled, they will end up as the equivalent of the New York Jets. Completely irrelevant.