MLBPA proposal thoughts?

[Vanimal46]

Since Steve Cohen took over and started spending like a drunken sailor in 2020 the Mets have made the playoffs the same number of times as the Twins (2) and won exactly 1 more playoff series than our lowly bunch. 

Gee whiz, it’s almost like Steve Cohen would end up being a horse **** owner if he didn’t spend hundreds of millions more on a team compared to the league. 

[TheLeviathan]

20 minutes ago, Vanimal46 said:

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. 

Live shot of the guy who thinks Harper and the player's union is looking out for the little guy.  (He's also so happy those poor folks stopped getting taxed on their tips!)

 

 

[tony&rodney]

I wish people wouldn't resort to personal insults and class comments when discussing how MLB is going to resolve their next labor agreement. Maybe I'm way off on this but it just doesn't seem necessary. Perhaps give your point of view and clarify further if you desire. At the end of the day none of us has any say in how the negotiations develop and play out.

[The Great Hambino]

13 hours 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. 

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. 

How'd that work when the owners tried to do basically the exact same thing in 1995?

They were found to be negotiating in bad faith (which they were, and would be again) and were forced to return to the old agreement, meaning they essentially pissed away the 1994 World Series for nothing and achieved zero of their goals they were trying to negotiate for in the first place.

This would be the worst possible thing the owners could try to do.  Legal precedent says so

[Trov]

On 6/3/2026 at 8:05 PM, TheLeviathan said:

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.

It is because those leagues understand that when you do a revenue sharing plan between ownership and players, making the league better and more profits work for both.  The issue in MLB the history is players never trusted the owners.  They had to sue to get free agency to begin with.  Then they raised collusion in the early 90's for the top FA not getting fair free market offers, at least in their mind.  Since the mid 90's every other league has done a cap of some kind, with a floor and revenue splits between teams and players.  

Bryce Harper came out after the owners offer and basically said, no way will this happen, and "we" meaning owners and players should not do anything to slow the growth of the game like the 90's strike did because there is even more competition for fans time and money in sports these days. 

Smart point, but with the line in the sand of no way will we agree to a cap and we still do not trust owners means no way will be be close to a deal any time soon.  The other issue for players is what is baseball revenue?  Owners say, ticket sales, merch sales, media rights are basically baseball revenue.  Players argue that the real estate the owners have around stadiums should be included, because if they did not play the real estate holds less value to bars and restaurants because no games mean less patrons before, during, and after games. Their opinion is since the owners own it, then they are making more money off baseball.  

I get their argument, but I am of the opinion is you could not go after some 3rd party for a share of the money that just happens to own property around the stadiums, so why lump the team ownership groups in? If I own a building that has bar near target field, I am not going to pay money to the players as part of my lease to the bar owner, or if I am the bar owner a share of my profits to the players.  Nor would I to the owners. 

As I said from my original post fans should not car how the billions of dollars get split, if anything we should ask it gets reduced so make watching games more affordable. Why does each side state their position as to why it is better for the game, but neither say, maybe we should cut ticket costs down so families can come to games and not pay hundreds of dollars?  

[Mike Sixel]

As long as Trump says the owners are right, I'll believe they are wrong.... And this isn't politics, Trump ruined the USFL, and bankrupted nearly every business he's run. 

Anyone that trusts the owners, given how they've behaved in past negotiations is naive at best. 

[TheLeviathan]

2 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

As long as Trump says the owners are right, I'll believe they are wrong.... And this isn't politics, Trump ruined the USFL, and bankrupted nearly every business he's run. 

Anyone that trusts the owners, given how they've behaved in past negotiations is naive at best. 

Why does it have to be about "trust"?  I don't particularly "trust" either side to do what is right for the game, I trust that they'll look out for themselves.

From my perspective, as neither a player nor an owner, the issues with the game and solutions that are necessary are much closer to what the owners are proposing.  It's abundantly clear the luxury tax is not impeding the Dodgers in any meaningful way (see: Ohtani contract) and the league isn't in a healthy place for the volume of teams competing.  The owners are presenting actual solutions to those issues and the players simply are not.  (Not to mention the players have routinely put forth the best interests of a select few in their group and generally do not look out for the average player.  Damn sure not the minor leaguers)

I really wish we could get the owners proposal but split 60/40 in favor of labor.  That's what is best for the game.  

[TheLeviathan]

3 hours ago, Trov said:

As I said from my original post fans should not car how the billions of dollars get split, if anything we should ask it gets reduced so make watching games more affordable. Why does each side state their position as to why it is better for the game, but neither say, maybe we should cut ticket costs down so families can come to games and not pay hundreds of dollars?  

I agree but that genie isn't going back in the bottle.  The players did mention that a cap isn't good for fan ticket prices but that argument is complete nonsense.  I think we all know prices aren't going to drop.....what I want is a competitive state for the game itself.

[ashbury]

5 hours ago, Trov said:

As I said from my original post fans should not car how the billions of dollars get split, if anything we should ask it gets reduced so make watching games more affordable. 

1) Current ticket prices reflect generally what the market will bear. and StubHub and other secondary marketplaces iron out much of any remaining arbitrage there is to be had.  If the owners unilaterally lower ticket prices, scalpers will swoop in to an even greater degree and snap up all available tickets and wait then for their market-correct price to be eventually met.  Either that, or fans who tell the world "give me cheaper tickets" will instead sell their windfall in the same way to other fans who are willing to pay more than you or I.

2) MLB already has a problem of luring good athletes who may also be NFL or NBA candidates.  If the salary pool is decreased, that problem becomes only worse - imagine the next Joe Mauer throwing touchdowns for Florida State.

It's a fantasy/dream that the "greedy" athletes will somehow be punished into toeing some arbitrary line.  I'm no free-market woofer, but anyone proposing to go against the market needs to have a plan for how to deal with the discontinuities their plan will raise.  The money is there to be had, and if the athletes don't get it then someone else does, but not you or me.

[Mike Sixel]

12 hours ago, TheLeviathan said:

Why does it have to be about "trust"?  I don't particularly "trust" either side to do what is right for the game, I trust that they'll look out for themselves.

From my perspective, as neither a player nor an owner, the issues with the game and solutions that are necessary are much closer to what the owners are proposing.  It's abundantly clear the luxury tax is not impeding the Dodgers in any meaningful way (see: Ohtani contract) and the league isn't in a healthy place for the volume of teams competing.  The owners are presenting actual solutions to those issues and the players simply are not.  (Not to mention the players have routinely put forth the best interests of a select few in their group and generally do not look out for the average player.  Damn sure not the minor leaguers)

I really wish we could get the owners proposal but split 60/40 in favor of labor.  That's what is best for the game.  

Agreed

[tony&rodney]

Wonder how it helps to conduct/ share negotiations publicly. Hopefully a decent CBA gets worked out soon.

The history of MLB labor disputes is not pretty. The 1987 and 1991 Twins flags are even affected by the shenanigans that took place in past disputes. The collusion of that era was quite severe. Some of you will remember that some of the best players in the game received zero offers. Andre Dawson, Gary Gaetti, and Jack Morris were among the dozens of players who had to take what they could get. Dawson was the most illustrious example. MLB was found guilty in the ensuing lawsuit and paid billions in penalties. Unfortunately, the MLBPA and MLB still harbors ill will towards each other and the loser is always the fans.

I cannot see much traction towards a solution in the current published positions. Once again, it seems like fans will take the brunt of raised ticket prices or it seems inevitable. I'll just hope for the best as neither position makes me feel comfortable that the parties have the future of the game in mind. 

[Trov]

On 6/9/2026 at 5:53 PM, ashbury said:

1) Current ticket prices reflect generally what the market will bear. and StubHub and other secondary marketplaces iron out much of any remaining arbitrage there is to be had.  If the owners unilaterally lower ticket prices, scalpers will swoop in to an even greater degree and snap up all available tickets and wait then for their market-correct price to be eventually met.  Either that, or fans who tell the world "give me cheaper tickets" will instead sell their windfall in the same way to other fans who are willing to pay more than you or I.

2) MLB already has a problem of luring good athletes who may also be NFL or NBA candidates.  If the salary pool is decreased, that problem becomes only worse - imagine the next Joe Mauer throwing touchdowns for Florida State.

It's a fantasy/dream that the "greedy" athletes will somehow be punished into toeing some arbitrary line.  I'm no free-market woofer, but anyone proposing to go against the market needs to have a plan for how to deal with the discontinuities their plan will raise.  The money is there to be had, and if the athletes don't get it then someone else does, but not you or me.

I full agree with your point 1, I do not expect prices to drop, and agree the prices are always based on what the market will pay.  I do not expect the players and owners to say, hey lets get together to lower ticket prices.  My point is, why do fans take sides on this?  Why do the owners and players put their offers out in the media trying to get fans to "side" with them?  It makes no sense to me as a fan.  At least as it comes to how you splitting up the billions of dollars.  It is not like fans are going to vote themselves.  If there is a labor stoppage, fans will not say well I side with players or owners and am fine with the work stoppage until that side wins this.  No, fans will either get upset there is no baseball or they will watch the many other options of sports now. 

As to point 2, I also agree that MLB has been having issues getting the multi sport athletes to pick baseball more recently, and it part that is because unless you are a top 10 pick, it will take minimum like 5 years to get a decent pay, compared to NFL/NBA, and like 10 years to get a huge contract, unless you are a mega star/prospect.

Hell, most NFL players will be retired before MLB player will get a super deal.  If money is the main factor choosing NFL or NBA, all things being equal, would be the better path.  That being said, only a slight few are elite enough at both they can make that choice.  Very few NBA players will be elite at baseball, as well.  More of the NFL world are, but sometimes you need to ask yourself, do I want to shorten my life and get CTE for sure by playing NFL for the faster money, or can I be elite at baseball and have a better long term life playing baseball? 

[tony&rodney]

3 hours ago, Trov said:

As to point 2, I also agree that MLB has been having issues getting the multi sport athletes to pick baseball more recently, and it part that is because unless you are a top 10 pick, it will take minimum like 5 years to get a decent pay, compared to NFL/NBA, and like 10 years to get a huge contract, unless you are a mega star/prospect.

I do think athletes want a favorable pay timeline. Top baseball players make bank, both the top free agents and the top draft choices. I'm not too sure if many multi sport athletes could make it in baseball though. The skills are so different and the greatest difference is the amount of failure encountered in baseball. The percentage of baseball players who run into tough times for lengthy resets is very high. Thus, I'm not sure baseball loses athletes to other sports. Another huge difference is size. Lineman and basketball players face daunting challenges when playing baseball. I saw Michael Jordan play minor league baseball and he wasn't good at all. He was an athlete but had very little idea in the field or at the plate.

MLB and the PA need to work things out in private and come to some agreement before December. I expect an agreement. A lockout would be a real setback for baseball. There are many alternative sources of entertainment for people. 

[TheLeviathan]

4 hours ago, Trov said:

My point is, why do fans take sides on this?  Why do the owners and players put their offers out in the media trying to get fans to "side" with them? 

I think there are answers to these questions.  From the fan perspective, they want what they feel is best for the game they love.  They don't care about the how the pie is sliced, they just want it to be delicious.  In the case of pro sports, most rational fans see the need for there to be some sort of equalization of markets in order for the sport to be in a healthy place.  Beyond that, they simply want their team's competence to decide their fate as opposed to the value of a dollar relative to their zip code.  In general, fans "vote" for imbalances to be done away with in CBAs.  Where they side depends on what imbalances they value most.

The two sides are playing a PR game for these "votes".  Fan support can enable players to hold out or for owners to lock out.  Basically, it's building public support for their nuclear options.  At this point, it looks like mutually assured destruction is on the horizon unfortunately.  

[tony&rodney]

22 hours ago, TheLeviathan said:

The two sides are playing a PR game for these "votes".  Fan support can enable players to hold out or for owners to lock out.  Basically, it's building public support for their nuclear options.  At this point, it looks like mutually assured destruction is on the horizon unfortunately.  

Seems like you are correct from everything I read. Still, I'm feeling the sides come to an agreement before next April. I cannot envision the owners killing their golden goose. I don't think the players will agree to a cap. They can hold out for two or three years based on the money they have set aside if the owners choose a lockout. The players will not strike. They would be willing to continue with the current system despite wanting many  improvements to the CBA in their favor. It's a mess and the fans get the short end no matter what occurs.

The rise of other professional sports leagues since the last major strike (was it 1994?) means the competition for a dollar is more intense than 30 years ago. The growth of hockey (men's and women's), soccer (men's and women's), basketball (men's and women's), and other entertainment all compete for the dollar. If baseball decides to sit on the sidelines it may be far more difficult to get back in the game once again than it was three decades ago. Baseball could easily fall to #5 or worse among spending options. I guess we shall see how the geniuses who run things forge their plans.

[TheLeviathan]

1 hour ago, tony&rodney said:

Seems like you are correct from everything I read. Still, I'm feeling the sides come to an agreement before next April. I cannot envision the owners killing their golden goose. I don't think the players will agree to a cap. They can hold out for two or three years based on the money they have set aside if the owners choose a lockout. The players will not strike. They would be willing to continue with the current system despite wanting many  improvements to the CBA in their favor. It's a mess and the fans get the short end no matter what occurs.

The rise of other professional sports leagues since the last major strike (was it 1994?) means the competition for a dollar is more intense than 30 years ago. The growth of hockey (men's and women's), soccer (men's and women's), basketball (men's and women's), and other entertainment all compete for the dollar. If baseball decides to sit on the sidelines it may be far more difficult to get back in the game once again than it was three decades ago. Baseball could easily fall to #5 or worse among spending options. I guess we shall see how the geniuses who run things forge their plans.

I envy your optimism friend!