MLBPA proposal thoughts?

[NYCTK]

On 7/29/2026 at 10:07 AM, The Great Hambino said:

From what I can tell, it's not so much a new proposal as it is more detail regarding how they define the revenue split

When MLB proposes a 50/50 revenue split, it is cartoonishly misleading.  They want it to be 50/50 after:

- removing 17% of local revenues to be retained by the league

- removing 22% of national revenues to be retained by the league

- unlimited carve-outs for stadium and spring training facility renovations, MLB Network and local broadcast production, and expenses for "new ventures", whatever TF that means

- a host of nickel-and-dime reductions like 20% of naming rights fees and the complete removal of parking and billboard revenue more than half a mile from the stadium

- including non-salary player costs in the definition of payroll

On top of all that, the total split winds up being 50/50 only if every team spent to the level of the cap.  Spoiler alert: they won't

Add all that together, and player salaries in reality end up well below the 50/50 split that MLB is trying really hard to convince the public that they're offering

But hey, they're offering to include ballpark ATM fees from their increasingly cashless ballparks as part of the revenue split.  What an olive branch!

These are the kind of games you play when you want a lockout.  Personally, I still think that the impending media rights negotiations that will be happening in 2027-28 will prevent either side from going nuclear, but I'm feeling less and less confident about that the more I learn about the details of ownership's proposal

Anyone supporting the owners as they lockout the sport is a fool. 

[Riverbrian]

47 minutes ago, NYCTK said:

This BOTH SIDES nonsense is no less lazy here than it is when people repeat it in politics. It seems on its surface reasonable and enlightened but almost always reflects the opinions of someone too fed up to actually investigate the issue. 

You say this in response to the owners running a full court press, utilizing their TV Network and Social Media outlets for fan propagandizing. What have the MLBPA done that is even remotely similar? Can you identify a single advertisement they've placed? 

I've asked you repeatedly not to reply to my posts. 

Continue to believe that the MLBPA doesn't play the same game and didn't use the word tanking repeatedly in press releases and public statements ad nauseum in an attempt to influence public opinion. Keep believing that the MLBPA is blameless in the current situation. Keep believing that they don't have a public relations department or firm getting the message they want out... out. 

Keep believing what you want. I could care less about any opinion you have.

Do not respond!!! Last Warning!!!  

[NYCTK]

The owners came out with yet another terrible bad faith offer. They both want to cap the players earning potential and restrict the window players can sign contracts. And yet a bunch of fans will buy the propaganda that their offers are good because other leagues have them and that makes it more exciting. 

[TheLeviathan]

Ah the time honored tradition of everyone in baseball being morons who can't get out of their own way.

[Vanimal46]

4 hours ago, NYCTK said:

The owners came out with yet another terrible bad faith offer. They both want to cap the players earning potential and restrict the window players can sign contracts. And yet a bunch of fans will buy the propaganda that their offers are good because other leagues have them and that makes it more exciting. 

Free agency effectively ending before Christmas only makes a long offseason feel even longer... In the past I've thought a free agency frenzy window would be entertaining. As I've gotten older, I have grown to appreciate the patience of a baseball offseason. 

[nicksaviking]

On 8/28/2026 at 9:32 AM, NYCTK said:

The owners came out with yet another terrible bad faith offer. They both want to cap the players earning potential and restrict the window players can sign contracts. And yet a bunch of fans will buy the propaganda that their offers are good because other leagues have them and that makes it more exciting. 

The owners can be arguing in bad faith yet still (unintentionally) be working in the best interest in the league at the same time.

Deny it all you want big market Met fan, but this league won't last much longer without salary caps and floors within spitting distance of each other. We know you don't care if a small market team ever wins another World Series, but you're on the wrong site to push that narrative. I can support the players over the owners, but still acknowledge when the players are wrong and NOT actually working in the best interest of the league and therefore the fans.

[nicksaviking]

On 8/28/2026 at 2:21 PM, Vanimal46 said:

Free agency effectively ending before Christmas only makes a long offseason feel even longer... In the past I've thought a free agency frenzy window would be entertaining. As I've gotten older, I have grown to appreciate the patience of a baseball offseason. 

I don't appreciate it, but only because the Twins always wait just to see what below average free agents become desperate enough to take their lowball offers.

But I'm in the same boat; there's zero reason to push an expedited free agent frenzy other than to force the Twins and other small market teams to stop straddling the fence. There are other ways to force them to do that, like full blown revenue sharing and/or mandatory salary floors.

[NYCTK]

55 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

The owners can be arguing in bad faith yet still (unintentionally) be working in the best interest in the league at the same time.

Deny it all you want big market Met fan, but this league won't last much longer without salary caps and floors within spitting distance of each other. We know you don't care if a small market team ever wins another World Series, but you're on the wrong site to push that narrative. I can support the players over the owners, but still acknowledge when the players are wrong and NOT actually working in the best interest of the league and therefore the fans.

You guys can try to pretend I'm not ALSO a Twins fan if that makes it easier for you to reject my opinion. You can pretend as though I don't want to see the Twins win the World Series, or pretend as if I didn't get home late from the bar on Friday night and turn on the Twins game so I could take in the debut of someone whom I believe will be the greatest Twin since Joe Mauer. As if I didn't watch Culpepper-Jenkins-Keaschall-Lee bat in succession and imagine their further development and the roles they'll play in the 2028, 2029, and even 2030 seasons. 

1 hour ago, nicksaviking said:

...this league won't last much longer without salary caps and floors...

This is, frankly, a ridiculous assertion.

This idea that the league is in precarious trouble because of the Dodgers is just a manufactured, nonexistent reality. Many have seemingly become so mad at the Pohlads (or other respective owners) and their multi-decade mismanagement of the organization and exploitation of the people of Hennepin County that they've bought into the lies and propaganda from those same owners. And, yes, that's exactly what you've done with that sentence. 

 

1 hour ago, nicksaviking said:

We know you don't care if a small market team ever wins another World Series

I'm cheering for the Brewers this playoffs, at current glance. As they are both the best team, and it kills the false narrative that small markets just can't win. 

 

1 hour ago, nicksaviking said:

I can support the players over the owners

You can. But you don't. 

 

[nicksaviking]

28 minutes ago, NYCTK said:

I'm cheering for the Brewers this playoffs, at current glance. As they are both the best team, and it kills the false narrative that small markets just can't win. 

 

Since A-Rod and Boras (justifiably) blew up the pay structure in 2001 and put an end to the collusion era, only two teams NOT in the top ten of payrolls have won the World Series. And one of them was the 2002 Angels only one season later before the disparity really flexed.

So if you can go into a season with near 96% certainty that one of only ten teams will win the championship, how is that anything other than a narrative that small market teams have next to no chance?

[NYCTK]

48 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

Since A-Rod and Boras (justifiably) blew up the pay structure in 2001 and put an end to the collusion era, only two teams NOT in the top ten of payrolls have won the World Series. And one of them was the 2002 Angels only one season later before the disparity really flexed.

So if you can go into a season with near 96% certainty that one of only ten teams will win the championship, how is that anything other than a narrative that small market teams have next to no chance?

I don't view this as big an issue as you. The ability to use that as a prediction is pretty real, but more so because payroll tends to be a signal as much as it is a catalyst. 

I tend to view teams that aren't in the top half (or top 10) of payroll as unserious about contention. I even think that about the present day Brewers, even though their run of success has shown it's not required to still be a very good, sustained team. But their refusal to add a player like Pete Alonso, Cody Bellinger, or Alex Bregman - not because they can't afford them (they can) but because they insist on using their own system - I think this has hampered their ability. 

PLUS, your fun fact isn't even close to accurate. Did you ask Claude or something? The Florida Marlins won the year after the Angels (~20th), the White Sox won in 2005 (13th), Cardinals 2006 (11th), Philles '08 (12th), Cardinals '11 (11th), Royals (16th), Astros (18th), and finally the Braves '21 (12th). 

So, 8 of 25. But, if you're like me and you recognize these teams outside the top half largely aren't actually contending, then this doesn't look nearly as problematic. 

This next number is from an AI output so don't know precise accuracy, but about 22/50 world series teams this century weren't top 10 payrolls. Nearly half. I think it's too few data points to say there's a trend since the pandemic, but the last 4 participants all being higher payroll teams has elevated this fear far more than reality dictates. 

[TheLeviathan]

1 hour ago, nicksaviking said:

Since A-Rod and Boras (justifiably) blew up the pay structure in 2001 and put an end to the collusion era, only two teams NOT in the top ten of payrolls have won the World Series. And one of them was the 2002 Angels only one season later before the disparity really flexed.

So if you can go into a season with near 96% certainty that one of only ten teams will win the championship, how is that anything other than a narrative that small market teams have next to no chance?

There are many, many ways for the players to get their bag AND have a salary cap/floor.  The fact we can't even begin that conversation rests solely with the players.

Seriously, they could come out tomorrow and demand a 300 million dollar floor AND insist on every single dollar of that going to major league salaries and allow for a cap of $500 million.  Tomorrow.  Hell, right now!  This is well within their rights to demand as a starting point.  Instead - intractable on a position that most fans feel the opposite of them on.  Like it or not, politics or your thoughts about labor/capital aside, it's straight up foolish to be intractable on that position given the nature of professional sports.

[NYCTK]

27 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

There are many, many ways for the players to get their bag AND have a salary cap/floor.  The fact we can't even begin that conversation rests solely with the players.

If your union had stated for many generations that you'll flatly refuse one specific condition and management came to the table with a proposal with that specific condition, your union would rightfully say no without further discussion on that proposal until they came to the table with a real proposal. 

27 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

Seriously, they could come out tomorrow and demand a 300 million dollar floor AND insist on every single dollar of that going to major league salaries and allow for a cap of $500 million.  Tomorrow.  Hell, right now!  This is well within their rights to demand as a starting point.

Your union wouldn't negotiate the scale of that one poison pill condition. That would be tantamount to accepting the condition, in principle. If any other condition in the proposal requires a hard salary cap, your union wouldn't negotiate around that condition either. 

Instead of even trying to sell the necessity of benefit of a salary cap (because they're all easily dismissed) the owners have instead dedicated time and energy to selling the salary cap to the fans through social media and other targeted ads. 

This is why I keep referring to the owner's proposals as bad faith. 

27 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

Instead - intractable on a position that most fans feel the opposite of them on.  Like it or not, politics or your thoughts about labor/capital aside, it's straight up foolish to be intractable on that position given the nature of professional sports.

I disagree, as do many fans, as does the near entirety of the MLBPA. The fact that the other big four sports leagues have a salary cap is completely irrelevant to the MLBPA and, therefore, irrelevant to this CBA negotiation. 

If the owners refuse to even offer anything commensurate with the MLBPA biggest bargaining chip, the MLBPA shouldn't even begin to discuss the removal of that bargaining chip. 

[TheLeviathan]

32 minutes ago, NYCTK said:

If your union had stated for many generations

This is the dumbest fallacy that humans are attached to.  Congrats on holding that view I guess.

[NYCTK]

6 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

This is the dumbest fallacy that humans are attached to.  Congrats on holding that view I guess.

I'm not even sure what you mean by that. 

I suppose I would agree with you that the fact that there's been no salary cap doesn't mean there can't be a salary cap, if that's what you're saying? 

But I'm coming at it from the position of the MLBPA. The lack of a salary cap and the insistence that there will not be one, and any proposal containing one is flatly rejected, that is not a fallacy. That's just the facts of the current negotiation.

And until until the owners demonstrate a NEED for the salary cap, then the MLBPA are well within their right not to negotiate it. 

[TheLeviathan]

39 minutes ago, NYCTK said:

I'm not even sure what you mean by that. 

I suppose I would agree with you that the fact that there's been no salary cap doesn't mean there can't be a salary cap, if that's what you're saying? 

But I'm coming at it from the position of the MLBPA. The lack of a salary cap and the insistence that there will not be one, and any proposal containing one is flatly rejected, that is not a fallacy. That's just the facts of the current negotiation.

And until until the owners demonstrate a NEED for the salary cap, then the MLBPA are well within their right not to negotiate it. 

"We've always done it this way" is not a valid argument and it's basically the only one you've got for the point I made.  

I proposed something that would lead to the players fleecing the owners and there being a cap.  You rejected it on nothing more than "nuh uh, we haven't ever done that".

That is the MLBPA's stance and it is as dumb as it sounds.

[NYCTK]

5 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

"We've always done it this way" is not a valid argument and it's basically the only one you've got for the point I made.  

I proposed something that would lead to the players fleecing the owners and there being a cap.  You rejected it on nothing more than "nuh uh, we haven't ever done that".

That is the MLBPA's stance and it is as dumb as it sounds.

I think you fundamentally just don't understand what I'm arguing. That isn't even close to the argument I've made. I'm sorry if I'm articulating it poorly. 

If you want to ask me about my actual argument instead of what you think I'm saying, I'm happy to better communicate what I'm trying to say. 

[TheLeviathan]

54 minutes ago, NYCTK said:

I think you fundamentally just don't understand what I'm arguing. That isn't even close to the argument I've made. I'm sorry if I'm articulating it poorly. 

If you want to ask me about my actual argument instead of what you think I'm saying, I'm happy to better communicate what I'm trying to say. 

You started with the argument that the MLBPA won't listen because this has been their stance for "generations".  I don't care.  That's a dumb reason to reject anything.  It's the fallacy of tradition.  We also used outhouses for generations, I didn't reject indoor plumbing on that basis.

Put simply: You claim, falsely, that a salary cap would reduce their earnings.  I just proved that untrue.  There are many, many iterations in which they make much, much more money AND have a cap.  You, much like the MLBPA, is not holding a rational position with rational arguments.  Stating that (your words) "all" salary cap benefits are easily dismissed is plainly wrong and stubbornly irrational.  Denying a conversation about the framework when so much more money could be made based on the fallacy of tradition is stubbornly irrational.  (By definition, since you are relying on a fallacy)

The vast majority of MLB fans will not side with the group behaving that way.  Not when they see it working well in the other three major sports.

[NYCTK]

1 minute ago, TheLeviathan said:

You started with the argument that the MLBPA won't listen because this has been their stance for "generations".

No, I said nothing of the sort. 

That a position has been held for generations does not mean that a position is held because it's been held for generations. I was pointing out that the position has been held, fought for, is unchanged, and MLB has offered no real explanation of a need for change. 

 

3 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

Put simply: You claim, falsely, that a salary cap would reduce their earnings.  I just proved that untrue. 

No you didn't. 

You proposed a hypothetical past any reasonable possible outcome in an effort to show that the MLBPA's position is damaging, but I would counter that it would just shows it's principled and unwavering. 

You may disagree with that principle. But once that bargaining chip is gone, it's gone for ever. And the players have their reasons for wanting to hold on to it. For example, in the likelihood that eventually that poison pill they'd now relinquished gets more and more restrictive in future negotiations. 

11 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

Stating that (your words) "all" salary cap benefits are easily dismissed is plainly wrong and stubbornly irrational. 

Not from the position of the MLBPA it isn't. They're being entirely transparent with their demands, and it's one thing: No Salary Cap. 

Any proposal that follows with a salary cap goes against their one condition in these negotiations and they are in their right, and completely rational, to dismiss it. 

13 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

The vast majority of MLB fans will not side with the group behaving that way.  Not when they see it working well in the other three major sports.

As discussed previously, the MLBPA isn't really concerned about the opinion of the fans, as they are not at the negotiation table. Also irrelevant is the fact that other leagues have it. 

[TheLeviathan]

29 minutes ago, NYCTK said:

No, I said nothing of the sort. That a position has been held for generations does not mean that a position is held because it's been held for generations.

I was pointing out that the position has been held, fought for, is unchanged, and MLB has offered no real explanation of a need for change. 

 

So....by tradition.  I'm not sure how someone posts those two sentences back to back and thinks they've somehow avoided that fallacy.  The MLBPA has no good reason to oppose it other than tradition and "nuh uh, I don't wanna".  As you just demonstrated in 7 paragraphs.  Just stick my shorter version, it'll save us all time.

I will say this before I go back to just ignoring your posts: Most reasonable folks see plenty of reasons for change.  That's not even an opinion, you can go check out the fan survey on The Athletic.  The MLBPA lacks any good counter argument.  They re;y entirely on fallacies and petulance....which is going to lose over time.  Whether they lose the negotiations or lose the sport market share...the cost will be paid at some point.

I'll keep rooting for them to get their bag, but if the sport isn't healthy it won't matter.

[NYCTK]

7 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

So....by tradition. 

No. You either don't understand what I'm saying or don't understand what Appeal to Tradition is. 

10 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

The MLBPA has no good reason to oppose it other than tradition and "nuh uh, I don't wanna". 

I am afraid you are just not reading and comprehending what I'm writing. This is entirely not the case at hand. Maybe if you read those 7 paragraphs you would understand why your comment is faulty. 

26 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

Whether they lose the negotiations or lose the sport market share...the cost will be paid at some point.

I'll keep rooting for them to get their bag, but if the sport isn't healthy it won't matter.

I have seen no evidence that explains this widespread doomerism mentality over the sport of baseball. The Dodgers won back-to-back World Series, the first true dynasty since the late 90s Yankees. And even so, the sport is as healthy now as it's been in modern day. 

There is no severe crisis in Major League Baseball that necessitates the worker's union to relinquish the bargaining position they fought to hold 30 years ago. And until such crisis appears, the union is well within their rights to reject the owner's insistence on it. 

[TNtwins85]

8 hours ago, nicksaviking said:

The owners can be arguing in bad faith yet still (unintentionally) be working in the best interest in the league at the same time.

Deny it all you want big market Met fan, but this league won't last much longer without salary caps and floors within spitting distance of each other. We know you don't care if a small market team ever wins another World Series, but you're on the wrong site to push that narrative. I can support the players over the owners, but still acknowledge when the players are wrong and NOT actually working in the best interest of the league and therefore the fans.

Can you please explain then how the league grows exponentially every year. Why teams have historically outpaced inflation by a factor of 11 in valuation. Why attendance for MLB games has risen year over year at a steady pace yet the average ticket price has only risen 260% compared to the NFL at 340% since ‘94 meaning the MLB is more affordable. Also the top valued franchises are littered with NFL and NBA teams. Why? Because they pocket the money they can’t spend on players. Yet still ask for publicity funded stadiums. But I guess that’s gonna create a more even playing field. So you’ve e been told over and over so you might as well believe it right? But Baseball is on the verge of collapse supposedly I guess huh? Why do you think they want a cap so bad? For the good of the game? That’s what they tell you so that must be the truth right? Just like the politicians that tell you they’ll make your life better but never seem to deliver. Hmmmm… seems to me you along with most have taken the bait without ever really looking into the real problem. You think the players are acting in bad faith because they don’t want a cap? Why don’t they want a cap? Because then they’re salaries are capped. The reason people watch the game. The players. When you really dig into it this could all be fixed without a cap/floor. But being creative doesn’t guarantee unfettered cash flow on the levels a cap/floor system would for owners. Is Baseball dying by your words? Absolutely not. Will it if they fight this to the end to get their guaranteed cash windfall. Well, if a lockout that results in losing games next season on the level even close to ‘94 the owners and players stand to lose billions of dollars. So I doubt it. Baseball can be made better yes. But a cap/floor doesn’t fix it in the way you’ve been programmed to think. And yes, you have been programmed to think that. Just like everything else.

[Craig Arko]

7 minutes ago, TNtwins85 said:

Can you please explain then how the league grows exponentially every year. Why teams have historically outpaced inflation by a factor of 11 in valuation. Why attendance for MLB games has risen year over year at a steady pace yet the average ticket price has only risen 260% compared to the NFL at 340% since ‘94 meaning the MLB is more affordable. Also the top valued franchises are littered with NFL and NBA teams. Why? Because they pocket the money they can’t spend on players. Yet still ask for publicity funded stadiums. But I guess that’s gonna create a more even playing field. So you’ve e been told over and over so you might as well believe it right? But Baseball is on the verge of collapse supposedly I guess huh? Why do you think they want a cap so bad? For the good of the game? That’s what they tell you so that must be the truth right? Just like the politicians that tell you they’ll make your life better but never seem to deliver. Hmmmm… seems to me you along with most have taken the bait without ever really looking into the real problem. You think the players are acting in bad faith because they don’t want a cap? Why don’t they want a cap? Because then they’re salaries are capped. The reason people watch the game. The players. When you really dig into it this could all be fixed without a cap/floor. But being creative doesn’t guarantee unfettered cash flow on the levels a cap/floor system would for owners. Is Baseball dying by your words? Absolutely not. Will it if they fight this to the end to get their guaranteed cash windfall. Well, if a lockout that results in losing games next season on the level even close to ‘94 the owners and players stand to lose billions of dollars. So I doubt it. Baseball can be made better yes. But a cap/floor doesn’t fix it in the way you’ve been programmed to think. And yes, you have been programmed to think that. Just like everything else.

Huh.

[TNtwins85]

12 minutes ago, Craig Arko said:

Huh.

Huh.

[TNtwins85]

1 hour ago, TheLeviathan said:

So....by tradition.  I'm not sure how someone posts those two sentences back to back and thinks they've somehow avoided that fallacy.  The MLBPA has no good reason to oppose it other than tradition and "nuh uh, I don't wanna".  As you just demonstrated in 7 paragraphs.  Just stick my shorter version, it'll save us all time.

I will say this before I go back to just ignoring your posts: Most reasonable folks see plenty of reasons for change.  That's not even an opinion, you can go check out the fan survey on The Athletic.  The MLBPA lacks any good counter argument.  They re;y entirely on fallacies and petulance....which is going to lose over time.  Whether they lose the negotiations or lose the sport market share...the cost will be paid at some point.

I'll keep rooting for them to get their bag, but if the sport isn't healthy it won't matter.

The Athletic survey people may be reasonable but like most they probably lack the ability and intellect to understand the issue on anything more than base level. Which is why they are reading the Athletic and taking their surveys in the first place. Speaking of dying industries….

[TheLeviathan]

1 hour ago, TNtwins85 said:

The Athletic survey people may be reasonable but like most they probably lack the ability and intellect to understand the issue on anything more than base level. Which is why they are reading the Athletic and taking their surveys in the first place. Speaking of dying industries….

I think New York Times sports readers are both about as intelligent as you'll find and as likely to support labor over capital as you'll find in any cross-section of sports fans and they were still predominantly (overwhelmingly) on the side opposed to the union's arguments.  

If you have a better data set for determining the public's sentiments I would appreciate seeing it.

[ashbury]

2 hours ago, Craig Arko said:

Huh.

2 hours ago, TNtwins85 said:

Huh.

[bean5302]

13 hours ago, TNtwins85 said:

Can you please explain then how the league grows exponentially every year. Why teams have historically outpaced inflation by a factor of 11 in valuation. Why attendance for MLB games has risen year over year at a steady pace yet the average ticket price has only risen 260% compared to the NFL at 340% since ‘94 meaning the MLB is more affordable. Also the top valued franchises are littered with NFL and NBA teams. Why? Because they pocket the money they can’t spend on players. Yet still ask for publicity funded stadiums. But I guess that’s gonna create a more even playing field. So you’ve e been told over and over so you might as well believe it right? But Baseball is on the verge of collapse supposedly I guess huh? Why do you think they want a cap so bad? For the good of the game? That’s what they tell you so that must be the truth right? Just like the politicians that tell you they’ll make your life better but never seem to deliver. Hmmmm… seems to me you along with most have taken the bait without ever really looking into the real problem. You think the players are acting in bad faith because they don’t want a cap? Why don’t they want a cap? Because then they’re salaries are capped. The reason people watch the game. The players. When you really dig into it this could all be fixed without a cap/floor. But being creative doesn’t guarantee unfettered cash flow on the levels a cap/floor system would for owners. Is Baseball dying by your words? Absolutely not. Will it if they fight this to the end to get their guaranteed cash windfall. Well, if a lockout that results in losing games next season on the level even close to ‘94 the owners and players stand to lose billions of dollars. So I doubt it. Baseball can be made better yes. But a cap/floor doesn’t fix it in the way you’ve been programmed to think. And yes, you have been programmed to think that. Just like everything else.

Paragraphs are your friend. So is breathing.