MLBPA proposal thoughts?

[Mike Sixel]

Question..... Owners that paid A lot for their teams.... How do you compensate them for decreased revenue if there is legit sharing?

[The Great Hambino]

49 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

Question..... Owners that paid A lot for their teams.... How do you compensate them for decreased revenue if there is legit sharing?

1. If it comes with a cap, then their decreased revenue comes with decreased expenses.  The Dodgers could potentially come out ahead on the bottom line even with increased revenue sharing if their payroll bill is cut in half

2. The owners are fighting for this because they think franchise values will explode if they get it.  They've decided that the trade-off is worth it.  I don't think they'd be putting out their aggressive push for a cap so publicly if the heavy hitters weren't on board with the plan.  And even if they aren't on board, they know that they're outnumbered, and their franchise value and revenues will crater if they don't have anyone to play against

3. Since this is all subject to negotiations between big market owners and small market owners as well as between the league and the players, it's not hard to see a scenario where there are certain carve-outs that allow the big markets to retain a larger portion of some types of revenue.  Maybe media rights are pooled but gameday revenues are retained, for example.  Plenty of ways to skin that cat

[NYCTK]

On 6/28/2026 at 12:57 PM, TheLeviathan said:

...but in return he wants a system in place...to prevent some guy from having an advantage he could have had by keeping all his own revenues but he no longer has because he shared. 

I don't quite follow why this is a perceived requirement for inter-owner revenue sharing. And more importantly, I have not heard a single good argument for why the MLBPA should agree to any sort of restriction when it seems to be entirely an ownership issue. 

 

On 6/28/2026 at 12:57 PM, TheLeviathan said:

Like the rest of the leagues have. 

Completely irrelevant. 

 

On 6/28/2026 at 12:57 PM, TheLeviathan said:

Fans - who have a great deal of say in how this turns out contrary to other opinions - want that to change. 

Fans have exactly zero say over how this turns out actually. 

 

 

[TheLeviathan]

1 hour ago, NYCTK said:

I don't quite follow why this is a perceived requirement for inter-owner revenue sharing. And more importantly, I have not heard a single good argument for why the MLBPA should agree to any sort of restriction when it seems to be entirely an ownership issue. 

 

Completely irrelevant. 

 

Fans have exactly zero say over how this turns out actually. 

 

 

If the fans perceptions didn't matter, neither side would be so actively trying to curry their favor.  It's ridiculous to pretend that the optics towards the paying customer are irrelevant.  Or catering to the desires of the paying customer are irrelevant.  (Hence why the players keep talking about ticket prices and the owners keep talking about competitive balance.  Both things that fans overwhelmingly have strong feelings about that their side is actively on the better side of that sentiment on.)

Again....in order to reach a point in which owners agree to pool and share revenues, there will have to be agreements and parameters put on this.  Nearly every full brain-stemmed person on the planet agrees that sharing revenues is necessary for the betterment of the league, the next question is...how do we get an agreement on that?

Well, in part you get it with a floor.  That way money from big markets going out to small markets is spent per the CBA.  It's a mandatory piece that ensures all ownership parties act in good faith towards this joined effort.  Likewise, a cap also ensures that all parties act in good faith and don't find alternative revenues or bring in revenues beyond which other parties can do so to likewise break that arrangement.

It's just like parameters you should setup before ever agreeing to split the bill with a group of largely selfish people.  (Which is what the ownership group is)  If you don't, the revenue splitting agreement won't be worth the paper it was forged on.

[chpettit19]

1 hour ago, NYCTK said:

I don't quite follow why this is a perceived requirement for inter-owner revenue sharing. And more importantly, I have not heard a single good argument for why the MLBPA should agree to any sort of restriction when it seems to be entirely an ownership issue. 

Because it's the entire point of a union and how a negotiation works. Unless, of course, you don't think the players have anything they want to change about the CBA? The players want things. The owners want things. There's no such thing as "entirely an ownership issue." Again, that's the entire point of having a union and CBA. In order for the players to get things they want they need to give the owners something they want. The question is what the balance is. 

Oh, and none of the players want to get real jobs instead of being millionaire athletes.

The 23 lowest revenue earning clubs overpower the top 7 and get complete media revenue sharing. You claim that's "entirely an ownership issue." Since you don't think the players should even care to have any say in this "ownership issue" they don't get any sort of raise in the floor (teams have to roster 26 players at league minimum, so, technically, there is a floor). Now the Marlins, Pirates, Twins, whoever aren't forced to spend more on their payroll, but the Dodgers, Mets, and Yankees don't have as much revenue to spend on their payroll. What do you think that does to the overall player contract situation?

Again, the entire point of having a union and CBA is to have a say in this. You don't improve, or even maintain, your current financial situation by saying "not our problem, it's entirely a problem for the people that control the money to figure out how to pay me the same amount even if I don't care to force them to."

 

[NYCTK]

1 hour ago, chpettit19 said:

Because it's the entire point of a union and how a negotiation works. Unless, of course, you don't think the players have anything they want to change about the CBA?

Of course they do, but nothing commensurate with folding on their generations long-held red line. 

 

1 hour ago, chpettit19 said:

Again, the entire point of having a union and CBA is to have a say in this.

I guess you misunderstood what I meant, or I stated it poorly. Yes, obviously they want to be involved in the CBA discussion, but this competitive balance issue is not really their concern at all. They truly don't care, nor should they.

So they're under no pressure to accept a salary cap to fix something they don't see any need in fixing. The owners are the only ones that see it as an issue, and the solution is ALSO entirely an ownership issue, in sharing their revenue amongst themselves. 

1 hour ago, TheLeviathan said:

If the fans perceptions didn't matter, neither side would be so actively trying to curry their favor.

Only the owners are doing that. The MLBPA isn't bothering, because they know it doesn't matter. Yes, the Owners (who are evil) are going to try to leverage low information fans to put pressure on the players, but it's not going to actually do anything. 

1 hour ago, TheLeviathan said:

Hence why the players keep talking about ticket prices and the owners keep talking about competitive balance.

If I'm not mistaken, the only comments the MLBPA has made regarding fans has been to call out the BS coming from the owners. 

1 hour ago, TheLeviathan said:

Likewise, a cap also ensures that all parties act in good faith and don't find alternative revenues or bring in revenues beyond which other parties can do so to likewise break that arrangement.

I don't see how that follows.

The most important thing to remember these next 9 months is that the owners don't care about a salary cap because of competitive balance. They care about a salary cap in order to better predict expenses and therefore increase the value of their asset. 

 

[chpettit19]

17 minutes ago, NYCTK said:

Of course they do, but nothing commensurate with folding on their generations long-held red line. 

 

I guess you misunderstood what I meant, or I stated it poorly. Yes, obviously they want to be involved in the CBA discussion, but this competitive balance issue is not really their concern at all. They truly don't care, nor should they.

So they're under no pressure to accept a salary cap to fix something they don't see any need in fixing. The owners are the only ones that see it as an issue, and the solution is ALSO entirely an ownership issue, in sharing their revenue amongst themselves. 

 

I just laid out a revenue sharing option for the owners. It didn't include any rules requiring any of them to spend any certain amount of money (beyond minimum contracts) even though they're sharing their revenue. Your repeated claims that the revenue sharing problem is entirely an ownership issue is so wildly ridiculous. 

You don't for one second believe that the owners actually care about competitive balance. It's actually the basis of your entire argument against, and hatred for, them. They only care about money (which you don't see as a problem for the players because you've somehow convinced yourself they're somehow like regular people, but that's another discussion for another day). The owners aren't trying to fix competitive balance for any reason other than improving the financial position of themselves. Which is what you want the players to be doing. Improving their financial position. But then you keep arguing it isn't their problem at all.

If the players leave it up to the owners to figure out their own way to "solve" the issues they claim to care about but we all know they don't, they won't end up in a better financial situation. They won't end up in the same financial situation. They will end up in a worse one. Your arguments are counters to each other. Players should only care about making sure they're getting as much from the evil billionaires as possible while also leaving it completely up to the evil billionaires to decide how to best split up their revenues. It's nonsense. The entire point of their "generations long-held red line" is to have a say in how the revenues are split up so they can get as much of it as possible. Claiming that's then "entirely an ownership issue" doesn't make any sense at all.

The owners would absolutely destroy the player's cut of revenue if the players listened to you and treated revenue sharing as "entirely an ownership issue." 

[NYCTK]

4 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

You don't for one second believe that the owners actually care about competitive balance.

No. 

4 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

It's actually the basis of your entire argument against, and hatred for, them.

We see no evidence they care about competitive balance as it relates to a salary cap (which is already fine), and all evidence points to them wanting a salary cap because it would be lucrative for them. And one thing we know about the obscenely wealthy is that they only care about money. 

6 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

They only care about money (which you don't see as a problem for the players because you've somehow convinced yourself they're somehow like regular people, but that's another discussion for another day).

Correct. A lot of players ARE like regular people. Do you think Matt Wallner, pretty close to a median MLB career, is more like you and me, or is he more like Tom Pohlad? I don't automatically think a union is right in their actions (tenure over merit is often an issue) but I know the union is looking out for approximately 1,200 different players with varying career arcs while the ownership group is looking out for approximately 30 individuals. So, no, I don't see the MLBPA at all as only caring about money. 

11 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

The owners aren't trying to fix competitive balance for any reason other than improving the financial position of themselves. Which is what you want the players to be doing.

One of these groups are the workers and the product, and one of these groups are exclusively leeches. So I'm very comfortable in that position. 

 

13 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

If the players leave it up to the owners to figure out their own way to "solve" the issues they claim to care about but we all know they don't, they won't end up in a better financial situation.

Again, I think you misunderstand my point. I'm being hyperbolic but what I'm saying is the fixes that will come about are conflicts between owners and will NOT be a salary cap. The MLBPA will obviously have to vote to accept it, but the actual battle is between owners. 

 

15 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

The owners would absolutely destroy the player's cut of revenue

They aren't on a revenue share right now, so I don't know what mechanism you believe they would use to accomplish that. 

[chpettit19]

13 minutes ago, NYCTK said:

No. 

We see no evidence they care about competitive balance as it relates to a salary cap (which is already fine), and all evidence points to them wanting a salary cap because it would be lucrative for them. And one thing we know about the obscenely wealthy is that they only care about money. 

Correct. A lot of players ARE like regular people. Do you think Matt Wallner, pretty close to a median MLB career, is more like you and me, or is he more like Tom Pohlad? I don't automatically think a union is right in their actions (tenure over merit is often an issue) but I know the union is looking out for approximately 1,200 different players with varying career arcs while the ownership group is looking out for approximately 30 individuals. So, no, I don't see the MLBPA at all as only caring about money. 

One of these groups are the workers and the product, and one of these groups are exclusively leeches. So I'm very comfortable in that position. 

 

Again, I think you misunderstand my point. I'm being hyperbolic but what I'm saying is the fixes that will come about are conflicts between owners and will NOT be a salary cap. The MLBPA will obviously have to vote to accept it, but the actual battle is between owners. 

 

They aren't on a revenue share right now, so I don't know what mechanism you believe they would use to accomplish that. 

They aren't on a formal revenue share, but the MLBPA has played a massive role in the rules governing how the owners split the revenue and thus how much is spent on players. Listening to your thoughts about revenue sharing being entirely an ownership issue would lead to the owners removing all requirements for spending revenue share and the amount of money the players get would go down.

The only thing the players care about is revenue sharing and the rules surrounding it. Its literally the opposite of your claims. Again, this is the entire point of having the union and the CBA. Stopping the owners from making all the financial rules themselves. Its complete nonsense to suggest the players don't and shouldn't play a role in that discussion. Its the only discussion they care about and you say as much yourself. Your arguments are literally counter-arguments. You don't want the billionaires making the rules cuz they'll screw everyone over and then you turn around and argue the players shouldn't care cuz its "entirely an ownership issue." 

And I don't relate to Matt Wallner in any way. Being closer to me than he is to Tom Pohlad doesn't make him in any way the average American. It just makes you feel better about defending the greed you claim to hate.

[TheLeviathan]

1 hour ago, NYCTK said:

Of course they do, but nothing commensurate with folding on their generations long-held red line. 

 

I guess you misunderstood what I meant, or I stated it poorly. Yes, obviously they want to be involved in the CBA discussion, but this competitive balance issue is not really their concern at all. They truly don't care, nor should they.

So they're under no pressure to accept a salary cap to fix something they don't see any need in fixing. The owners are the only ones that see it as an issue, and the solution is ALSO entirely an ownership issue, in sharing their revenue amongst themselves. 

Only the owners are doing that. The MLBPA isn't bothering, because they know it doesn't matter. Yes, the Owners (who are evil) are going to try to leverage low information fans to put pressure on the players, but it's not going to actually do anything. 

If I'm not mistaken, the only comments the MLBPA has made regarding fans has been to call out the BS coming from the owners. 

I don't see how that follows.

The most important thing to remember these next 9 months is that the owners don't care about a salary cap because of competitive balance. They care about a salary cap in order to better predict expenses and therefore increase the value of their asset. 

 

It's hard to have a rational conversation when you've set it up in such a way that one side is evil and the other is the pinnacle of goodness.  And yes...that is exactly what you're doing.  Your lack of nuance is causing you to take a larger political opinion you have and apply it ham-handedily to a situation that is really weird relative to other labor disputes.

Firstly....yes, the players often invoke the fans.  Here.  Here.  Here.  Basically every single time they respond to the league.  So right away you are painfully wrong, made an assumption about your precious white knights, and predicated your whole argument around that falsehood.  It's kinda the theme here.  So I'm going to reiterate my obviously correct statement: both sides are trying to win over fan sentiment.  Right now, based on the data we have, the owners are closer on that issue than the players are.  The players are going to need to improve their PR on this or risk it being leveraged against them at the bargaining table. 

This stubbornly simplistic view is why you don't see how the cap and floor work together as assurance for an agreement on revenue sharing.  Essentially...you don't want to.  You aren't considering the situation with any fairness or depth here.  "Me say one side bad guy!  Bad guy bad!" is kinda what we're dealing with here.

I'll give you an example, this time of "Me say one side good guy!  Good guy good!" and try to argue the union looks out for the 1200 members.  Explain to me how you can say that with a straight face while MLB players are essentially indentured servants until they're 30 on, BY FAR, the worst CBA for drafted players in all of sports?  If they cared about their 1200 members, you'd think their top priority the last 30 years would be making sure the one thing ALL OF THEIR MEMBERS GO THROUGH, would be the compensation piece they want right.  Instead?  They care more about a concept that only a very small share of their membership ever gets to enjoy.  Let Ryan Kreidler and thousands like him suffer....Mr. Boras has that sweet, sweet Joe Ryan money to worry about.  The union's arguments don't do squat for Matt Wallner, Matt Wallbeck, or any other rando Matts that teams have exploited for their prime years at pennies on the dollar.  They've never made that their argument.  

Can we be less simplistic about this?  Otherwise, what's the point?

[NYCTK]

22 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

Listening to your thoughts about revenue sharing being entirely an ownership issue would lead to the owners removing all requirements for spending revenue share and the amount of money the players get would go down.

You really think the rich owners want to hand over large sums of money to their peers without any sort of requirements with it? 

The pressure to spend that near $200 Million check is as much from the other owners as it is the the players. 

37 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

And I don't relate to Matt Wallner in any way. Being closer to me than he is to Tom Pohlad doesn't make him in any way the average American. It just makes you feel better about defending the greed you claim to hate.

I feel like fans vastly overestimate the financial security of the median MLB player. He's seen maybe $2 million his bank account over the course of 6 years so thusfarm, and his career might be soon done.

He's obviously living comfortably, but he in no way has generational wealth. He doesn't even have a lifetime wealth. And who knows what his second life career is.

So, yeah, he is actually pretty close to the average American (at the end of their career). 

31 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

It's hard to have a rational conversation when you've set it up in such a way that one side is evil and the other is the pinnacle of goodness.  And yes...that is exactly what you're doing.  Your lack of nuance is causing you to take a larger political opinion you have and apply it ham-handedily to a situation that is really weird relative to other labor disputes.

OK. Billionaires are evil though. 

32 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

Firstly....yes, the players often invoke the fans.  Here.  Here.  Here. 

"While MLB claims to be acting in the interest of fans..."

- response to owner pretending their proposal is in the best interest of the fans

And the 3rd PR statement doesn't mention anything to do with the best interest of the fans. And that being the initial statement proves my point. The MLBPA invoking of fan interest is only in response to the owners pretending they care about fans. 

40 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

The players are going to need to improve their PR on this or risk it being leveraged against them at the bargaining table. 

I repeat, the players don't give a **** because the fans aren't at the negotiating table. I think you believe our opinion is way more important than it is.

Fans want a salary cap? Too bad, it's not happening. Will the MLBPA snipe back? Yes, and that's what they've done. But a couple comments in press releases are a far cry from the propaganda machine we're going to see from the League. Hell, he just saw that they tweeted from the OFFICIAL MLB account about the importance of a salary cap. 

47 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

Bad guy bad!

Correct. 

[chpettit19]

4 minutes ago, NYCTK said:

You really think the rich owners want to hand over large sums of money to their peers without any sort of requirements with it? 

The pressure to spend that near $200 Million check is as much from the other owners as it is the the players. 

I feel like fans vastly overestimate the financial security of the median MLB player. He's seen maybe $2 million his bank account over the course of 6 years so thusfarm, and his career might be soon done.

He's obviously living comfortably, but he in no way has generational wealth. He doesn't even have a lifetime wealth. And who knows what his second life career is.

So, yeah, he is actually pretty close to the average American (at the end of their career). 

No, they don't, and they don't want to hand it to players either. The players forcing minimum salaries and arbitration and luxury taxes is the only reason the owners do. That's literally the point. If you don't have the players forcing certain revenue sharing, the player's overall salary numbers will go down. Its wild to watch you over and over argue the players only care about money but the revenue sharing is only an ownership thing. Forcing revenue rules is the entire MLBPA goal.

I don't think there's as much pressure to spend it from owners as you think. Because they aren't forced to send as much as they could be. Its a cost of doing business. They don't get to keep that money if the other team doesn't spend it. Its gone. The other team not spending it just makes it easier for them to win and make more money.

The average fan is never handed 1.8 million (Wallner's signing bonus) at any singular point in their life. Cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing and I understand you need to find a way to justify going against your claimed principle of not liking greed. But, no, Matt Wallner is not like the average fan no matter how much you want it to be true. The average American isn't a millionaire in their early 20s. 

[TheLeviathan]

So just plain bad faith and continuing to deny what is in black and white....cool.

This is my shocked face you had nothing to say about 30 years of screwing minor leaguers and young players:

 

 

 

[NYCTK]

5 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

Its wild to watch you over and over argue the players only care about money but the revenue sharing is only an ownership thing.

Again, I think you just don't understand what I'm saying. I think you're confusing league wide revenue sharing, that between franchises which stands at 48% and needs to be further addressed, with a revenue share with players. 

At it's most basic, the owners agreed to share half of their revenue with the other teams, and the players put some level of rules on the spending after the most important negotiation was done, that between the owners.

And that could be the case again, where the owners are the ones that actually have to figure out how much and the method with which they will increase revenue sharing for the "poor" teams, and the players only real concern is that they can tack on some further spending requirements onto it. Like the Competitive Integrity Tax they proposed. 

NONE of that requires a salary cap, and theoretically would increase "competitive balance". But, most importantly, my entire point, is that the hard negotiation is that between the owners themselves, not actually between the owners and the players.

We will see that unfold when the players hold strong against the salary cap come late winter. 

17 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

The average fan is never handed 1.8 million (Wallner's signing bonus) at any singular point in their life. Cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing and I understand you need to find a way to justify going against your claimed principle of not liking greed. But, no, Matt Wallner is not like the average fan no matter how much you want it to be true. The average American isn't a millionaire in their early 20s. 

Again, I think you missed my point.

Matt Wallner is not wealthy. This is not two groups of wealthy people fighting it out. It is obscenely wealthy battling a group of mostly middle-middle to upper-middle class professionals. About half of the players represented by the MLBPA are Middle Class. 
 

[NYCTK]

12 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

So just plain bad faith and continuing to deny what is in black and white....cool.

This is my shocked face you had nothing to say about 30 years of screwing minor leaguers and young players:

 

 

 

I simply don't accept your faulty premise.

Again, I'm not going to pretend the MLBPA is perfect in all of their negotiations that have ever taken place, but there's a reason everyone agrees the MLBPA is the strongest player union in the world.

[TheLeviathan]

6 minutes ago, NYCTK said:

I simply don't accept your faulty premise.

Again, I'm not going to pretend the MLBPA is perfect in all of their negotiations that have ever taken place, but there's a reason everyone agrees the MLBPA is the strongest player union in the world.

They are strong.  And they have used that strength in service to Scott Boras over literally thousands of their members for decades.

What an odd thing to be devoted to and so passionately unwilling to consider the rational arguments laid out for you in this thread.  Just bizarre and simplistic. I hold no such devotion to the owners, in fact, it angers me that they're more reasonable right now.  I hate it.  

[chpettit19]

16 minutes ago, NYCTK said:

Again, I think you just don't understand what I'm saying. I think you're confusing league wide revenue sharing, that between franchises which stands at 48% and needs to be further addressed, with a revenue share with players. 

At it's most basic, the owners agreed to share half of their revenue with the other teams, and the players put some level of rules on the spending after the most important negotiation was done, that between the owners.

And that could be the case again, where the owners are the ones that actually have to figure out how much and the method with which they will increase revenue sharing for the "poor" teams, and the players only real concern is that they can tack on some further spending requirements onto it. Like the Competitive Integrity Tax they proposed. 

NONE of that requires a salary cap, and theoretically would increase "competitive balance". But, most importantly, my entire point, is that the hard negotiation is that between the owners themselves, not actually between the owners and the players.

We will see that unfold when the players hold strong against the salary cap come late winter. 

Again, I think you missed my point.

Matt Wallner is not wealthy. This is not two groups of wealthy people fighting it out. It is obscenely wealthy battling a group of mostly middle-middle to upper-middle class professionals. About half of the players represented by the MLBPA are Middle Class. 
 

I'm absolutely not confusing those things. You're confusing what drives the financial structure of Major League Baseball. Which is weird considering your entire world view of this subject is that the owners are nothing but greedy leeches. The players play real roles in forcing revenue sharing between the owners.

Why do you think the owners agreed to share media revenue? And why would they agree to a new revenue sharing structure that the MLBPA doesn't force on them at all but then accept the rules the MLBPA wants to put on it? Your argument is the owners are going to do something that isn't in their greedy best interests and then sit down at the negotiating table and also give the players the rules they want on top of it?

1.8 million is middle-middle? You're kidding, right? The MLBPA used to represent those kinds of players, but with the formation of the MiLBPA they represent very few people who aren't millionaires in their teen years or early 20s. And 65% of their members make a minimum of 780k a year. None of them are middle class. None. That argument just goes to show how far from reality you are on this.

And to @TheLeviathan's point, the MLBPA has ignored the actual middle class players for their entire existence. Bryce Harper isn't screaming at Manfred because he's looking out for the Matt Wallners of the world. He's looking out for the richest players. And the MLBPA has notoriously booted members of the leadership group who do actually try to stand up for the Wallner types.

[NYCTK]

5 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

And they have used that strength in service to Scott Boras over literally thousands of their members for decades.

LOL. You're a bad victim of anti union propaganda man. 

[TheLeviathan]

3 minutes ago, NYCTK said:

LOL. You're a bad victim of anti union propaganda man. 

Yeah?  How is Matthew Becker's paycheck looking?

Shall we scroll through minor league baseball and observe all the wealth that strong union has fought for?  Or the awesome system that definitely doesn't push players to football and basketball over a league that requires a decade of indentured servitude?

Again....straight face tell me who they use their strength to fight for?

[NYCTK]

6 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

The players play real roles in forcing revenue sharing between the owners.

If I'm not mistaken the negotiations that installed revenue sharing, it was an owner proposal, again trying to tie it to a cap. But the players negotiated it away. 

But point being it was the owners that have to figure out their own house in terms of franshise revenue pooling. Not the players. 

28 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

Why do you think the owners agreed to share media revenue?

They have a lot of owners to keep happy. I think we've basically lost the plot on this thread.

To conclude, my entire point is the biggest structural issue with mlb is indeed the potential revenue disparities between teams, and it has been and would be the owners job to internally negotiate the best fix. And of course the players then have to agree to it, but the biggest hurdle is the owners. This is all unrelated to a salary cap outside of the fact that the owners demand (and will not receive) one in return. It is not dependent on it for any reason other than the owners want it. 

33 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

1.8 million is middle-middle? Y

No. That would be upper-middle. Which is why I also said upper-middle. 

 

34 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

None of them are middle class.

Your strong feelings don't negate facts. You can try to argue upper middle class isn't middle class, but that's just obviously wrong because of how words work. 

 

35 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

And to @TheLeviathan's point, the MLBPA has ignored the actual middle class players for their entire existence. Bryce Harper isn't screaming at Manfred because he's looking out for the Matt Wallners of the world. He's looking out for the richest players. And the MLBPA has notoriously booted members of the leadership group who do actually try to stand up for the Wallner types.

This is just anti mlbpa propaganda. Could they do better? Sure, but a lot of the player voted representatives of the union are exactly those players, or more so the intelligent veterans that have been around a minute. 

Further, looking at the mlbpa offer in this negotiation we're currently watching, we can see the benefits to those players, more directly addressed than the owners proposal. 

[NYCTK]

26 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

Shall we scroll through minor league baseball and observe all the wealth that strong union has fought for?

I'm sorry the mlbpa didn't prioritize people not in the mlbpa. But that's how unions work. And they did, under pressure, then secure improvements. 

Like I said, I think the anti union propaganda has worked remarkably well with you. 

27 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

Again....straight face tell me who they use their strength to fight for?

Members of the MLBPA. 

[TheLeviathan]

16 minutes ago, NYCTK said:

I'm sorry the mlbpa didn't prioritize people not in the mlbpa. But that's how unions work. And they did, under pressure, then secure improvements. 

Like I said, I think the anti union propaganda has worked remarkably well with you. 

Members of the MLBPA. 

It's almost like a certain organization purposely kept those folks from being represented.  Weird behavior by our champions of the little guy!

But yeah, another bad faith answer concedes to my point and the general tone here that you are unserious.

[NYCTK]

14 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

It's almost like a certain organization purposely kept those folks from being represented.  Weird behavior by our champions of the little guy!

But yeah, another bad faith answer concedes to my point and the general tone here that you are unserious.

Why are we ignoring the owners here? You've been ignoring the culpability of the owners the entire conversation actually. Do the owners not hold responsiblity for the exploitation of their labor? You know, the thing that capital inevitably does. 

And why are we also ignoring it was the mlbpa that won massive raises for those players? It certainly wasn't the owners just gifting it. 

You want to disagree, fine. But I'm here in good faith. I am subject to hyperbole, sure, and tongue in cheek ideology, absolutely, but I hold all the beliefs that I have shared. 

[TheLeviathan]

7 minutes ago, NYCTK said:

Why are we ignoring the owners here? You've been ignoring the culpability of the owners the entire conversation actually. Do the owners not hold responsiblity for the exploitation of their labor? You know, the thing that capital inevitably does. 

And why are we also ignoring it was the mlbpa that won massive raises for those players? It certainly wasn't the owners just gifting it. 

You want to disagree, fine. But I'm here in good faith. I am subject to hyperbole, sure, and tongue in cheek ideology, absolutely, but I hold all the beliefs that I have shared. 

I'll happily bash the owners.  They aren't my white knights. Eff them for taking public money on their stadiums and all sorts of other things and privatizing all the wealth generated from it.  Eff them for underpaying the minor leaguers for so long.  Eff them for being billionaires and siphoning so much wealth out of the economy.  Eff them for creating this stupid revenue system in the first place.  

They're terrible, awful, crappy people.  I hate everything they represent.  They're the worst people in the room.  But even the worst people can be correct.  They are the ones closest to what is best for the game.  I wish that wasn't the case.  Let me be clear: I'm rooting for the league to be strong and have a great CBA for a healthy, competitive environment.  Full stop, two sides be damned.  I wish the players were making an argument that supported that instead of one that continues the status quo.

[NYCTK]

1 hour ago, TheLeviathan said:

They are the ones closest to what is best for the game.

Disallowing 18 year old from going pro? Reducing amateur bonus pool? The reduction of player remuneration by hundreds of millions?

Which aspect is the one that's closest to best for the game? Or do you mean the very narrow bullet point of a salary cap which you've been led to believe is necessary for an incompetent organization like the Twins to be competitive? 

[TheLeviathan]

50 minutes ago, NYCTK said:

Disallowing 18 year old from going pro? Reducing amateur bonus pool? The reduction of player remuneration by hundreds of millions?

Which aspect is the one that's closest to best for the game? Or do you mean the very narrow bullet point of a salary cap which you've been led to believe is necessary for an incompetent organization like the Twins to be competitive? 

I've alreasy stated their last two releases were stupid and bad for the game.  It'd be nice to not have to keep repeating myself.  But here we go having to do it again:

Total revenue sharing is absolutely necessary and number one by a country mile.  That won't happen without a cap and floor as part of that agreement. Why that's necessary has been elaborated on north of a dozen times now.  I expect nothing short of yet another bad faith retort.  Go nuts, there is nothing I have left for this unserious conversation.

[NYCTK]

9 hours ago, TheLeviathan said:

I've alreasy stated their last two releases were stupid and bad for the game.

Gotcha. So what you ACTUALLY meant when you said it was "closest to what's best" is just that you specifically want a Salary Cap and will ignore all other details.

9 hours ago, TheLeviathan said:

Why that's necessary has been elaborated on north of a dozen times now. 

It really hasn't though.

A floor, yes. The theoretical requirement of a floor paired with massive increase to the revenue sharing has been explained and is logical and both sides of the negotiating table understand it.

But there has been no actual reasoning behind why large scale franchise pooled revenue sharing necessitates a salary cap. It's been asserted, but not demonstrated. It's been said the Owners would require it for revenue sharing, but the exact opposite can be said, that the Players require it not be enacted to increase revenue sharing and their position makes a lot more sense to me. 

And even more so, why would the MLBPA negotiate away their biggest position of strength? Because the fans have been convinced it's necessary for their owner's investment asset to compete for a championship? 

[TheLeviathan]

11 minutes ago, NYCTK said:

But there has been no actual reasoning behind.....

Bad faith and unserious.

[NYCTK]

7 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

Bad faith and unserious.

Without citing the owner's insistence, describe the logical requirement for a cap in order to enact near universal revenue sharing. 

Maybe I missed it. But your constant reverting to ad hominem attack tells me it's not in evidence. 

[TheLeviathan]

13 minutes ago, NYCTK said:

Without citing the owner's insistence, describe the logical requirement for a cap in order to enact near universal revenue sharing. 

Maybe I missed it. But your constant reverting to ad hominem attack tells me it's not in evidence. 

The person who refuses to read and respond to arguments in good faith is going to whine now?  Good lord.  Page 3 had two rational explanations made for why a revenue sharing agreement will likely need those parameters to move forward.  They have since been elaborated on repeatedly.

On ignore you go.  Good day.